Forget The President, What About The Marijuana?

[Winchester]

[quote name='pen1' timestamp='1354049012' post='2517834']

Last point - do you agree with banning Big Gulps, cigarettes, high fructose corn oil, transfats, etc? If yes, then why do you regard marijuana as harmless and those others as poisons so detrimental they must be banned?
[/quote]
Who are you asking? I don't think the biggest nanny on here supports banning Big Gulps.

I don't care if mary jane causes problems--I don't support the drug war. I don't support the unconstitutional Federal prohibition of drugs (all of it is unconstitutional. No enumerated power to prohibit drugs. That means the DEA is unconstitutional). I also would reject state level drug prohibition.

[Ice_nine]

time to lace up my lollerskates again?

[4588686]

Who are you asking? I don't think the biggest nanny on here supports banning Big Gulps.

I don't care if mary jane causes problems--I don't support the drug war. I don't support the unconstitutional Federal prohibition of drugs (all of it is unconstitutional. No enumerated power to prohibit drugs. That means the DEA is unconstitutional). I also would reject state level drug prohibition.

 

 

The drug trade is an interstate matter.  

[Aloysius]

so was alcohol but they still felt they needed a constitutional amendment for that.  back in the days where the government actually felt restricted in some way by the constitution.

 

regulating interstate commerce does not mean you can prohibit the use/possession of some substance.  it means that federal regulations come into play when things are being sold across state lines.  the MOST the government should be able to do constitutionally is to regulate or ban sale of such items across state lines (and even that would be actually be quite a stretch of the interstate commerce clause IMO).  but that's not the drug laws we have now.

 

I am most opposed to drug prohibition for the violence of the system.  there are problems with drug use, and those problems need to be dealt with from a medical and sociological position.  throwing a bunch of people in jail for non-violent drug offenses does nothing but harden them and make them into worse criminals.  if the states want to do some regulation against drug use, they should do so from the standpoint of helping people get off the stuff and get rehabilitated, all retributive and punitive legal statutes need to be completely thrown out (except for instances where drugs result in violence and injury to others, same as DUI laws) freeing people to be able to seek help more freely without fear of jail, all the wasteful money spent on prosecuting drug use punitively could be re-directed to programs to help people not to abuse them (this is promoting the common good, and as was being debated pages ago on this thread if I remember, the state has the obligation to promote the common good)... the extremely VIOLENT stance that the government is currently in on this issue is totally immoral and wrong, studies have shown that it has been racially prejudicial, it is causing violence and death (both in the street gangs that are empowered by being black market drug dealers and by the violent police-state war on drugs, real people are dying and having their lives destroyed unnecessarily) and it's not working.  it is possible to take a more sane approach without approving of drug use.  that's not to say Colorado has done so, maybe they swung the pendulum too far the other way, I don't know, but I prefer to err on the side of Colorado than on the side of violent destruction of families and the production of misery and violence that the drug war engages in.

Edited November 28, 2012 by Aloysius

[4588686]

so was alcohol but they still felt they needed a constitutional amendment for that.  back in the days where the government actually felt restricted in some way by the constitution.

 

regulating interstate commerce does not mean you can prohibit the use/possession of some substance.  it means that federal regulations come into play when things are being sold across state lines.  the MOST the government should be able to do constitutionally is to regulate or ban sale of such items across state lines (and even that would be actually be quite a stretch of the interstate commerce clause IMO).  but that's not the drug laws we have now.

 

I am most opposed to drug prohibition for the violence of the system.  there are problems with drug use, and those problems need to be dealt with from a medical and sociological position.  throwing a bunch of people in jail for non-violent drug offenses does nothing but harden them and make them into worse criminals.  if the states want to do some regulation against drug use, they should do so from the standpoint of helping people get off the stuff and get rehabilitated, all retributive and punitive legal statutes need to be completely thrown out (except for instances where drugs result in violence and injury to others, same as DUI laws) freeing people to be able to seek help more freely without fear of jail, all the wasteful money spent on prosecuting drug use punitively could be re-directed to programs to help people not to abuse them (this is promoting the common good, and as was being debated pages ago on this thread if I remember, the state has the obligation to promote the common good)... the extremely VIOLENT stance that the government is currently in on this issue is totally immoral and wrong, studies have shown that it has been racially prejudicial, it is causing violence and death (both in the street gangs that are empowered by being black market drug dealers and by the violent police-state war on drugs, real people are dying and having their lives destroyed unnecessarily) and it's not working.  it is possible to take a more sane approach without approving of drug use.  that's not to say Colorado has done so, maybe they swung the pendulum too far the other way, I don't know, but I prefer to err on the side of Colorado than on the side of violent destruction of families and the production of misery and violence that the drug war engages in.

 

And prior to the 19th Amendment we had federal regulations of the opiate and cocaine markets trade.  

 

I am not a proponent of the criminilization of drug possession but not matter how much people like to pretend constitutional issues are almost never cut and dry.  Does a literal reading of the constitution permit the federal government to interfere in an interstate drug trade?  Maybe.  It's not really clear.  It's a flawed document with a lot of ambiguities surrounding just what the government can and cannot do which reflects the fact that you had a lot of arguments amongst the framers about what the federal and state governments should and should not be able to do.  

[Mark of the Cross]

time to lace up my lollerskates again?

 

Cross country Tobongans?  :unsure:

[Aloysius]

And prior to the 19th Amendment we had federal regulations of the opiate and cocaine markets trade.  

 

I am not a proponent of the criminilization of drug possession but not matter how much people like to pretend constitutional issues are almost never cut and dry.  Does a literal reading of the constitution permit the federal government to interfere in an interstate drug trade?  Maybe.  It's not really clear.  It's a flawed document with a lot of ambiguities surrounding just what the government can and cannot do which reflects the fact that you had a lot of arguments amongst the framers about what the federal and state governments should and should not be able to do.  

 

I don't think the Constitutional issue is all that murky.  You say that prior to the 19th amendment there was regulation on the opiate and cocaine trade: that's true.  They taxed its importation like crazy and I think they may have banned its importation at one point, but they never felt they had the authority to prohibit its growth, possession, or use.  The states have that authority, but the Federal government clearly does not.

 

The Constitution isn't perfect, but many interpretations of it are completely disingenuous, such as the explosive expansion of the interstate commerce clause or even more insanely the radical expansion of the general welfare clause.  Those things are justifications for doing things that they know they should not be allowed to do, just because they want to do them and don't want to try to go through the trouble to get a constitutional amendment for them.  The enumerated powers were meant to be limited, the Ninth and Tenth amendment provide the guidelines for interpreting any ambiguity in the document: if it's not explicitly granted to the congress, it's the power of the states or the individuals.

[4588686]

I don't think the Constitutional issue is all that murky.  You say that prior to the 19th amendment there was regulation on the opiate and cocaine trade: that's true.  They taxed its importation like crazy and I think they may have banned its importation at one point, but they never felt they had the authority to prohibit its growth, possession, or use.  The states have that authority, but the Federal government clearly does not.

 

The Constitution isn't perfect, but many interpretations of it are completely disingenuous, such as the explosive expansion of the interstate commerce clause or even more insanely the radical expansion of the general welfare clause.  Those things are justifications for doing things that they know they should not be allowed to do, just because they want to do them and don't want to try to go through the trouble to get a constitutional amendment for them.  The enumerated powers were meant to be limited, the Ninth and Tenth amendment provide the guidelines for interpreting any ambiguity in the document: if it's not explicitly granted to the congress, it's the power of the states or the individuals.

 

The 9th and 10th Amendments really don't clear anything up unless you assume what you are trying to prove.  

 

 

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

 

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

 

Those really don't provide any sort of clarity as to exactly what the interstate or necessary and proper clauses mean.  It just says that the powers not delegated to the US, nor probibited by it to the states, are reserved for the states or the people.  But that's exactly the question at issue.  They're really nothing more than codifying tautologies.  

[Winchester]

The drug trade is an interstate matter.  

 

So was alcohol--took an amendment. Regulation of interstate commerce meant removal of barriers, not killing people to prevent trade.

 

Those using marijuana grown and sold within a state would still be subject to the DEA.

 

Now tell me about that stupid deal with the UN so I can say the Fed cannot circumvent the Constitution by making treaties outside its scope of power (for instance, a gun ban achieved by a treaty with those nanny turdballs). And also, the UN can go to Hell.

Edited November 29, 2012 by Winchester

[4588686]

So was alcohol--took an amendment. Regulation of interstate commerce meant removal of barriers, not killing people to prevent trade.

 

Those using marijuana grown and sold within a state would still be subject to the DEA.

 

 

No.  It meant the regulation of interstate commerce.  Now you're projecting onto the constitution. 

[Winchester]

No.  It meant the regulation of interstate commerce.  Now you're projecting onto the constitution. 

 

No, I'm using the old sense of the word. It meant to "make regular" not to end, or to put countless restrictions on.

[4588686]

No, I'm using the old sense of the word. It meant to "make regular" not to end, or to put countless restrictions on.

 

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=regulate

[Winchester]

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=regulate

 

That's very thorough. I will now disregard everything else I've read on the matter.

 

I prefer this counter argument:

 

 

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2011/12/27/to-regulate-commerce-means-more-than-to-make-it-regular/

Edited November 29, 2012 by Winchester

[4588686]

That's very thorough. I will now disregard everything else I've read on the matter.

 

I prefer this counter argument:

 

 

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2011/12/27/to-regulate-commerce-means-more-than-to-make-it-regular/

 

That's also a great refutation.  

[Winchester]

That's also a great refutation.  

 

It's good, I think. As someone who rejects that a group of powder-wigged fairies can magically bind people to their will, the Constitution is useful to the degree that I can use it to restrain the Federal government. Other than that, it's a rag.