I miss political threads . . .

[Will]

Why then did it take a Constitutional amendment to ban alcohol?

And even if they could ban the import/export across state lines, they couldn't ban people growing weed with their own with seeds from before the restriction or seeds from plants grown before the restriction, or their decendents. What is keeping people from synthesizing other drugs made with materials from entirely in state?

IMNSHO, the interstate commerace clause is a weak argument that I do not believe would hold up in court, were a court to hear a case based on this or a similar argument.

Drugs are illegal to buy, sell, or posess, no matter where they come from. Interstate and intrastate included.

I have thought this out Andrew.

I don't necessarily think that they should be legalized. I still believe that is up to the states.

As far as I know, no court has ever heard arguments on this matter. If anyone could point me to any case concerning this, I'd love to read it. I'm confident that if a case were ever brought to a Federal court based on this argument, they'd win. Since stoners usually aren't that smart............

[Grakthis]

Why then did it take a Constitutional amendment to ban alcohol?

And even if they could ban the import/export across state lines, they couldn't ban people growing weed with their own with seeds from before the restriction or seeds from plants grown before the restriction, or their decendents. What is keeping people from synthesizing other drugs made with materials from entirely in state?

IMNSHO, the interstate commerace clause is a weak argument that I do not believe would hold up in court, were a court to hear a case based on this or a similar argument.

Drugs are illegal to buy, sell, or posess, no matter where they come from. Interstate and intrastate included.

I have thought this out Andrew.

I don't necessarily think that they should be legalized. I still believe that is up to the states.

As far as I know, no court has ever heard arguments on this matter. If anyone could point me to any case concerning this, I'd love to read it. I'm confident that if a case were ever brought to a Federal court based on this argument, they'd win. Since stoners usually aren't that smart............

To the best of my knowledge, you are correct.  The supreme court has NOT ruled on this specific situation and I dont know any court that HAS.  You see, the Fed has yet to actually press charges against any of the people they "arrest" and confiscate the drugs from in the states where medical marijuana is legal.

All the feds do is swoop in, burn the crops, drag them off in handcuffs then let them go 2 days later.

And the courts can't establish an opinion about it until the case gets put in front of them.

The bad news is, even if the Fed doesn't have the right to do this, they can still coerce states into enforcing their rules by placing restrictions on federal road and education funding based on conformance to a federal drug policy.

The interstate commerce clause has been used as an exucuse for the Fed to step on states rights for a LONG time, but states never want to fight it because they never want to loose federal funding.

The good news is that John Kerry is a PRO medical marijuana candidate and hes got a real shot at the Democratic primaries.  Also, the medical marijuana movement is spreading pretty quickly and there are signs that some states are taking real action to get the fed off their backs.
---Andrew

[Katia's Lover]

I'll have to look it up the next time I'm at the library guys, my school has a pretty nice Government Document section.  I BELIEVE--I may be mistaken, but I'm usually good with stuff about the USSC--that there was a guy about 10 years ago that got busted by a fed law that was MUCH stricter than the state he was from (want to say Montana)... Anyway, he pursued it through the courts and the Appeals Courts upheld the federal ruling, and when he appealed to the USSC he only got 3 of the 4 votes needed to even be heard in court.  So unless there's a more recent case, I would say that the USSC has ruled--maybe not in an opinion or an actual case--but by deciding it wasn't even a good enough debate to hear.  

It's so hard to get the USSC to actually hear a case now, it's not even funny.  Even when you do, the court is so backed up it takes years for them to a) hear the case b) rule.  Take the Michigan Law School case for example... when did that kid actually get denied entrance?  '96?!

Here's my point on the issue: I don't want another substance to be out there that can seriously hamper someone's abilities of driving safely.  I already live in fear that a drunk driver might take mine or one of my loved ones life, please don't make me live in fear that someone that's high is going to do it if the drunk driver doesn't get there first.  Keep it illegal.

On the constitutionality of federal law?  I lean toward the democrat side of the line (I'm very much a centralist that keeps getting stuck on democrat views--I would have voted for Bush, normally vote a very split ticket).  So I guess you could say I'm big in favor of the national government setting the laws and enforcing the laws that it feels best for the country.

[Will]

I BELIEVE--I may be mistaken, but I'm usually good with stuff about the USSC--that there was a guy about 10 years ago that got busted by a fed law that was MUCH stricter than the state he was from (want to say Montana)... Anyway, he pursued it through the courts and the Appeals Courts upheld the federal ruling, and when he appealed to the USSC he only got 3 of the 4 votes needed to even be heard in court.  So unless there's a more recent case, I would say that the USSC has ruled--maybe not in an opinion or an actual case--but by deciding it wasn't even a good enough debate to hear.  

Was he busted on a federal drug charge? I'm not arguing that where the Fed can pass laws, the states can overrule them with their own laws. (That's just not true, as long as the Fed can legally pass a law) As I understand it, if the Fed can pass a law and a state has a looser law, the stricter law prevails.

[Katia's Lover]

He was busted on a fed. charge if memory serves.  He was doing something that was somehow legal by state law, and illegal by federal law... He was challenging the federal government's right to make that law and was saying it was not one of the powers delegated to Congress in the Constitution.

He kept losing in the courts... think he lost 2-1 in the federal appeals court, and then applied for Cert to the USSC and Cert was denied with only 3 votes approving.

Once again, this is all off the top of my head... I'll have to look it up another day.

[Will]

He was busted on a fed. charge if memory serves.  He was doing something that was somehow legal by state law, and illegal by federal law... He was challenging the federal government's right to make that law and was saying it was not one of the powers delegated to Congress in the Constitution.

He kept losing in the courts... think he lost 2-1 in the federal appeals court, and then applied for Cert to the USSC and Cert was denied with only 3 votes approving.

Once again, this is all off the top of my head... I'll have to look it up another day.

Yeah, if you could look it up, that would be awesome.

[Grakthis]

Here's my point on the issue: I don't want another substance to be out there that can seriously hamper someone's abilities of driving safely.  I already live in fear that a drunk driver might take mine or one of my loved ones life, please don't make me live in fear that someone that's high is going to do it if the drunk driver doesn't get there first.  Keep it illegal.

Here's a lesson in both Economics and human psychology.  Making drugs illegal does nothing but raise the prices of the drugs.  This does reduce some of the demand, but the people who are gonna do drugs and then do something stupid couldn't careless if it is or is not illegal and the addicts will find ways to get the money for them.  By causing the price to go up, you force people to commit crimes to get their fix.  It is IMPOSSIBLE for the US government to remove the SUPPLY of drugs.  When there is a demand, SOMEONE will supply.  It's the economic law our country is built on.

If you legalize drugs then the gov't can TAX them, regulate prices and set age limits.  Which makes it both cheaper and easier to have the exact same affect as the "war on drugs".  Actually, you get a better affect because you drive the illegal shady dealers out of business and clean up a lot of the crime that is associated with those street corner dealers.

Not to mention that the people who are going to do drugs and then drive are the same people who drink and then drive.  You think there are people out there who do coke but WON'T drink alcohol?!?  Come on.  So you are NOT increasing the total number of people driving under the influence of some drug by legalizing ANYTHING.
---Andrew

[Wagella]

Wow, a debate.

[Grakthis]

Wow, a debate.

Shocking, I know.   :wink:
---Andrew

[Wagella]

I agree.

[Wagella]

Shocking, I know.   :wink:
---Andrew

Yes.

[Wagella]

Shocking, I know.   :wink:
---Andrew

That's right.

[Logikal X]

Shocking, I know.   :wink:
---Andrew

That's right.

ELEPHANTS WITH POPSICLES ARE EVVERRYYWHHEEERRE

[Grakthis]

Shocking, I know.   :wink:
---Andrew

That's right.

ELEPHANTS WITH POPSICLES ARE EVVERRYYWHHEEERRE

Speaking of drug usage....
---Andrew

[x Jennifer x]

lol :drunk: