Recreational Marijuana

[Phil]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

The password is: Abortion

[cherdanno]

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]

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]

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]

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.nih.gov/publications/arh25-1/52-57.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]

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.

[hrothgar]

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.

I don't have any objection to this type of experimentation; however, I don't think that individual states get to pick and choose on these issues.

 

If you want this type of experimentation, then you need to start by changing the Federal statues.

[mike777]

November ballot in California prop 19 which would legalize pot for those over 21 yrs of age and allow people to grow their own in a 5x5 foot area.....what do you think.

btw where are you allowed to smoke this pot>

 

For instance, at a bar, in public, at work?

 

How about around young children or while driving?

 

How much pot can you sell to other adults?

 

Can you smoke in your home if there are young children in the room?

 

Those who advocate a position I hope have thought these issues through and have answers

 

 

In any event you can see how regulations and tax issues are just getting started.

 

One can just imagine all the issues regarding keeping this stuff out of the hands of those under 21 or those who wish to avoid taxation.

[hrothgar]

November ballot in California prop 19 which would legalize pot for those over 21 yrs of age and allow people to grow their own in a 5x5 foot area.....what do you think.

btw where are you allowed to smoke this pot>

 

For instance, at a bar, in public, at work?

 

How about around young children or while driving?

 

How much pot can you sell to other adults?

 

Can you smoke in your home if there are young children in the room?

 

 

In any event you can see how regulations and tax issues are just getting started.

Why don't you go off, Google the answers, and report back to us with an actual fact...

[Phil]

Why don't you go off, Google the answers, and report back to us with an actual fact...

I have a feeling Mike already has and he's baiting you:

 

Prop 19

[Lobowolf]

Perhaps it's the Tenth Amendment that should be repealed...[/irony]

 

 

"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."

[Lobowolf]

It's really worth pointing out that this law wouldn't "strike down" federal anti-drug laws.

 

Whatever activities violate federal law still violate federal law (as in the medical marijuana situation in California). If the federal government's position is strongly opposed to recreation marijuana use, then they can send DEA agents out on marijuana cases. The LAPD doesn't have to do the feds' job. In fact, this would be consistent with the DOJ position in the Arizona immigration case - if it's a federal issue, then states shouldn't be passing their own criminalization laws in the first place. It's been a happy coincidence that both the state and federal government position has been strongly anti-drug, but what if down the road the federal government decided for political reasons to decriminalize marijuana, or not enforce the laws on the books? Then it would be entirely improper for states to have laws against marijuana, because they could enforce those laws vehemently and undermine the federal position on the issue.

 

This is essentially part B of medical marijuana (where it's not illegal per state law). The feds can bust you for violation of federal law; the locals won't.

[luke warm]

November ballot in California prop 19 which would legalize pot for those over 21 yrs of age and allow people to grow their own in a 5x5 foot area.....what do you think.

btw where are you allowed to smoke this pot>

 

For instance, at a bar, in public, at work?

same places you can drink would be a good start... presently i can't drink in public (i.e. walking down the street, although my backyard is okay - for now) or while driving or at work

How much pot can you sell to other adults?

as much as they want? how many cases of beer can you buy?

Can you smoke in your home if there are young children in the room?

how many glasses of wine have you drunk in that situation?

One can just imagine all the issues regarding keeping this stuff out of the hands of those under 21 or those who wish to avoid taxation.

the same is true for alcohol (arguably the most dangerous drug, as in threats to life and limb, in the world) and cigarettes now

Perhaps it's the Tenth Amendment that should be repealed...[/irony]

 

 

"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."

hence that all powerful commerce clause

[pigpenz]

jeez, how many people are we going to have to hire in California to go measure those 5x5' areas. You just know there will be entire backyards filled with the stuff, just like there are "vacant" houses being used right now for pot farms.

 

I am not against legalizing, per se, but it will just unleash different ways for people to break the law.

none

unless you work for law enforcement and want to do checking.

[mycroft]

unless you work for law enforcement and want to do checking.

...or more likely, unless you work for law enforcement and someone has committed the crime of Contempt of Cop, or has "likely" committed a crime that will be very hard to prove (compared to having 25.1 ft. sq. of grass growing area).

 

And what do you want to bet that 80% of the checks will be on gardens owned by, shall we say, people less likely to buy sunscreen?

 

<what, cynical, me?>

[mike777]

I can certainly see the neighbors calling the cops, alderman and mayor etc to complain about all the pot growing next door or all the selling of pot of out the neighbors yard or how the neighbors' pot smoke is creeping into where their kids play.

 

 

I can see how enforcement, taxation, collection is going to be a nightmare.

 

 

There has been huge kickback against the medical pot stores.

 

 

Even if you favor legalization a quick read of the prop lists pages of stuff on how smoking, growing or selling pot is illegal in many ways. In many cases you can still go to jail for pot related crimes.

 

http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/vig-public...sis-prop-19.pdf