Sorry Ms. Raich, the drug war is more important than your life

Publius>> Stop by anytime!

As for home brewing beer and wine, anyone can do it--there's nothing that says you can't. You can't produce over a certain amount or produce it for commercial sale without all the federal licensing (that's where the Federal Authority can take effect), mind you, but anyone can do it for private, personal use. Same with tobacco growing and curing. I do it because I enjoy the process as much as the end result. When I have excess, I share it freely among friends.

I kinda have the feeling a legal marketized MJ would level out about the same way. There would be some commercial producers, and there would be some home growers--just like distillaries and micro-breweries became after the prohibition.
 
Last edited:
If stability is possible, it is only by discarding the stand-alone substantial effects test and revisiting our definition of “Commerce among the several States.” Congress may regulate interstate commerce–not things that affect it, even when summed together, unless truly “necessary and proper” to regulating interstate commerce
Click to expand...

If this means what I think it means, I have just found new respect for Thomas.
 
I would have trimmed down what Thomas said like this:

If stability is possible, it is only by discarding the stand-alone substantial effects test and revisiting our definition of “Commerce among the several States.” Congress may regulate interstate commerce–not things that affect it, even when summed together.
Click to expand...
Even the best and wisest lawyers are still lawyers, and can't just keep it short and simple. ;)
 
STAGE 2 said:
That said, most narcotics, pot included...
Click to expand...

"How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?"

Simply because the state says it is a narcotic, does not make it so. Any more than the four fingers being held up, equals five... Because the state says so.

Like I said, change the law and you won't hear a peep out of me.
Click to expand...

Enacting a law that takes away a right or privilege is much easier than repealing the law to restore the right or privilege.

Part of this discussion is identifying where the law is wrong. In principle, you have agreed. Yet to those who would push for change, you mouth the fed.gov stance, as if it is the correct stance because the Court says so. Precedent, if wrongly decided, should not be allowed to stand.

You have stated that should all 50 States decide to implement medical MJ laws, the feds will simply withhold (various) funds in order to make the States comply with a federal law based upon faulty precedent.

This is what happens. You appear to condone such an action, which if I'm not mistaken, is nothing more than blackmail. Something that is unlawful for anyone other than a government. How is that, exactly?

The monies being withheld do not belong to the .gov. They belong to the people and are held in trust.

"How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?"
 
which if I'm not mistaken, is nothing more than blackmail. Something that is unlawful for anyone other than a government. How is that, exactly?
Click to expand...

Withholding HWY funds over the 55 MPH speed limits and 21 for alcohol sale come to mind but I am sure that many more exist.
How is it that government can do this with no repercussions? It is IMO blackmail.
 
Withholding HWY funds over the 55 MPH speed limits and 21 for alcohol sale come to mind but I am sure that many more exist.
How is it that government can do this with no repercussions? It is IMO blackmail.
Click to expand...
Because people allow it to. "The law is the law." :barf:
 
Enacting a law that takes away a right or privilege is much easier than repealing the law to restore the right or privilege.
Click to expand...

True, but since there is no fundamental right to smoke dope, and the federal govt clearly has the power to prohibit pot in interstate commerce, peoples rights aren't being violated to the extent that some of the legalization advocates want us to believe.


Part of this discussion is identifying where the law is wrong. In principle, you have agreed. Yet to those who would push for change, you mouth the fed.gov stance, as if it is the correct stance because the Court says so. Precedent, if wrongly decided, should not be allowed to stand.
Click to expand...


You are missing a fine distinction here. Most who are pushing for change are pushing for complete legalization of pot. When I say "change the law" this is what I'm referring to. The federal statute that bans pot is legal in so much that it applies to interstate commerce. This is what I'm referring to, and this is what people want changed.


You have stated that should all 50 States decide to implement medical MJ laws, the feds will simply withhold (various) funds in order to make the States comply with a federal law based upon faulty precedent.

This is what happens. You appear to condone such an action, which if I'm not mistaken, is nothing more than blackmail. Something that is unlawful for anyone other than a government. How is that, exactly?

The monies being withheld do not belong to the .gov. They belong to the people and are held in trust.
Click to expand...


Baloney. Blackmail is when someone says, "if you don't do X, I'm going to do Y". Here the federal government is saying, "if you want X then you will have to do Y". Its a big difference, big enough to where SCOTUS ruled on it. The states are free to decline the money and will not be compelled to do anything. If they want the money then there is a condition. This is contract, not blackmail.

Attaching a condition to federal funds is perfectly fine. The states have NO entitlement to these funds. They may belong to the people in a sense, but they have been given to the feds to spend on federal matters. And since we know that taxpayers cant sue to determine where their tax money is spent, the fed can spend the money any way it wants to within the confines of the constitution.

If the states can't hold out because the fed waves a bunch of money in their face, that speaks more to the behavior of the states than the feds.
 
[QUOTETrue, but since there is no fundamental right to smoke dope][/QUOTE]

Wouldn't that fall under the right to pursue life, liberty & happiness? I would think so, especially in relation to a medical condition.
 
Wouldn't that fall under the right to pursue life, liberty & happiness? I would think so, especially in relation to a medical condition.
Click to expand...

Even if it did, it would not affect the governments ability to regulate that which is in interstate comemrce.
 
I have to agree with Stage about these matters:

You have stated that should all 50 States decide to implement medical MJ laws, the feds will simply withhold (various) funds in order to make the States comply with a federal law based upon faulty precedent.

This is what happens. You appear to condone such an action, which if I'm not mistaken, is nothing more than blackmail. Something that is unlawful for anyone other than a government. How is that, exactly?

The monies being withheld do not belong to the .gov. They belong to the people and are held in trust.
Click to expand...

This is not blackmail. According to the supremes, it is legal and acceptable for the feds to do this. A State can still tell the feds to go blow smoke (like that one? :D) and decline to take the money. Anyone (or any entity) can give a conditional gift -- it is not blackmail. The problem that we have is that the various states have become entirely too dependant on Federal funds.
 
Even if it did, it would not affect the governments ability to regulate that which is in interstate comemrce.
Click to expand...
The point remains that marijuana grown in California by a Californian for use by that very same Californian does not enter interstate commerce.
 
The point remains that marijuana grown in California by a Californian for use by that very same Californian does not enter interstate commerce.
Click to expand...

And I'm not in disagreement with that statement. What I am saying is that practically speaking, the status quo won't change whether the commerce clause gets interpreted properly or not. That is unless there is some massive uprising from the populace.
 
Keep Up the Good Work, Redworm! You are right on, of course. May god bless Ms. Raich, may he grant the common sense reading skills possessed by 3rd graders to these judges in the future, when they read the phrase "and to regulate commerce among the several states."
 
This is not blackmail. According to the supremes, it is legal and acceptable for the feds to do this. A State can still tell the feds to go blow smoke (like that one? ) and decline to take the money. Anyone (or any entity) can give a conditional gift -- it is not blackmail. The problem that we have is that the various states have become entirely too dependant on Federal funds.
Click to expand...

Man, what?

A large portion of the funding that is generally withheld in situations like this isn't a "gift." It's the taxes that were paid by that state's citizens. Maybe the states have become to dependent on federal dollars...then again, maybe part of that is because the federal government taxes our incomes to a point where there isn't much left for the states to take in. I know my federal taxes paid are an order of magnitude greater than my state taxes paid.

EDIT: So, rather then it being a conditional gift, it's them taking my money and telling me I can't have it back unless I do what they want. And this isn't extortion how?
 
A large portion of the funding that is generally withheld in situations like this isn't a "gift." It's the taxes that were paid by that state's citizens. Maybe the states have become to dependent on federal dollars...then again, maybe part of that is because the federal government taxes our incomes to a point where there isn't much left for the states to take in. I know my federal taxes paid are an order of magnitude greater than my state taxes paid.

EDIT: So, rather then it being a conditional gift, it's them taking my money and telling me I can't have it back unless I do what they want. And this isn't extortion how?
Click to expand...

No one said it was a gift. Its a contract. You paid the money to the federal government. As a result, they can spend it on anything they want that is within their power.

This isn't exortion because states don't suffer any punishment if they refuse the funds. The argument that "the states cant afford not to take it" just means that states aren't being fiscally responsible.
 
This isn't exortion because states don't suffer any punishment if they refuse the funds
Click to expand...

really??? I like to see any state in the Nation keep their highways even drivable for very long without Federal funding. Nice try but I don't buy it.
 
really??? I like to see any state in the Nation keep their highways even drivable for very long without Federal funding. Nice try but I don't buy it.
Click to expand...

Well, some could probably do it (and many could get by) if the federal government weren't taxing their citizens incomes at the rate they do. But the way it works is that the federal government withholds highway funding (or school funding, or library funding) while at the same time taxing the citizens of that state at the same rate they were before, thus making it difficult (if not impossible) for the state to provide those same services.

A state does have a finite tax base, after all...which they have to share with the feds.
 
JuanCarlos, you hit the nail on the head there - right on. It most certainly IS extortion (sp?), and is a perversion of the enumerated right of the fedgov to tax.
 
really??? I like to see any state in the Nation keep their highways even drivable for very long without Federal funding. Nice try but I don't buy it.
Click to expand...

I don't care whether you buy it or not. Its the law. And it makes sense. States don't have to take the money. The fact that states have become so beholden and dependant to the feds is their own problem.


Well, some could probably do it (and many could get by) if the federal government weren't taxing their citizens incomes at the rate they do. But the way it works is that the federal government withholds highway funding (or school funding, or library funding) while at the same time taxing the citizens of that state at the same rate they were before, thus making it difficult (if not impossible) for the state to provide those same services.

A state does have a finite tax base, after all...which they have to share with the feds.
Click to expand...

And yet thats still irrelevant to the question of whether the feds can place contingencies on federal funding. Undoubtedly some states would have to raise taxes. Likewise however there would be pressure on the feds to lower taxes to som extent (depending on how many states refused the funds). All of this has to do with finances however, and not whether the feds can do this.

All of you guys that scream about how the federal government should get off your backs should be overjoyed at this. States can tell the feds to pound sand. Of course this means the feds get to take their toys with them when they leave. To suggest otherwise is the ultimate hypocracy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top