[blackshoe]

Tenth Amendment said:

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.

The Federal Government has regulated many things under the guise of "interstate commerce" (including the use or possession of Marijuana) which IMO it should not have regulated (because it stretches beyond belief the concept of "interstate commerce").

Ain't Nobody's Business If you Do is an interesting read.

[luke warm]

jdonn, on Aug 3 2010, 03:31 PM, said:

luke warm, on Aug 3 2010, 02:54 PM, said:

i think you missed the point... it was the constitutional ammendment banning alcohol that took the jurisdiction out of the states' hands... barring the same sort of thing, marijuana (really, all drugs) legislation should be a state issue... imo

That is some awfully creative (and utterly ridiculous) rationalization...

how so?

[gwnn]

lol 91.7% what a bunch of junkies.

[jdonn]

luke warm, on Aug 3 2010, 04:49 PM, said:

jdonn, on Aug 3 2010, 03:31 PM, said:

luke warm, on Aug 3 2010, 02:54 PM, said:

i think you missed the point... it was the constitutional ammendment banning alcohol that took the jurisdiction out of the states' hands... barring the same sort of thing, marijuana (really, all drugs) legislation should be a state issue... imo

That is some awfully creative (and utterly ridiculous) rationalization...

how so?

Perhaps we disagree about what "repeal" means.

[kenrexford]

I am a strong believer in stopping the unconstitutional invasion of privacy that is the existing drug law scheme. That said, two thoughts...

1. Legalize everything except marijuana, but make marijuana (even at Snoop levels) a minor misdemeanor. Smoking pot is more fun if you can get in trouble.

2. What kind of F'ed up world are we now in, where pot smoking legalization is becoming an accepted idea but tobacco smoking is becoming less and less legal? I figure that in a few years I'll have to smoke a block down from the bar, just to not offend the pot smokers with my second-hand tobacco smoke.

[Phil]

hrothgar, on Aug 3 2010, 10:12 AM, said:

I consider this a really complicated issue.

(snip)

I'd be much happier to see this enacted at the Federal level.

Indeed. There are usually larger issues at stake that can swing power when state's rights are affected. Those that push for federalization for legalized drugs are usually focused on another agenda that has nothing to do with marijuana.

Personally, because the social norms of say, Arkansas or Tennessee are widely different than California and Oregon, that the 'plebes' in their respective states should decide whats best for them.

[y66]

TimG, on Aug 3 2010, 12:21 PM, said:

helene_t, on Aug 3 2010, 10:05 AM, said:

Maybe in a perfect world people wouldn't smoke pot but then again, they wouldn't eat bacon and full-fat cheese either, to say nothing about alcohol and tobacco.

What's wrong with bacon?

Depends on the source.

[TimG]

y66, on Aug 3 2010, 09:07 PM, said:

TimG, on Aug 3 2010, 12:21 PM, said:

helene_t, on Aug 3 2010, 10:05 AM, said:

Maybe in a perfect world people wouldn't smoke pot but then again, they wouldn't eat bacon and full-fat cheese either, to say nothing about alcohol and tobacco.

What's wrong with bacon?

Depends on the source.

A pig!

[Winstonm]

I am 100% behind a convenience store run for more munchies.

[NickRW]

kenrexford, on Aug 4 2010, 12:49 AM, said:

2. What kind of F'ed up world are we now in, where pot smoking legalization is becoming an accepted idea but tobacco smoking is becoming less and less legal? I figure that in a few years I'll have to smoke a block down from the bar, just to not offend the pot smokers with my second-hand tobacco smoke.

This

[Fluffy]

my experience on drugs is nule besides alcohol, but my feeling is that if marihuana is healthier than other drugs and lagalizing it you might make people who would fall in a worse pit get into a better one it is worth it.

[Lobowolf]

Phil, on Aug 3 2010, 09:02 PM, said:

There are usually larger issues at stake that can swing power when state's rights are affected. Those that push for federalization for legalized drugs are usually focused on another agenda that has nothing to do with marijuana.

See, e.g., Gonzalez v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005).

[Lobowolf]

JLOGIC, on Aug 3 2010, 11:34 AM, said:

Fair enough, I honestly have not thought about and likely do not understand these broader issues at all

The password is: Abortion

[cherdanno]

Lobowolf, on Aug 4 2010, 03:46 AM, said:

JLOGIC, on Aug 3 2010, 11:34 AM, said:

Fair enough, I honestly have not thought about and likely do not understand these broader issues at all

The password is: Abortion

I don't think so. Abortion is a federal issue because the supreme court ruled on it. Hrothgar on the other hand is defending the power of congress.
Liberals generally believes that legislation can improve people's lives, and a lot of such legislation is better done at a federal level. (One Federal ADA is easier for everyone to handle than 50 differents ADAs over the country. Also an ADA passed by Congress in Washington is probably better-thought-through legislation than an ADA passed a randomly picked state.)

[Lobowolf]

cherdanno, on Aug 4 2010, 04:05 AM, said:

Lobowolf, on Aug 4 2010, 03:46 AM, said:

JLOGIC, on Aug 3 2010, 11:34 AM, said:

Fair enough, I honestly have not thought about and likely do not understand these broader issues at all

The password is: Abortion

I don't think so. Abortion is a federal issue because the supreme court ruled on it. Hrothgar on the other hand is defending the power of congress.
Liberals generally believes that legislation can improve people's lives, and a lot of such legislation is better done at a federal level. (One Federal ADA is easier for everyone to handle than 50 differents ADAs over the country. Also an ADA passed by Congress in Washington is probably better-thought-through legislation than an ADA passed a randomly picked state.)

Sorry; I didn't mean to imply that I was commenting on Hrothgar's position, specifically.

When the Supreme Court rules, it, too, often defends or denies the power of Congress. The Supreme Court can reverse, affirm, or even go further when it comes to revisiting its previous decisions. Decisions that give independent rights to states are perceived as undermining the current abortion framework, and decisions that deny states' rights are perceived as solidifying it.

That's why the liberal justices in '05 (Souter, Ginsburg, Stevens, and Breyer (and the often-swing-vote Kennedy)) all voted that marijuana that was never bought, sold, or crossed state lines somehow affected interstate commerce (and thus triggered the Commerce Clause, and thus provided a basis for federal jurisdiction to prohibit cultivation and use of medical marijuana consistent with state law), and it's why the conservative judges often similarly contort themselves to advance the cause of states' rights when federal jurisdiction appears appropriate.

I grant you, I can't explain what Scalia was thinking in Gonzalez v. Raich (he sided with the majority), but it certainly makes it easier to understand why all 4 of the liberals fought against medical marijuana and 3 out of 4 of the conservatives supported it.

[cherdanno]

Well, my point is that hrothgar is more consistent than that. He thinks federal law should trump state law, and should be allowed to regulate the economy in general. He even supports that principle when it doesn't work towards his favored outcome in this specific case.
Such consistency is rare enough (apparently even on the Supreme court, as you point out), that I thought it worth mentioning.

[luke warm]

Lobowolf, on Aug 4 2010, 03:46 AM, said:

JLOGIC, on Aug 3 2010, 11:34 AM, said:

Fair enough, I honestly have not thought about and likely do not understand these broader issues at all

The password is: Abortion

yes, this is certainly true

[Phil]

cherdanno, on Aug 4 2010, 04:05 AM, said:

Lobowolf, on Aug 4 2010, 03:46 AM, said:

JLOGIC, on Aug 3 2010, 11:34 AM, said:

Fair enough, I honestly have not thought about and likely do not understand these broader issues at all

The password is: Abortion

I don't think so. Abortion is a federal issue because the supreme court ruled on it. Hrothgar on the other hand is defending the power of congress.
Liberals generally believes that legislation can improve people's lives, and a lot of such legislation is better done at a federal level. (One Federal ADA is easier for everyone to handle than 50 differents ADAs over the country. Also an ADA passed by Congress in Washington is probably better-thought-through legislation than an ADA passed a randomly picked state.)

Agree with your statements about ADA, although the updated standards for CA codes are more stringent than ADA. There is nothing that prevents states from enforcing tougher standards than the feds in these matters.

I'd hate some podunk state be influenced by some regional BIA (no, not the tribal body) in setting its own rules that differ from other states.

edit: Furthermore, issues like discrimination are constitutional in nature anyway. Issues like the legalization of pot are not.

[mike777]

An advantage of state laws is one can view the Republic as a set of 50 laboratories where different laws can be tried out.

I would hate to see such a major change such as legalization of drugs at a federal level as a first step.

If we are going to legalize drugs lets experiment with it in one tiny state and see how it works out. In general it is going to be easier to amend, fix or delete a bad law in a state.

One can always roll the law out on a national basis if it works.
------------


Keep in mind suchthings as booze and cigs are legal and gangs, the mob etc are involved to the tune of billions of dollars. Making something legal in fact will mean sort of making it legal and leave plenty of room for criminal activity.

One concern is if drugs are legal with it lead to more usage. Will more usage lead to more DUI or child abuse?

I dont know but would prefer to take it in small steps and find out rather than roll such a change out in 50 states.


http://pubs.niaaa.ni...h25-1/52-57.pdf


According to research estimates, each year more than 1 million children in the United States experience some form of abuse or neglect (Widom 1993). Child abuse is one of the many types of violence associated with alcohol use and abuse, either as a consequence or as a causative factor

[hrothgar]

Phil, on Aug 4 2010, 05:49 PM, said:

Agree with your statements about ADA, although the updated standards for CA codes are more stringent than ADA. There is nothing that prevents states from enforcing tougher standards than the feds in these matters.

I think that the jury is still out on this one.

There have been a number of cases in which California has attempted to impose more restrictive standards surrounding environment protection, emissions, which has engendered lawsuits.

http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/blog2/2010/0...een-federalism/

I'm not aware of any lawsuits specifically involving the Americans with Disabilities Acts, however, I don't think that these are impossible.