Federalism Has Gone to Pot
by Lee
Everyone remember today, June 6, 2005. It’s the day the Constitution officially died. The Supreme Court has declared the concepts of federalism and enumerated powers to be null and void.
Federal authorities may prosecute sick people who smoke pot on doctors’ orders, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, concluding that state medical marijuana laws don’t protect users from a federal ban on the drug.
The decision is a stinging defeat for marijuana advocates who had successfully pushed 10 states to allow the drug’s use to treat various illnesses.
Justice John Paul Stevens, writing the 6-3 decision, said that Congress could change the law to allow medical use of marijuana.
The closely watched case was an appeal by the Bush administration in a case that it lost in late 2003. At issue was whether the prosecution of medical marijuana users under the federal Controlled Substances Act was constitutional.
Under the Constitution, Congress may pass laws regulating a state’s economic activity so long as it involves “interstate commerce” that crosses state borders. The California marijuana in question was homegrown, distributed to patients without charge and without crossing state lines.
Stevens said there are other legal options for patients, “but perhaps even more important than these legal avenues is the democratic process, in which the voices of voters allied with these respondents may one day be heard in the halls of Congress.”
Hey, Stevens, you dick. I agree with you in principle, that the best solution to issues is usually through the democratic process. But the court system exists for a reason, and it’s to restrain government power over the rights of the individual. In this case, ten states have, through the democratic process you think is so neato, chosen to permit sick people to use marijuana to alleviate their pain, yet you decided to crap all over that by ruling that a guy who grows a plant in his house for his own personal use is somehow covered by Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce.
Basically this is a huge green light for Congress to basically do whatever the fuck it likes if it can somehow, in some way, sorta, kinda tie it in to interstate commerce. Our highest court just sold us out. And Scalia, fucking Scalia, the one true federalist on the court, actually sided with the majority in this idiocy. I’m just disgusted by the whole thing.
All you social conservatives, remember this the next time you piss and moan about some liberal activist court. This decision is the LITERAL DEFINITION of judicial activism.
Update: In Federalist No. 45, James Madison wrote, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.” Unless, of course, it’s for something that’s politically expedient for the president and his administration. They argued for the right to prosecute offenders, and they got it, Constitution be damned.
Comments
So it’s not ok for Roe v. Wade to make an abortion legal all over the country but ok for Gonzales v. Raich to stomp on sick people growing plants.
Conservatives, make up your minds please.
Nice one Lee. Did you check Thomas’s dissent? He took Scalia to task. He’s no longer water boy for Scalia that’s for sure.
In Lopez, I argued that allowing Congress to regulate intrastate, noncommercial activity under the Commerce Clause would confer on Congress a general “police power” over the Nation. This is no less the case if Congress ties its power to the Necessary and Proper Clause rather than the Commerce Clause. When agents from the Drug Enforcement Administration raided Monson’s home, they seized six cannabis plants. If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption (not because it is interstate commerce, but because it is inextricably bound up with interstate commerce), then Congress’ Article I powers--as expanded by the Necessary and Proper Clause--have no meaningful limits. Whether Congress aims at the possession of drugs, guns, or any number of other items, it may continue to appropria[te] state police powers under the guise of “regulating commerce.”
In Federalist No. 45, James Madison wrote,
I’ve been reading James Madison and the Future of Limited Government. It’s just maddening to realize what has happened to our country in the last 150 years, especially the 90 or so.
...the last 90 or so.
Using the Commerce Clause to extend the reach of federal powers is not a new doctrine. While I also disagree with the doctrine, to imply that this court developed it or used it to this effect, as you do when you say that this is the day the Constitution died, is misleading. There have been far worse cases of the Commerce Clause being used in this manner…
See, this is something to be actually pissed about.
Just another reason for conservatives to vote for Pat Buchanon in ‘08;)
There have been far worse cases of the Commerce Clause being used in this manner…
Absolutely, and to their credit the court had been on a trend of reversing that behavior. But if a guy growing a plant in his house for his own use is covered by the commerce clause, then *anything* can be covered by it.
How about a guy growing corn in his own garden?
Would someone explain to me how, in this particular case, “the Democrats would be worse”?
How about a guy growing corn in his own garden?
That’s already covered by the commerce clause, isn’t it? I thought there was a ruling to that effect, if I remember correctly.
Would someone explain to me how, in this particular case, “the Democrats would be worse”?
Well, it’s because they’re liberals, and they’re eeeeeevil! And if we just keep blindly voting for the Republicans, why, everything will just be peachy. And don’t vote Libertarian, because that’s a vote for the eeeeeeeevil liberals, who will spend spend spend, and their activist judges will trample on states rights! If you love America, you’ll go into that voting booth, bleat like a good sheep, and vote for the Republicans!!!
That’s my point. This ruling is in line with Commerce Clause jurisprudence from that case (WICKARD v. FILBURN, 317 U.S. 111 (1942)) forward. So while the doctrine is still alive, and it’s still a menance to states’ rights, it’s nothing new under the sun. You and I probably agree about the import of the decision, I just thought it was a bit much to say that this represents the death of the Constitution. If that’s true, then the Constitution died in ‘42.
You and I probably agree about the import of the decision, I just thought it was a bit much to say that this represents the death of the Constitution.
bb: Give Lee a break, the first week or two of the Atkins diet can be a bitch.
Ok, I’m sorry. I didn’t mean to be a prick.
You and I probably agree about the import of the decision, I just thought it was a bit much to say that this represents the death of the Constitution. If that’s true, then the Constitution died in ‘42.
I think that what burns my ass so much about this is that the court had a golden, clear, perfect opportunity to rectify so much of the idiocy of the past with this decision, and they chickened out. They could have set a precedent that would have trumpeted the cause of federalism for decades to come, and instead they sided with the cause of statism and overpowering federal intrusion.
You could make a case that the 1942 decision was made partly out of ignorance (they didn’t know the behemoth they were unleashing) and partly out of reasonableness (corn, unlike marijuana, is a product that is legally sold between the states). You would know the specifics of the case better than I would. But I can’t change what the court did in the past, all I can do is comment on what they could have done today and chose not to.
Ok, I’m sorry. I didn’t mean to be a prick.
LOL Not being a prick at all, I like reading the legal stuff. :)
If that’s true, then the Constitution died in ‘42.
Hell, if that’s true, the Constitution should have been resurrected on June 7, 1965. What the hell happened now?
Would someone explain to me how, in this particular case, “the Democrats would be worse”?
A rather silly question, since the Supreme Court is neither Republican nor Democrat, but the three dissenters mostly vote conservative.
I guess in this case, the way the “Democrats” could have been worse, was with a unanimous decision that would have been much harder to reverse in the future.
But I can see it now, this Supreme Court is now the lackeys of Bush Co. and the religious-right, because 2 conservative judges concurred.
Peace
Yeah, the ONLY teency-tiny thing that is even remotely NOT ridiculous about this ruling is that at least it was not 8-1.
Ironic about the Democrats comment, since Bryer and Ginsburg voted with the majority opinion.
Yet another instance of the GOP interefering between a doctor and his patient, stomping all over the Ninth and Tenth Amendments in the process…
The government is AWESOME! It knows what’s good and bad for my body without knowing a thing about me! Wow!
Where’s the line to wait in to get a stick to go beat some sick old people? I can’t wait!
I’m sure I will get poked in the eye for this, but what are the specifics of the case? Are you mad at the GOP for the Justice Department under the Bush Administration for enforcing the law? Cripes! We can’t have that, actual enforcement of the law!?!
I agree with the dissenting opinion, that the law is unconstitutional so I guess that means that we need more liberal jurists like Ruth Bader...er I mean Souter...oh, crap...I mean Stev.....nevermind.
I’m shocked, SHOCKED, that the Republicans didn’t make it their first priority to overturn the drug laws once they came into power. I’m sure that doing this would have resulted in landslide victories in 2002 and 2004.
Interesting, isn’t it, that the social conservatives, who are immediately there to denounce me as Christ-punching faggot stealth-leftist any time I write something about gays, they’re all mysteriously silent on this issue. Hmmm.
I agree with the dissenting opinion, that the law is unconstitutional…
Funny, I don’t remember reading anything in my pocket Constitution that says anything even remotely related to this law.
Interesting, isn’t it, that the social conservatives, who are immediately there to denounce me as Christ-punching faggot stealth-leftist any time I write something about gays, they’re all mysteriously silent on this issue. Hmmm.
Heeeeeyyyyyyy........
I am a social Conservative, and while I am not sure about the “Christ-punching faggot” part, I, for one, do not think you are a lefty. (I kinda doubt the faggot part based on your infatuation with the lovely and talented Manda)
P.S. - TITTIES!!!! (That was for Moxie and TUA)
Interesting, isn’t it, that the social conservatives, who are immediately there to denounce me as Christ-punching faggot stealth-leftist any time I write something about gays, they’re all mysteriously silent on this issue. Hmmm.
Drugs are bad. Mmmmkay? Don’t do drugs.
They talk about how bad drugs are at school that my second grade son had to be convinced that Tylenol wasn’t bad. Some drugs are bad, mmmmkay? Just the one’s we say are bad, mmmmkay?
I’ve always felt pushes to legalize marijuana for medical purposes were disingenious in that the real reason to legalize it was to get a wedge towards legal recreational use.
Now mind you, I’m not against marijuana at all and I wouldn’t mind its legalization. It’s just that I thought the people who typically argue for it were full of shit.
“Oooooh, I’m dying of cancer, must have the weed...and no seeds in it, please.”
Also, isn’t the whole point of being a political social conservative to be able to enforce your socially conservative world view on others through the power of the government? What better way to do so than to make sure that the federal government is all powerful?
Why do we even have states now?
Lee: I think you’re a Christ-punching bisexual stealth-moderate, so do I count?
Funny, I don’t remember reading anything in my pocket Constitution that says anything even remotely related to this law.
Exactly why it is unconstitutional.
“Oooooh, I’m dying of cancer, must have the weed...and no seeds in it, please.”
Hey, if I’m dying of cancer, I’m gonna want weed and a whole lot of other stuff.
How many cancer patients are they prepared to lock up for twenty years if they decide to prosecute? This is a judicial hissy fit equating people with legitimate needs to crack dealers. Hey, Justices, ever hear of extenuating circumstances?
Jail = Free quality healthcare. Not a bad idea for a cancer patient.
Gripeboy: You can’t die happy! The Government doesn’t want you to be an addict! (Unless it’s perscripiton drugs, of course.)
After seeing stuff like this, it amazes me that anyone who voted Republican to protect any of their freedoms can honestly give a damn whether Bush’s judicial nominees go through.
Yet another instance of the GOP interefering between a doctor and his patient, stomping all over the Ninth and Tenth Amendments in the process…
I’d have more sympathy for this position if someone, anyone, actually went through the process of defining and documenting marijuana’s benefits/uses/side-effects, then going through the FDA process for making this drug a medicine. Hell, there are drugs incredibly more powerful and addictive than marijuana in use in hospitals every day, and the DEA doesn’t come busting down the door. Perhaps if there were any validity to the “medical marijuana” argument, someone would have taken the time to go through the proper channels.
Funny, I don’t remember reading anything in my pocket Constitution that says anything even remotely related to this law.
It’s not difficult. Congress has the power to pass laws. They passed a law. There you go. Most of the Federal laws aren’t contained in the U.S. Constitution, are you going to say they’re all invalid? That’s just a dumb argument.
The better argument for why this decision sucks is that Wickard is distinguishable. That case dealt with growing corn that was not for interstate sale. But since corn was being sold interstate, any homegrown corn naturally affected the supply of interstate corn, and implicated Congress’s Commerce Clause powers. In this case, it is already illegal to sell pot interstate. The Feds could have left the law alone, and rested on the knowledge that any attempted sale of this homegrown “medicinal” pot interstate is still a Federal offense.
Then again, the argument that the potential abuse is a pretty good one too. Literally anyone can get a card for medicinal marijuana in California. Oh, my back hurts, I need to smoke pot. Why? Oh, because no reputable doctor will give me a prescription for narcotics, but since this law is so vague I can go to a quack and get my pot card. Yay!
So, I’m torn. But I’m leaning towards supporting the decision. For those interested, read the Court’s decision/rationale. (registration might be required)
All you social conservatives, remember this the next time you piss and moan about some liberal activist court. This decision is the LITERAL DEFINITION of judicial activism.
Ummm...in case anybody missed it, the six Justice majority was made up of the three most liberal members, the two swing votes, and one conservative. The dissenters were three of the four conservatives.
By any measure, this WAS an act of a liberal activist court. I don’t understand all the anti-conservative ranting in here....
This is just another nail in the coffin of personal freedoms. You should have the freedom to medicate yourself. It really shouldn’t even require a doctor.
I’m just saying ideally. I medicate myself all the time. More often than not, I have a better idea of what’s wrong with me than my doctors. I just cleared a rash on my finger (excema). I knew what it was but I can’t get a topical steroid over the counter so off I go to the doctor. Fifteen dollar co-pay, twenty dollar prescription co-pay, plus whatever my insurance company shelled out. Derrrrr, why is healthcare so expensive? It was probably over $250 for a fuckin’ rash!
The fight for medical pot has more to do with economics than anything else. We can’t have people treating themselves with a age old remedies now can we?
If you want industries and governments making all your decisions for you then just keep on voting for the Democrats and Republicans. Keep on keeping on.
Fools!
By any measure, this WAS an act of a liberal activist court. I don’t understand all the anti-conservative ranting in here....
I assume because it was the Bush adminstration that appealed the case in the first place. I don’t know the rules for the Justice Dept., but when they lost the case in a lower court, couldn’t they have shrugged their shoulders and said “Hey..we tried.” Instead, the had to appeal all the way to the SC.
(And for the record, I wholeheartedly support the legalization of marijuana. I’ve never heard an argument for criminalizing it that wouldn’t be hypocritical unless the speaker also endorsed criminalizing alcohol.)
I assume because it was the Bush adminstration that appealed the case in the first place. I don’t know the rules for the Justice Dept., but when they lost the case in a lower court, couldn’t they have shrugged their shoulders and said “Hey..we tried.”
They could have, but this was the 9th Circuit we’re talking about. You can just appeal all thier decisions without even looking at the case and be right about 70% of the time. You can’t blame them for playing the odds.
The consequences of states individually regulating medication are not even remotely desirable. I favor legalizing marijuana, but I think the Court made the correct decision, here, from both a legal and practical standpoint.
but this was the 9th Circuit we’re talking about. You can just appeal all thier decisions without even looking at the case and be right about 70% of the time.
LOL...you’re probably right.
Frankly, the way the question was framed to (or by) the Court, there could only be one outcome:
The question before us, however, is not whether it is wise to enforce the statute in these circumstances; rather, it is whether Congress’ power to regulate interstate markets for medicinal substances encompasses the portions of those markets that are supplied with drugs produced and consumed locally. Well-settled law controls our answer. The CSA is a valid exercise of federal power, even as applied to the troubling facts of this case. We accordingly vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
Here’s the thing. As soon as the States passed a law calling marijuana a medicine, it immediately and naturally affected the interstate (legal) drug trade. That is something that quite clearly falls within Congress’ power to regulate. Face it, the only way this issue will ever be resolved in favor of pot-heads is if someone can demonstrate the medicinal qualities of pot and make it an approved medication. Which segways nicely into another quote from the decision:
The obvious importance of the case prompted our grant of certiorari. 542 U. S. 936 (2004). The case is made difficult by respondents’ strong arguments that they will suffer irreparable harm because, despite a congressional finding to the contrary, marijuana does have valid therapeutic purposes.
I didn’t realize Congress had found that pot has no medicinal value.
I assume because it was the Bush adminstration that appealed the case in the first place. I don’t know the rules for the Justice Dept., but when they lost the case in a lower court, couldn’t they have shrugged their shoulders and said “Hey..we tried.” Instead, the had to appeal all the way to the SC.
The role of the Justice Department is to ENFORCE the law. Not decide whether or not it is a good law, not to write new laws, etc. By “just trying” they aren’t enforcing the law to the best of their ability. Or hey, maybe they thought that the SC would overturn the drug laws in this case. That would be a much more powerful ruling than one from the ninth circus.
- AaronSee, this is something to be actually pissed about
You fucking want something to be pissed about??
How about out right armed robbery???
I just got back from the mailbox and there was a letter from Uncle Sugar stating that my 2002 income has been “adjusted”, and I am being audited (fed and state) to see how much more fucking money I fucking owe the fucking government, and if I don’t fucking pay up, they’ll fucking come with their fucking guns and fucking take my fucking shit and fucking sell it to some other fucking fuckers to make up my fucking “taxes” while I fucking sit in one of the fucking cells of one of their fucking prisons that I have fucking paid for.
goddammitmotherfuckingfuckingmotherfuckers........
The consequences of states individually regulating medication are not even remotely desirable.
Just what are those exactly?
Just what are those exactly?
Think “availability of birth control pills”.
despite a congressional finding to the contrary, marijuana does have valid therapeutic purposes.
Well of course it does. Marinol containing synthetic THC has been legally prescribed for years. THC is what people are after here. The cheapest, most simple way to get it is to smoke or ingest pot.
Ah, but you don’t need a doctor or a pharmaceutical company to do that. You can even grow it yourself! Gasp!!!
Rub a dub dub.
Think “availability of birth control pills”.
Ima listenin’.
You’re saying states would be makin’ em all unavailable and whatnot?
Well, is this an issue of health or “personal freedoms”? Is there a difference?
I like Justice Thomas *runs away*
You’re saying states would be makin’ em all unavailable and whatnot?
No, I’m saying that the GOP has shown absolutely no interest in personal medical privacy whenever the GOP might tend to disagree with either the prescription or the procedure, for religious or moral reasons. They have repeatedly run roughshod over State’s Rights in this regard.
Abortion.
Assisted suicide.
Birth Control Pills.
Stem Cell Research.
And now medicinal marijuana.
I should be stunned that there are actually people supporting this invasion of personal privacy, but I’ve seen too many saying similar things over similar issues.
“Hey, the Dems would be worse!”
....I’m beginning to have an inkling of disdain for “libertarianism”. The worst elements of the left and right with none of the benefits.
Speaking of the demon weed…
Never open an envelope w/ a government return address without having had a toke or two first, or a flare up of acute tourettes could happen…
Also, Emmitt Smith was a better running back than Barry Sanders. The cold hard facts support this.
Well, is this an issue of health or “personal freedoms”? Is there a difference?
You should be free to seek healthcare. If you go to a witch doctor and don’t get cured, that’s your problem. If medical marajuana doesn’t cure you or alleviate your symptoms, boo hoo. You should still have the freedom to make these decisions for yourself.
The point is that you can’t do anything these days without some form of government regulation. Well, maybe thinking but that will be controlled by the government soon.
Drum, I’m totally with you on that.
Careful what you say about Barry..
<quote>
It’s not difficult. Congress has the power to pass laws. They passed a law. There you go. Most of the Federal laws aren’t contained in the U.S. Constitution, are you going to say they’re all invalid? That’s just a dumb argument.
</quote>
Sorry dude, your argument is the one that’s dumb because there’s this magic little amendment called the 10th amendment. You might want to read it a few times to make sure you parsed it completely before you continue this train of thought.
I see the < and > tags in the comment box and think HTML…
Most of the Federal laws aren’t contained in the U.S. Constitution, are you going to say they’re all invalid?
I saw a study once (I think Walter Williams reported it) that estimated about 75% of laws passed by Congress are unconstitutional when going by a strict interpretation of the Constitution. (That is, they’re legislating things that should be left to the states.) Obviously, some things can be a matter of interpretation, but there certainly seems to be a lot of things the Fed government is meddling in that they shouldn’t be.
You should be free to seek healthcare. If you go to a witch doctor and don’t get cured, that’s your problem. If medical marajuana doesn’t cure you or alleviate your symptoms, boo hoo. You should still have the freedom to make these decisions for yourself.
The point is that you can’t do anything these days without some form of government regulation.
Fair enough, but what about consumer protection? If said medicine is deemed by the consensus as dangerous, then doesn’t the government have the right to regulate it? I should point out again, that I think marijuana should be legalized (and for recreational use, as well) and I don’t think it’s dangerous, but my opinion is in the minority and I think the government and the public have the perogative to shut it down for the reason I’ve stated (dangerous to the consumer).
There’s precedent for the government regulating consumer goods, so it’s not like this is a sudden and profound of government interference in the market place. I mean, I don’t think the argument of “creeping government interference” is entirely worthwhile.
Obviously, some things can be a matter of interpretation, but there certainly seems to be a lot of things the Fed government is meddling in that they shouldn’t be.
It’s called exploiting the “general welfare” clause.
If said medicine is deemed by the consensus as dangerous, then doesn’t the government have the right to regulate it?
The “consensus” of what? Politicians? Or medical doctors?
Here’s a politely phrased hint: Science doesn’t rely on consensus.
There’s precedent for the government regulating consumer goods,
Since when is a privately grown plant on private land strictly for personal use considered “consumer goods”? People grow roses, but you don’t see the FBI kicking down doors to protect the rights of FTD…
If said medicine is deemed by the consensus as dangerous,
You mean like alcohol? Because I haven’t been able to find a single incident of marijuana being the sole cause of a fatal car crash…
GripeBoy:
It’s called exploiting the “general welfare” clause.
That’s why I always liked the quote from James Madison:
“With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”
Drumwaster:
Because I haven’t been able to find a single incident of marijuana being the sole cause of a fatal car crash…
Not only that, but I don’t believe there’s ever been a reported case of death by overdose of marijuana.
This is backing up what I said earlier. I have never heard a single argument against legalizing marijuana that cannot be applied to alcohol as well. And in most cases, I think the argument to make alcohol illegal is stronger.
The “consensus” of what? Politicians? Or medical doctors?
I think it’s fair to give proper weight to certain opinions at the proper instance. For example, in this case, there is a social implication to the legalization of marijuana and it is justifiable for society to weigh in on the value of legalized marijunana. In my state, 70% of the voting population said “no” when offered marijuana legalization on the ballot. Fair enough, no legal weed here.
Here’s a politely phrased hint: Science doesn’t rely on consensus.
Sure it does, within its own community. In fact, peer review is essential to the scientific method as science depends upon “repeatable” observations.
Since when is a privately grown plant on private land strictly for personal use considered “consumer goods”? People grow roses, but you don’t see the FBI kicking down doors to protect the rights of FTD…
If a privately used drug impairs a person’s social viability, then the consequence of that use is not limited to the private sphere.
You mean like alcohol? Because I haven’t been able to find a single incident of marijuana being the sole cause of a fatal car crash…
I agree that alcohol is far more dangerous than marijuana. Others evidently don’t.
This is backing up what I said earlier. I have never heard a single argument against legalizing marijuana that cannot be applied to alcohol as well. And in most cases, I think the argument to make alcohol illegal is stronger.
I suppose one can also argue that it’s a compelling argument to make both illegal…
Yeah. They don’t pour a dime bag over surgical instruments to sterilize them.
But has the saga of the 18th and 21st Amendment been lost to History? There is NO way to effectively prohibit things that the general public wants. Especially when it can be safely and easily made at home with products found at the local Home Depot and instructions at any library.
I suppose one can also argue that it’s a compelling argument to make both illegal…
I agree. IMHO, the only intellectually honest arguments are:
1. Both alcohol and marijuana should be legal.
2. Both alcohol and marijuana should be illegal.
3. Marijuana should be legal, alcohol should be illegal.
Saying alcohol should be legal while marijuana is illegal, to me, is completely contradictory, since it certainly seems that alcohol has far more devastating societal effects that marijuana does.
But has the saga of the 18th and 21st Amendment been lost to History? There is NO way to effectively prohibit things that the general public wants. Especially when it can be safely and easily made at home with products found at the local Home Depot and instructions at any library.
There was public support for lifting the prohibition of alcohol. Like I said, when the same was offered here in Nevada, 70% of voters said “no”. It would be faulty to believe that the “general public wants” legal marijuana.
Of course, there’s always the possibility that the general public is too stoned to vote…
Also, Emmitt Smith was a better running back than Barry Sanders. The cold hard facts support this.
ooohhhh......I have to COMPLETELY disagree with this. Name ONE other superstar on Detriot’s offence during Barry’s tenure......
{final jeopardy music}
I didn’t think so. Anybody who gets 62% of his rushing yards before ‘first touch’ should get a hall-of-fame invitation, though ---- for his offensive line.
a person’s social viability
What is that? Is there a measure by which society determines whether or not I’m “viable”? I may not be living up to expectations regardless of my undisclosed vices.
That sounds really scary, Matt.
Saying alcohol should be legal while marijuana is illegal, to me, is completely contradictory, since it certainly seems that alcohol has far more devastating societal effects that marijuana does.
I don’t know, someone can say that the public desire for alcohol is so unsatiable that to outlaw it would cause a social distress that would make whatever advantages there are to having a sober public a wash on the scoreboard…
In fact, peer review is essential to the scientific method as science depends upon “repeatable” observations.
But that is to make sure that the experiments produce the same results, not to persuade as to subjective efficacy. For example, I never heard of a vote on whether or not evolution is valid (and I’m not hijacking the thread, so don’t go there).
Scientific consensus is crap. Look at all of the 19th-century “scientific consensus” about whether heavier-than-air flight is possible. Look at all of the early 20th century “scientific consensus” on the need for computers.
If a privately used drug impairs a person’s social viability, then the consequence of that use is not limited to the private sphere.
“Social viability”? If such a person became “socially inviable”, then it would be up to sociaety to shun him, not for the government to punish.
It all boils down to individual rights. If I were to (say) smoke a joint to relax after work in the evenings, how is that different than drinking a six-pack?
If I were to smoke a joint to deal with stress, how is that different than popping a Valium or Xanax?
If I were to smoke a joint for pain relief, how is that different than buying OTC Motrin or Advil?
If I were to grow some pot plants for my own use, how is that different than using the lemons and oranges that grow on the trees in my yard?
ooohhhh......I have to COMPLETELY disagree with this. Name ONE other superstar on Detriot’s offence during Barry’s tenure......
Herman Moore?
I didn’t think so. Anybody who gets 62% of his rushing yards before ‘first touch’ should get a hall-of-fame invitation, though ---- for his offensive line.
Emmitt Smith has more rushing yards than anyone else in the history of the game. He has earned the right to be called the greatest running back ever. Not to mention the most rushing TDs ever, also.
Jim Brown was surrounded by an All Star cast, but few people mention that when judging his career.
Like I said, when the same was offered here in Nevada, 70% of voters said “no”.
As is Nevada’s right. But if California (and nine other States) were to pass laws permitting it (55.6% in favor), why shouldn’t they be permitted to do so?
What is that? Is there a measure by which society determines whether or not I’m “viable”? I may not be living up to expectations regardless of my undisclosed vices.
That sounds really scary, Matt.
I suppose it’s relative to one’s walk of life, but I think a workplace has a right to fire a person for showing up late every single day. That would be a person who’s not “viable” for that ring of society.
I’m not asking for a person to find the cure for cancer, but rather for what is generally considered “fair” by most everyone’s standards. Like, not breaking the law and having a job and not ruining things for everyone else.
Herman Moore?
I said superstar.
Jim Brown was surrounded by an All Star cast, but few people mention that when judging his career.
I do.
Emmitt Smith has more rushing yards than anyone else in the history of the game. He has earned the right to be called the greatest running back ever. Not to mention the most rushing TDs ever, also.
Actually, Walter Payton was the best running back ever. Emmitt just has the most yards and TD’s. (Thanks to the aforementioned all-star offensive line)
But that is to make sure that the experiments produce the same results, not to persuade as to subjective efficacy. For example, I never heard of a vote on whether or not evolution is valid (and I’m not hijacking the thread, so don’t go there).
Is there widespread support that marijuana improves one’s health? Is there an objective advantage to it that is without cost?
Scientific consensus is crap. Look at all of the 19th-century “scientific consensus” about whether heavier-than-air flight is possible. Look at all of the early 20th century “scientific consensus” on the need for computers.
I don’t begrudge people doubting things which have never happened to suddenly happen. This is a matter of outlook, which is an independent issue on its own right.
“Social viability”? If such a person became “socially inviable”, then it would be up to sociaety to shun him, not for the government to punish.
I don’t see why both can’t exist, or one or the other, depending on the issue. If I show up for work drunk and they get pissed and send me home with a demerit to my record, I’ve been punished socially, and when I smash into a car on the way home, the government would have a right to say something for it as we should expect it to. And in the name of the person who I had hit and for everyone who was on the road, minding their business, who didn’t deserve the unnescessary risk I had provided by driving drunk in the first place.
It all boils down to individual rights. If I were to (say) smoke a joint to relax after work in the evenings, how is that different than drinking a six-pack?
If I were to smoke a joint to deal with stress, how is that different than popping a Valium or Xanax?
If I were to smoke a joint for pain relief, how is that different than buying OTC Motrin or Advil?
If I were to grow some pot plants for my own use, how is that different than using the lemons and oranges that grow on the trees in my yard?
In a vacuum, I don’t think there’s much difference.
But if California (and nine other States) were to pass laws permitting it (55.6% in favor), why shouldn’t they be permitted to do so?
They should be permitted to do so. The SCOTUS is wrong on this one imo.
I’m not asking for a person to find the cure for cancer, but rather for what is generally considered “fair” by most everyone’s standards.
I know plenty of viable, highly effective people who smoke pot. Some of them even run their own corporations, are doctors, scientists, etc…
How does society determine who is “viable”? If I were to decide, the measure would not be drug use but willingness to accept responsibility for one’s actions. I think that’s a better, more encompassing measure, if we’re going to have measures.
Then again, despite a person’s success or effectiveness, some people would still be bent on judging them on just one aspect of their life.
As is Nevada’s right. But if California (and nine other States) were to pass laws permitting it (55.6% in favor), why shouldn’t they be permitted to do so?
If state laws contradict federal laws, then federal laws should override. I think if we want a “state by state drug policy” when a federal one already exists, then the change should be made at the federal level to allow such a thing. I can’t support a BREAKING of traditional roles and responsibilities, which states have.
A lot of people my age grew up with Cheech and Chong as the model of people who smoke pot. It was funny but not something to attain to. I know that isn’t the average pot smoker’s m.o. but a lot of people think it is.
Yep, I’m happy for this ruling. Now we can get away from focusing on illegal immigration, searching for terrorists, violent gangs, and catching murderers, and start focusing on the real problem, which is ailing people smoking pot. Man, I know I can sleep well tonight.
Did anyone ever see the program on the History Channel about motivations to make pot illegal? It’s interesting stuff, and it didn’t have anything to do with health in the beginning, but then ‘health’ became the pressing issue when it helped to stir the public a little more (if anyone mentioned this already, I apologize, I haven’t read all the comments yet). Now this drug war has almost turned into a religion itself, and these drugs are supposed to be the devil I guess. Just do oxicotin sp? from now on like Rush does.
A lot of people my age grew up with Cheech and Chong as the model of people who smoke pot.
And a previous generation had “Reefer Madness”. Just complete misinformation all around.
[Handed his first joint]
Pinto: I won’t go schizo, will I?
Jennings: It’s a distinct possibility.
I said superstar.
Herman Moore went to 4 Pro Bowls, had over 9000 yards receiving, with 670 catches and 62 TDs. Except for TDs, that’s Terrell Owens figures.
I do.
It’s uniquely held against Emmitt Smith, and unfairly so. Typically, when someone is evaluating a career, they tend to mention championships and the like as a PLUS on the resume. Not with Smith and that’s wrong. He was a central piece to the team. And he did accomplish his record despite rushing on 7 teams with a losing record, which is more than Sanders can say.
Actually, Walter Payton was the best running back ever. Emmitt just has the most yards and TD’s. (Thanks to the aforementioned all-star offensive line)
Yeah, and Hank Aaron is “just” the all time leading home run hitter, Kareem Abdul-Jabar is “just” the all time leading NBA scorer, and Wayne Gretzky is “just” the all time leading NHL scorer.
I know plenty of viable, highly effective people who smoke pot. Some of them even run their own corporations, are doctors, scientists, etc…
How does society determine who is “viable”? If I were to decide, the measure would not be drug use but willingness to accept responsibility for one’s actions. I think that’s a better, more encompassing measure, if we’re going to have measures.
I second that and agree with it. But I don’t think anyone can casually dismiss what society determines as “unviable”. At some point, we have to accept values and norms over nihilism and personal taste.
At some point, we have to accept values and norms over nihilism and personal taste.
In fact, with the occasional discussion as to “who’s conservative” and who’s not, I would say the above is partially but essentially a definition of conservatism.
Sorry dude, your argument is the one that’s dumb because there’s this magic little amendment called the 10th amendment. You might want to read it a few times to make sure you parsed it completely before you continue this train of thought.
I have, more than a few, and understand it completely. See Article I, Section 8, Clause 18.
Here’s a politely phrased hint: Science doesn’t rely on consensus.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! Oh crap, sorry. That was just too funny. Try telling that to people who say that Evolution is Gospel because so many scientists agree on it. Oh wait, you are one of those people.
Since when is a privately grown plant on private land strictly for personal use considered “consumer goods”? People grow roses, but you don’t see the FBI kicking down doors to protect the rights of FTD…
I’m beginning to understand why scientists dislike discussing science with non-scientists. Let’s recap, shall we? California (and other states) designated marijuana a medication that could be prescribed by a doctor. That law, meant by the hippy liberal pot-heads to circumvent the drug laws, caused marijuana to enter the prescription medicine market. That is an interstate market. I won’t go through all the arguments as to why and how intrastate activity can and does affect interstate commerce when that activity involves a commodity of interstate commerce, you can read the cases yourself (they’re cited by the Court in this decision).
Growing, buying, and selling the pot, even at home for home consumption, impacts the interstate drug market, and therefore falls under Congress’ commerce clause. It really is a simple concept.
Speaking of all this, does anyone remember the Tonight Show the day after the election where California made medicinal pot legal? All of a sudden everyone in the band had stomach problems, headaches, etc. Pretty funny.
In fact, with the occasional discussion as to “who’s conservative” and who’s not, I would say the above is partially but essentially a definition of conservatism.
Actually, it is essentially a definition of “society”. Values and norms agreed upon by (most) citizens are necessary for a functioning society. Otherwise you have chaos. Suppose your values include something called “personal property”, and mine don’t. You’d be pretty pissed if I came along and took something you thought belonged to you. Without agreed upon values and norms, however, you’d have no recourse but to try and take back “your” stuff by force. That’s no way for a society to survive.
I think if we want a “state by state drug policy” when a federal one already exists, then the change should be made at the federal level to allow such a thing.
But can you show me any Constitutional justification for regulating ANYTHING of a medicinal nature?
That “Interstate Commerce” argument is the sheerest bullshit, because there IS no “Interstate Commerce” when it comes to what is grown and consumed on one’s own property. I don’t have to apply for a seller’s permit to eat my own lemons.
Try telling that to people who say that Evolution is Gospel because so many scientists agree on it. Oh wait, you are one of those people.
No, the actual evidence agrees on it, too. But this is not a thread about Creation and Evolution.
Why not choose how consensus “proved” that man could never fly? Or how the very best minds on the planet agreed that the Personal Computer would never happen? Oh, that’s right, it’s because those don’t offend your personal morals.
Growing, buying, and selling the pot, even at home for home consumption, impacts the interstate drug market, and therefore falls under Congress’ commerce clause.
No, it doesn’t, because there IS no “interstate marijuana commerce”. We’re talking about home-grown, either personal-use stuff or given away to patients free-of-charge. How can you have a commerce when nothing is either bought, sold, or traded?
Why marijuana? Why not personal use fruit trees? How about backyard vegetable gardens? Do those violate “Interstate commerce”?
Values and norms agreed upon by (most) citizens are necessary for a functioning society.
So 55.6% is no longer “most”?
I always thought “most” - “more than half"… I’m glad we have such Constitutional scholars to teach us otherwise.
I second that and agree with it. But I don’t think anyone can casually dismiss what society determines as “unviable”. At some point, we have to accept values and norms over nihilism and personal taste.
So no minority rights, which is one of the primary objectives of the Constitution?
I agree with social norms to a point, such as values that are near universal like punishment for murder, rape, robbery, etc. What one does to their own body is their business. If they go out and harm another then they should pay a big price whether they are on drugs or not. The problem is they get out in a few months or years, because the jails are full of non violent offenders. The proposed cure of outlawing this stuff is actually what is causing the violent problems that have come about. This is why gun control wouldn’t work either. Arresting what is perceived as a potential criminal, while letting the real ones go will fail every time.
But can you show me any Constitutional justification for regulating ANYTHING of a medicinal nature?
Well, I have my doubts that there is medicinal value in marijuana in the first place. I’d be interested in hearing whether or not proponents of legalization would support legalization if it were limited to, say, a pill form, and devoid of the elements that would lead to a high, but still with the same alleged medicinal advantages? Like a tablet of aspirin?
That “Interstate Commerce” argument is the sheerest bullshit, because there IS no “Interstate Commerce” when it comes to what is grown and consumed on one’s own property. I don’t have to apply for a seller’s permit to eat my own lemons.
But we are using a pretty fantastic example. Most pot smokers do not grow their own weed, and a good amount do not smoke for free.
Why not choose how consensus “proved” that man could never fly? Or how the very best minds on the planet agreed that the Personal Computer would never happen? Oh, that’s right, it’s because those don’t offend your personal morals.
Nobody had ever flown before 1903. Science is about proving what is and isn’t possible, it’s about observing what is.
Why marijuana? Why not personal use fruit trees? How about backyard vegetable gardens? Do those violate “Interstate commerce”?
Well, police give citations for neighborhood vendors of such things, but that’s not exactly the same thing you’re talking about, granted…
So no minority rights, which is one of the primary objectives of the Constitution?
Objectives of the Constitution are part of our values, so one can say protecting “minority rights” are included. However, I would contest the idea that smoking pot is “a right”.
What one does to their own body is their business. If they go out and harm another then they should pay a big price whether they are on drugs or not. The problem is they get out in a few months or years, because the jails are full of non violent offenders. The proposed cure of outlawing this stuff is actually what is causing the violent problems that have come about. This is why gun control wouldn’t work either. Arresting what is perceived as a potential criminal, while letting the real ones go will fail every time.
Well, it’s possible that the cost of having marijuana is more than the reward.
But I think this why arguing for illegal marijuana but legal alcohol is not hypocritical: the limited but real value of alcohol in society makes it work keeping legal when the costs that come with outlawing it are greater than those that exist when it is legal.
Science is about proving what is and isn’t possible, it’s about observing what is.
*isn’t about proving what is and isn’t possible, that is....
Most pot smokers do not grow their own weed, and a good amount do not smoke for free.
You’re talking about the recreational user. I’m talking about medical marijuana.
And as for the “I have my doubts that there is medicinal value in marijuana in the first place”, I wasn’t aware you were a doctor. I would also like to point out that it’s calming power is well-documented, as has it pain relief capacity. It also improves appetite (to the point where it is an ongoing joke).
Cancer patients are often in pain, under stress, and have no appetite, and marijuana alleviates all of these symptoms simultaneously, with no major deleterious side effects.
By the time the United States banned the plant (the first country to do so), it was no longer extremely popular. The only opponent to the bill, The Marihuana Tax Act, was the representative of the American Medical Association.
Later in the century, researchers investigating methods of detecting marijuana intoxication discovered that smoking the drug reduced intraocular pressure. High intraocular pressure causes blindness in glaucoma patients, so many believed that using the drug could prevent blindness in patients. Many Vietnam War veterans also believed that the drug prevented muscle spasms caused by battle-induced spinal injuries. Later medical use has focused primarily on its role in preventing the wasting syndromes and chronic loss of appetite associated with chemotherapy and AIDS, along with a variety of rare muscular and skeletal disorders. Less commonly, cannabis has been used in the treatment of alcoholism and addiction to other drugs such as heroin and the prevention of migraines.
But YOU hadn’t heard of any of that, so all those people who might have benefitted will just have to cope with their symptoms unaided, huh?
Science is about proving what is and isn’t possible, it’s about observing what is.
Which is why “scientific consensus” doesn’t mean shit.
Jail = Free quality healthcare. Not a bad idea for a cancer patient.
Quality healthcare is never free.
You’re talking about the recreational user. I’m talking about medical marijuana.
And as for the “I have my doubts that there is medicinal value in marijuana in the first place”, I wasn’t aware you were a doctor. I would also like to point out that it’s calming power is well-documented, as has it pain relief capacity. It also improves appetite (to the point where it is an ongoing joke).
True, but now that you mention it, I can’t think of a single thing that has a “medical use” that’s not regulated.
Cancer patients are often in pain, under stress, and have no appetite, and marijuana alleviates all of these symptoms simultaneously, with no major deleterious side effects.
Reaction time, artificially induced paranoid, and laziness are “major deleterious side effects.”
Although one of my favorite Bill Hicks jokes is “They lie about marijuana. Tell you pot-smoking makes you unmotivated. Lie! When you’re high, you can do everything you normally do, just as well. You just realize that it’s not worth the fucking effort. There is a difference.”
But YOU hadn’t heard of any of that, so all those people who might have benefitted will just have to cope with their symptoms unaided, huh?
Marijuana isn’t the only way to relieve pressure or kick a habit. And it’s funny that should be an argument for its legalization, because pot has its own addictive qualities.
Which is why “scientific consensus” doesn’t mean shit.
I mistyped my statement in the first place, it should have said: “Science isn’t about proving what is and isn’t possible, it’s about observing what is.”
Objectives of the Constitution are part of our values, so one can say protecting “minority rights” are included. However, I would contest the idea that smoking pot is “a right”.
The Constitution was a law written to define what the government can do, i.e. set limits on the strength and scope of government. It is not a document to limit what the people can do. It is your right as a human being, and was the basis of the Constitution, to do what you want as long as you are not adversely affecting someone else. That includes smoking pot, rubbing one out, eating a burger full of fat, watching Friends on TV, or any other thing that might be considered distasteful to some or many people. Now, if you want to say someone smoking pot beat their wife, then they should be punished for harming another person, whether it was due to the drug or not. Considering the drafts of the Constitution were written on hemp paper, I don’t think marijuana was a big issue for these guys.
Headline: Washington, Jefferson, Madison and others arrested for violating Federal law while drafting the Constitution. Bush plans to prosecute.
I can’t think of a single thing that has a “medical use” that’s not regulated.
Aspirin (and assorted low level pain pills, such as Tylenol Motrin, etc.)
Aloe Vera plants (I have one on my kitchen windowsill.)
Antacids.
Laxatives.
Antibiotic topical creams.
Assorted cold medications (Cough syrup/Nyquil, Dristan, other OTC medications).
Innumerable mechanical health aids (wheelchairs, shower chairs, canes/crutches, eyeglasses, hearing aids)
Etc.
For a complete list, go take a look at your local drug store, and see how many kinds of “medical use material” you can walk out of there with, and no prescription needed.
The Constitution was a law written to define what the government can do, i.e. set limits on the strength and scope of government. It is not a document to limit what the people can do.
But it does exactly that. To secure a “right” necessarily means putting limitations on something else which may threaten that right. The government may be the source of this threat...society itself may be. We should recognize that threats to real freedom come from various sources and that some “rights” are not rights at all but desires.
It is your right as a human being, and was the basis of the Constitution, to do what you want as long as you are not adversely affecting someone else. That includes smoking pot, rubbing one out, eating a burger full of fat, watching Friends on TV, or any other thing that might be considered distasteful to some or many people.
Personal tastes should not be the BASIS of freedom, because it allows itself to a moral relativism society cannot long sustain.
And it is only an assumption that personal tastes do not affect others. I think you will agree that if a person cannot handle their “tastes” in a responsible manner then it is perfectly within the right of society, other individuals, or the government to have a say about it.
Considering the drafts of the Constitution were written on hemp paper, I don’t think marijuana was a big issue for these guys.
Yeah, but I don’t think marijuana was much of an issue then, either.
Headline: Washington, Jefferson, Madison and others arrested for violating Federal law while drafting the Constitution. Bush plans to prosecute.
You can’t be arrested retroactively for doing something that was once legal when it was still legal.
And it’s funny that should be an argument for its legalization, because pot has its own addictive qualities.
Perhaps “habituation”, in that those who “smoke the chronic” need more to get the same effect over time, but addiction? We’re talking about prescribed marijuana, NOT the casual or recreational user.
I would argue that Xanax or Valium is MUCH more addictive than pot, and I can prove that the heavy pain-killers (Vicodin, Morphine, Demerol, etc.) are fiendishly addictive, yet doctors see no problem with prescribing these drugs when their is a medical need for it.
You keep arguing against casual use, and end up proving the case for medical marijuana. Try and stay on target here.
Aspirin (and assorted low level pain pills, such as Tylenol Motrin, etc.)
Aloe Vera plants (I have one on my kitchen windowsill.)
Antacids.
Laxatives.
Antibiotic topical creams.
Assorted cold medications (Cough syrup/Nyquil, Dristan, other OTC medications).
Innumerable mechanical health aids (wheelchairs, shower chairs, canes/crutches, eyeglasses, hearing aids)Etc.
For a complete list, go take a look at your local drug store, and see how many kinds of “medical use material” you can walk out of there with, and no prescription needed.
I’d be interested in knowing whether or not the ubiquity of warning labels on these products are there because of the altruism of the manafacturers or not.
Perhaps “habituation”, in that those who “smoke the chronic” need more to get the same effect over time, but addiction? We’re talking about prescribed marijuana, NOT the casual or recreational user.
I would argue that Xanax or Valium is MUCH more addictive than pot, and I can prove that the heavy pain-killers (Vicodin, Morphine, Demerol, etc.) are fiendishly addictive, yet doctors see no problem with prescribing these drugs when their is a medical need for it.
You keep arguing against casual use, and end up proving the case for medical marijuana. Try and stay on target here.
No, I just think that it’s kind of strange to use an addictive drug to kick another addictive drug. I know it happens, I just think it’s modestly humorous.
And it is only an assumption that personal tastes do not affect others. I think you will agree that if a person cannot handle their “tastes” in a responsible manner then it is perfectly within the right of society, other individuals, or the government to have a say about it.
Exactly. I agree 100%. The key is …if a person cannot handle their “tastes” in a responsible manner… It’s not up to us to assume and arrest a person before hand. The key to a safer world is harsh punishment for the few criminals who do harm. Not punish everyone because we think they might.
Headline: Washington, Jefferson, Madison and others arrested for violating Federal law while drafting the Constitution. Bush plans to prosecute.
You can’t be arrested retroactively for doing something that was once legal when it was still legal.
True. I guess that’s why Bush isn’t being interrogated right now for his alleged coke use. It’s always better to throw down the law after you quit breaking it I guess.
But it does exactly that.
No, it doesn’t. The Constitution SPECIFICALLY grants all rights not already specified as belonging either to the Feds or the States directly to the People.
Personal tastes should not be the BASIS of freedom
Ignoring personal tastes, on the other hand, leads us to that old Wendy’s commercial ("Svimvearrrr… verry nice..."). If it is not for personal tastes, there is no trade in luxuries, because those are all about personal taste.
If we’re talking about eliminating personal taste in medicine, then you eliminate any possible choice of doctor, hospital, treatment option (as in whether or not to actually undergo that treatment - some people might not want to, but that is a function of personal taste).
Let’s not forget the whole “plastic surgery” and “elective surgery” fields. Piercings and tattoos are gone, too.
I think you will agree that if a person cannot handle their “tastes” in a responsible manner then it is perfectly within the right of society, other individuals, or the government to have a say about it.
Absolutely. But until that person shows that they cannot be responsible (by causing or threatening to cause harm to others), then the Government (or “Society") has no place telling them what they can and cannot do.
Yeah, but I don’t think marijuana was much of an issue then, either.
You don’t think they smoked the stuff? I could dig up a letter by Jefferson about how to separate the seeds (which is only necessary when growing the smokeable stuff). The Native Indians smoked “the pipe of peace” (and I don’t recall tobacco being very peaceful).
Ignoring personal tastes, on the other hand, leads us to that old Wendy’s commercial ("Svimvearrrr… verry nice..."). If it is not for personal tastes, there is no trade in luxuries, because those are all about personal taste.
Best commercial ever.
I’d be interested in knowing whether or not the ubiquity of warning labels on these products are there because of the altruism of the manafacturers or not.
No, I think it would be because of our litigious society. You can find comprehensive safety instructions on a box of toothpicks. Does that mean that we should ban them?
If you are trying to say that there should be some sort of quality control, I’m right there with you. (Anyone who has ever smoked it more than once can know that there are different grades, depending on the levels of THC. I think they should be licensed, inspected, certified, and available only with a doctor’s prescription.
No, it doesn’t. The Constitution SPECIFICALLY grants all rights not already specified as belonging either to the Feds or the States directly to the People.
But what is “all rights”? How is smoking pot “a right”? And if we accept that there is no such thing as an absolute right, then we also accept the government’s perogative and society’s approval to regulate such rights in the first place.
Ignoring personal tastes, on the other hand, leads us to that old Wendy’s commercial ("Svimvearrrr… verry nice..."). If it is not for personal tastes, there is no trade in luxuries, because those are all about personal taste.
If we’re talking about eliminating personal taste in medicine, then you eliminate any possible choice of doctor, hospital, treatment option (as in whether or not to actually undergo that treatment - some people might not want to, but that is a function of personal taste).
Let’s not forget the whole “plastic surgery” and “elective surgery” fields. Piercings and tattoos are gone, too.
I’m not arguing against personal taste or anything of that sort...I simply don’t believe that personal taste should be the BASIS of freedom. It’s a shoddy bedrock to philosophically base our beliefs of freedom in. It’s nihilism, moral relativism.
Absolutely. But until that person shows that they cannot be responsible (by causing or threatening to cause harm to others), then the Government (or “Society") has no place telling them what they can and cannot do.
Yeah, but I think the definition of “responsible” can be a little bit murky and subjective.
It’s easy for someone to say they don’t have a problem with alcohol…
You don’t think they smoked the stuff? I could dig up a letter by Jefferson about how to separate the seeds (which is only necessary when growing the smokeable stuff). The Native Indians smoked “the pipe of peace” (and I don’t recall tobacco being very peaceful).
I can’t imagine marijuana was ever exceptionally popular in American history before the hippies arrived.
No, I think it would be because of our litigious society. You can find comprehensive safety instructions on a box of toothpicks. Does that mean that we should ban them?
But that’s an extension of government regulation.
If you are trying to say that there should be some sort of quality control, I’m right there with you. (Anyone who has ever smoked it more than once can know that there are different grades, depending on the levels of THC. I think they should be licensed, inspected, certified, and available only with a doctor’s prescription.
Yeah, I should point out again that I’m for the legalization of pot, I just think this argument for “medical” reasons is a disingenuous trojan horse. Like I said, if they offered to legalize marijuana, provided it comes in a pill and 100% of its elements to make you high are taken out, I bet the enthusiasm for legalization would subside…
But what is “all rights”? How is smoking pot “a right”?
It isn’t. The issue is that the federal government has ZERO power under the Constitution to have an opinion on it one way or the other. They have no right to have any say in it. The issue is for the states to decide, and in this case ten states have decided that people should have the right to smoke pot.
Nevada allows prostitution under certain circumstances. Is there a right to visit a prostitute? Why shouldn’t the federal government have the right to tell Nevada to make prostitution illegal?
Bad for the SCOTUS to dictate to the states about medical uses for marijuana? Yes.
But in reality, think about handicapped parking passes. How many losers who are perfectly able to move about have one so they can land a sweet space at the mall?
So if it were up to the states to say who could or couldn’t use marijuana for “medicinal” purposes I guarantee you overnight there would be a 1600% jump in glaucoma and migraine sufferers.
Perhaps “habituation”, in that those who “smoke the chronic” need more to get the same effect over time, but addiction? We’re talking about prescribed marijuana, NOT the casual or recreational user.
So are we talking prescription-only pot or the right for everyone to grow it in their back yards for headaches? I’m getting lost in the whole exchange here.
How is smoking pot “a right”?
How is it NOT? The whole point of the Constitution is that it tells the GOVERNMENT what it can and cannot do. The Ninth Amendment says that just because there are certain rights enumerated, that is by NO means a complete or comprehensuve list. And the Tenth says that if there is anything that they might have forgotten, that authority reverts to the States or to the People.
You don’t have the “right” to own a car, either. I mean, hey, that’s definitely covered under Interstate Commerce, so we should ban them, right? Think of all the lives that would be saved…
Nevada allows prostitution under certain circumstances. Is there a right to visit a prostitute?
Don’t forget gambling…
How many losers who are perfectly able to move about have one so they can land a sweet space at the mall?
My brother has one, he has arthritis in his knees. The key is, enforcing the proper use of the permit. He was issued the permit but I can’t use it. Not everyone is that honest. He had to have a doctor fill out a form stating that he has a valid need for it.
How many losers who are perfectly able to move about have one so they can land a sweet space at the mall?
Only those that can get a doctor’s prescription.
I should know. I have one. I had to jump through more hoops to get that placard than my wife did to get her blood pressure pills.
But if you are talking about doctors being lax with the prescription pad, that’s still a State issue, not a Federal one.
The key is, enforcing the proper use of the permit.
Same with medicinal marijuana.
But, once again, this is a State issue, not a Federal one.
But, once again, this is a State issue, not a Federal one.
Agreed. This is exactly how we got the federal abortion law. It isn’t a good thing.
So are we talking prescription-only pot or the right for everyone to grow it in their back yards for headaches?
They are intertwined, because until they make it available in your neighborhood pharmacy, growing a few plants at home is often the only LEGAL way to get the pot (because while possession for medical use is permitted, they are not permitted to either buy it or sell it - those are still crimes).
I am not arguing that EVERYBODY should be allowed to grow it, though, just those who have that prescription.
I guarantee you overnight there would be a 1600% jump in glaucoma and migraine sufferers.
You think that their doctors wouldn’t suspect why they might want it? If you think that there will be doctors who are being too lax in prescribing drugs, they can be dealt with in the same fashion as those doctors who will prescribe pain pills over the phone - investigation, loss of license, etc.
It isn’t. The issue is that the federal government has ZERO power under the Constitution to have an opinion on it one way or the other. They have no right to have any say in it. The issue is for the states to decide, and in this case ten states have decided that people should have the right to smoke pot.
Nevada allows prostitution under certain circumstances. Is there a right to visit a prostitute? Why shouldn’t the federal government have the right to tell Nevada to make prostitution illegal?
I’m not aware of any federal ban on prostitution. There is a federal ban on marijuana, however, and when state and federal law conflict, the federal law has always been assumed to override, unless that law specifically exempts full faith and credit, such as the Defense of Marriage Act.
There is a federal ban on marijuana, however, and when state and federal law conflict, the federal law has always been assumed to override
Unless that law violates the Constitution. Like this one does.
How is it NOT? The whole point of the Constitution is that it tells the GOVERNMENT what it can and cannot do. The Ninth Amendment says that just because there are certain rights enumerated, that is by NO means a complete or comprehensuve list. And the Tenth says that if there is anything that they might have forgotten, that authority reverts to the States or to the People.
If a “right” requires the protection of the government then it also assumes the government’s ability to regulate it…
If anyone ... you know… here has glaucoma.. or someshit… I can .. um.. you know… provide Canadian drug assistance (I know a guy who knows a guy). I’m just sayin’. :-)
Is this a not at all helpful time to point out that Canada, grower of thee most wicked weed in the world, is moving towards deciminalizing small quantities of pot or personal possession, growing, and consumption. While this isn’t full legalization, this makes it equivalent to a parking ticket. :-)
Unless that law violates the Constitution. Like this one does.
How so? The Constitution allows Congress to write up laws and the President to execute them, and it’s long been accepted that federal laws override state laws, so how does it “violate the Constitution”?
Good point on the parking permit. People can fake medical conditions to get whatever drugs (or passes) they need. By making pot legal if you can feign the right illness gives people incentive to do so. At the same time who is to say those same doctors won’t play fast and loose with their marijuana prescriptions?
I am not arguing that EVERYBODY should be allowed to grow it, though, just those who have that prescription.
If you allow people to grow it in their own yards only if they have a prescription is going to make it a real bitch to enforce things. At the very least it should be grown by medical manufacturers and distributed through pharmacies.
Just a nasty, slippery slope. What about when someone wants to grow opium in their back yard for their “back problem”?
If a “right” requires the protection of the government then it also assumes the government’s ability to regulate it…
A right doesn’t require the government’s protection. Its job is to protect us from people who harm one another. Period.
I disagree that it is a slippery slope, though I can understand how it could be argued that there is that risk, because pot is pretty much absolutely nothing like opium, coke, meth (etc). That being said, if there were legitimate medically studied reasons for perscribing opium or coke and it was the only thing that worked.. fuck it.. perscribe it and keep the patient under strictly controlled conditions. I err on the side of the patients, personally. I would not partake in this lightly, though… I think they should be tested for efficacy beforehand as well.
If a “right” requires the protection of the government then it also assumes the government’s ability to regulate it…
Who says that I need the government’s protection to grow a few plants? Or anybody for that matter?
At the same time who is to say those same doctors won’t play fast and loose with their marijuana prescriptions?
Who says they aren’t already playing fast and loose with their Valium prescriptions? Or should we just treat those doctors who do the same as we treat the current pill mills?
At the very least it should be grown by medical manufacturers and distributed through pharmacies.
YES!! But that is still a State issue, not a Federal one.
Just a nasty, slippery slope. What about when someone wants to grow opium in their back yard for their “back problem”?
If they have a prescription to do that, then how does the government have a right to interfere between a doctor and a patient?
Its job is to protect us from people who harm one another. Period.
Okay, but then I can only think of two reasons to support such an argument, one being for the “general welfare” for society and the other is, indeed, to protect a right from being infringed on.
With both of those reasons, we’re left to the murky, subjective definitions again (such as “what is ‘harm’, what really is a ‘right’?")....
Would I be wrong in assuming the gallery has no problem with gay marriage? I don’t think the arguments are very different (it doesn’t harm anyone, it’s nobody else’s business, etc.).
"If you allow people to grow it in their own yards only if they have a prescription is going to make it a real bitch to enforce things. At the very least it should be grown by medical manufacturers and distributed through pharmacies.”
Not really. Up here you can already do it. You can get a perscription for medical marijuana and either receive your weed from the government grown supply (which they had some quality control issues when they first started out), grow your own, or designate someone else to grow it for you if you are unable to grow it yourself (say, if you’re disease is too far along). The cops know who is growing because you’re registered with them. I think they can pop by to make sure you’re not growing too much and supplying the neighborhood Led Zep fans. I haven’t heard of any troubles with this program to date, but it is a small program.. and it is far eclipsed with the massive problem we’re having with large-scale residential and industrial grow-ops.
The Constitution allows Congress to write up laws and the President to execute them, and it’s long been accepted that federal laws override state laws, so how does it “violate the Constitution”?
By pretending that the Constitution gives Congress the authority to interefere between a doctor and his patient. Show me where that clause is, and I won’t have to use the Ninth and Tenth to show that Congress DOESN’T have that authority.
Matt: I fully support gay marriage as well, since you asked.
Who says that I need the government’s protection to grow a few plants? Or anybody for that matter?
If somebody throws salt over your backyard fence and ruins your crop, should you be able to seek recourse for it or is it your own tough luck that some people are jerks?
The last thing I want to do is smoke my lovely-wovely yet highly-expensive greenbud for medicinal purposes. I prefer to keep it as my one true mechanism for escape from this cruel unjust world.
That and for watching episodes of South Park.
Oh…and fucking. I may be a puritan...but I still likes me some stank-bud fucking.
Why would I want to ruin it by associating it with pain and misery? I say leave that to vicodin, morphine and alcohol.
Thank you SCOTUS for seeing the bigger picture.
Keep pot where it belongs…in the closet with queers.
TUA: And “in the open with Canucks”? :-)
Would I be wrong in assuming the gallery has no problem with gay marriage?
Again, a State’s Right matter, not a Federal one. I am personally opposed, and if California voted to permit it, I would probably move, but it is within a State’s authority to legislate that issue, because Congress doesn’t have it.
The only thing Congress can do - absent a Constitutional Amendment - is to define what “marriage” means as far as the federal Statutes go. And they have already done so (under Clinton, IIRC).
Drum: “under Clinton, IIRC”
DOMA, 1998, I think.
should you be able to seek recourse for it or is it your own tough luck that some people are jerks?
Just as if they had dumped salt over the fence and ruined my citrus trees, I should be able to sue for the retail value of replacement.
Any other questions?
Winning lotto numbers?
Would I be wrong in assuming the gallery has no problem with gay marriage? I don’t think the arguments are very different (it doesn’t harm anyone, it’s nobody else’s business, etc.).
I can’t speak for anyone but myself, but to me, marriage as a form of government control should be removed, i.e. tax breaks or other government benefits. Some people get married for this reason, and it is wrong. Leave it up to the various religions to dictate who is married or not in accordance to their beliefs. I think the majority of the problem with the whole marriage thing revolves around government interference, benefits or otherwise, that the government has no business getting involved with in the first place.
Thanks, Sean.
Posted by Tj on 06/06 at 09:37 PM
Winning lotto numbers?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
In some order, and six at a time.
Any others?
How so? The Constitution allows Congress to write up laws and the President to execute them, and it’s long been accepted that federal laws override state laws, so how does it “violate the Constitution”?
Because federal laws only override state laws insofar as the Constitution gives the federal government power to pass the law in the first place. The Congress cannot just pass any law they want to, they only have a few specific powers which they may exercise. ALL other powers (except those not forbidden to the states) default to the states, and if the states choose not to exercise them or to renounce them, to the people themselves.
NOW… If the federal government has that power in the Constitution, has not exercised it, and some state governments have taken it into their own hands, the federal government *can* come in and stomp all over them, hence the Nullification issue.
That said, Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce, that is, commerce between states. They do *not* have the power to regulate commerce within a state. (For many decades, the federal minimum wage only applied to companies that did business over state lines for this reason. Then, they decided to crap all over the Constitution around the time of FDR.)
Hence the lawsuit: California’s medical marijuana is grown in California, handled in California, given to Californians. There is nothing interstate about it. HOWEVER, using a slightly iffy interpretation of a WWII-era decision about wheat farming under quota on federal land grants, the Supreme Court has decided that medical marijuana “frustrates” federal regulation of interstate commerce, because it would “inevitably” be sold out of state eventually.
Of course, as the dissent pointed out, there is no evidence that this would have any meaningful effect on the marijuana market, and as I believe Justice Thomas pointed out, if Congress can extend their powers simply because individual or state’s rights “frustrate” federal control, then there is no meaningful limit on federal power.
The majority argued that if that were true, it would mean that the Controlled Substance Act is itself, unconstitutional, and they’re right: It probably is, and as above, if state’s rights make it too hard to enforce the law, then it’s simply unenforceable, and Congress needs to back the hell off.
Just as if they had dumped salt over the fence and ruined my citrus trees, I should be able to sue for the retail value of replacement.
Not if they’ve been banned. Allergies from fruit trees placed in a residential zone can affect interstate commerce too you know.
I can’t speak for anyone but myself, but to me, marriage as a form of government control should be removed, i.e. tax breaks or other government benefits. Some people get married for this reason, and it is wrong. Leave it up to the various religions to dictate who is married or not in accordance to their beliefs.
You can speak for me, too.
Just as if they had dumped salt over the fence and ruined my citrus trees, I should be able to sue for the retail value of replacement.
Any other questions?
But this is government protection of property. Protection presumes regulation.
More correctly, I support “marriage” being returned to the private, and non-legally binding, realm of the churches. The only legally binding relationship contract should be the “civil union”, which would be open to same and opposite sex couples. If people want to have a religious ceremony over and above the secular public one, that’s their call. Everyone wins.
But this is government protection of property.
On a par with laws against “destruction of private property” and “vandalism”, not “regulation of Interstate Commerce”.
On a par with laws against “destruction of private property” and “vandalism”, not “regulation of Interstate Commerce”.
And in a state court. Congress, at least as far as I recall, has no power to regulate in this field. It’s a matter that is passed down to the states and the people.
Growing, buying, and selling the pot, even at home for home consumption, impacts the interstate drug market, and therefore falls under Congress’ commerce clause. It really is a simple concept.
What a load of crap. Buying and selling is commerce. Growing is not.
So, if I grow ginseng for whatever health benefits I think it has, does that impact interstate commerce?
It only impacts interstate commerece in so much as the pharmaceutical companies don’t get to sell it to me and the government doesn’t get their cut.
You simply can’t escape the fact that cultivating a plant for yourself to consume is absolutely not commerce. If it was, all the fucking gardeners in the country would be regulated. JHFCOAS!
JHFCOAS!
What’s the ‘S’? I would have used ‘P’ (for ‘pogostick’).
"Marijuana makes darkies think they’re as good as white men” -Harry Anslinger
And, makes baby Jesus cry.
What a load of crap. Buying and selling is commerce. Growing is not.
Yes, and the feds have the power to regulate that actual buying and selling, the actual commerce, and to enforce those laws. They do *not* have the power to regulate conditions that lead to that commerce, no more than they can ban us from reading about crime, because reading about crime might lead to the committing of crime.
Stick.
Pogostick? Why complicate it with Hooke’s Law?
Because a pogostick at least gives him something to do. *shrug*
(I had to Google ‘Hooke’s Law’, btw. Nice one.)
A line from someone else that I like:
Distinctions between the important and the trivial, between the freedom to criticize received ideas and the freedom to take LSD, are precisely the standards that keep societies from barbarism.
Distinctions between the important and the trivial, between the freedom to criticize received ideas and the freedom to take LSD, are precisely the standards that keep societies from barbarism.
Change “take LSD” to “drink alcohol”, and you have Prohibition all over again.
But I know you’re not trying to appeal to authority, Matt, because I’ve asked to see which part of the Constitution expressly gives Congress the right to decide what medications are appropriate, or interfere with a medical regimen.
At the college I go to 80% of the pot available on and around the campus is medical. People with the perscriptions simply go to multiple legal dealers a week then come back and sell it. So from my perspective, as the system works in CA now, it is to easily scammed. That all being said I do support medical usage, and it is simply a given that a certain amount of the pot had legally will make its way to the black market no matter how well regulated it is.
Change “take LSD” to “drink alcohol”, and you have Prohibition all over again.
But there were practical shortcomings to the prohibition on alcohol and public support for ending it. We can’t say the same for LSD or marijuana (at least on the national level for the latter).
But I know you’re not trying to appeal to authority, Matt, because I’ve asked to see which part of the Constitution expressly gives Congress the right to decide what medications are appropriate, or interfere with a medical regimen.
It doesn’t, but it provides Congress with the duty of providing for the general welfare and the Constitution also does not specifically limit it from proscribing legislation that considers the general welfare.
I would say it would recognize proscriptive methods to pass a federal law recognizing state-by-state drug regulations. Since a national ban exists, that is what would be necessary for me to see state “defiance” on the issue as legitimate.
A year or two ago I went to see Korn in Oakland. One of my friends brought his girlfriend, and she worked at the Oakland Cannabis Club, who dispense the medical marijuana to patients. She brought along some samples of their wares, and HOLY FUCK did I get stoned out of my gourd. I haven’t been that fucked up since I was in Amsterdam.
So there.
So from my perspective, as the system works in CA now, it is to easily scammed.
So fix the system and punish the “doctors” who are churning out these bogus prescriptions. Don’t ban it nationally.
We can’t say the same for LSD or marijuana (at least on the national level for the latter).
Are you kidding me? There aren’t practical problems with the War on Drugs? What have you been smoking?
It doesn’t, but it provides Congress with the duty of providing for the general welfare and the Constitution also does not specifically limit it from proscribing legislation that considers the general welfare.
Bullshit. There’s more to be said for banning alcohol for “the general welfare” than banning any kind of medicine whatsoever. And I also feel that I should point out that there is no such thing - legally - as “the general welfare”. Because there is still nothing that allows Congress to ban medicine, nor to interfere between a doctor and their patient, nor to tell an individual what plants he or she may choose to grow.
Until that amateur gardener decides to gather a crop and actually sell it or give it away to anyone, then it does absolutely no harm whatsoever to anyone, and there is no Commerce for Congress to regulate, most especially not any interstate commerce.
The Federal Government has precisely ZERO Constitutional authority to ban the mere possession of ANYTHING.
It doesn’t, but it provides Congress with the duty of providing for the general welfare and the Constitution also does not specifically limit it from proscribing legislation that considers the general welfare.
Unfortunately, that is not the principle used in the Court’s argument, which could be argued, at least. It was simply wrong.
So from my perspective, as the system works in CA now, it is to easily scammed.
That’s well and good, but it’s also California’s problem. The Congress simply has no power to regulate intrastate commerce. They can only step in when interstate commerce happens.
Since we are throwing quotes, here is a good one.
A common passion or
interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the
whole; a communication and concert result from the form of
government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to
sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is
that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and
contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal
security or the rights of property; and have in general been as
short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.
-- James Madison, The Federalist Papers
About democracies without minority rights. And this government was never set up to be a democracy, no matter what BS the media tries to pass. Just thought I’d put this in here. You won’t find it on ABC, CBS, NBC, or at your local University anymore.
Are you kidding me? There aren’t practical problems with the War on Drugs? What have you been smoking?
There doesn’t seem to be much outcry from the general public to do away with it. It evidently isn’t that corrosive.
Bullshit. There’s more to be said for banning alcohol for “the general welfare” than banning any kind of medicine whatsoever.
Well that’s a pretty contentious statement. I agree that alcohol provides more danger, but we’ve already banned it nationally and it didn’t work, it’s social cost was high. The social cost for banning marijuana has been pretty minimal.
And I also feel that I should point out that there is no such thing - legally - as “the general welfare”. Because there is still nothing that allows Congress to ban medicine, nor to interfere between a doctor and their patient, nor to tell an individual what plants he or she may choose to grow.
Sure there is. It has been banned and the ban has been supported by legal means. Shall we dismantle the Supreme Court and ignore its decisions before we talk of “supporting the Constitution properly?” lol
Until that amateur gardener decides to gather a crop and actually sell it or give it away to anyone, then it does absolutely no harm whatsoever to anyone, and there is no Commerce for Congress to regulate, most especially not any interstate commerce.
And let’s be sober about this...the police are not going out and checking people’s closets for pot plants. If someone lights up a bong in thier living room (provided this is a house, not an apartment), realistically, nothing is going to happen to them, legally.
The Federal Government has precisely ZERO Constitutional authority to ban the mere possession of ANYTHING.
Enriched uranium? Pipe bombs? Photographs of pedophilia? Slaves?
About democracies without minority rights.
Damn good quote mikegaus.
The social cost for banning marijuana has been pretty minimal.
You mean other than the huge burden on our justice system, law enforcement, prisons, and the societally-crippled ex-cons?
It has been banned and the ban has been supported by legal means.
Look, just because 5 dudes in robes say that black is white does not make it so. The Constitution says what it says. Their ruling says different. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. The judges are wrong.
Shall we dismantle the Supreme Court and ignore its decisions before we talk of “supporting the Constitution properly?” lol
You’d be surprised at just how little the Constitution accidentally defines about the courts.
Enriched uranium? Pipe bombs? Photographs of pedophilia? Slaves?
Welcome to the wonderful post-FDR world where states have no sovereignity. (Except in the case of slavery, which was properly made unconstitutional by *constitutional amendment*. Previous to that time, it was a matter of state law.)
Damn good quote mikegaus.
It is, but I’ll still have to give Madison the credit. Unfortunately, I bet if I went to a college these days, I could pass it off as my own and no one would know. Even worse, most of them would think it was a horrible quote. At least the professors anyhow. What a bunch of fucking dickheads. I hated college except for the chicks and beer. Anyhow, I’m getting pissed again. I’ll stop now.
You mean other than the huge burden on our justice system, law enforcement, prisons, and the societally-crippled ex-cons?
I don’t believe that law enforcement and our justice system is zeroing in on marijuana users in the first place. I would venture to bet that most people who go through the justice system with marijuana-related charges either have some other issue that led to the charge in the first place or they are remarkably stupid, with their intellect getting them in trouble in the first place.
Welcome to the wonderful post-FDR world where states have no sovereignity. (Except in the case of slavery, which was properly made unconstitutional by *constitutional amendment*. Previous to that time, it was a matter of state law.)
To allow states the right to legalize private possession of enriched uranium, pipe bombs, and pedophilia sickens me to the point of disregarding the concept of “states’ rights” entirely. As for slavery, one might point out that the constitutionality of disallowing slaves and the rights of citizenship were made under duress. The Civil War decided the role of the federal government, no?
Enriched uranium? Pipe bombs? Photographs of pedophilia? Slaves?
As Aaron quite rightly points out, only that last is properly a Constitutional issue.
the police are not going out and checking people’s closets for pot plants. If someone lights up a bong in thier living room (provided this is a house, not an apartment), realistically, nothing is going to happen to them, legally.
Hate to point this out, but the whole start to this case (Ashcroft vs. Reitz) was the Feds arresting a woman for growing pot plants inside her own house, with a legally-issued doctor’s prescription and the whole of State Law behind her…
This case is the SCOTUS stomping all over a State’s Right to decide local laws for itself, and giving the Federal government the right to legislate anything at all, so long as a market might potentially exist for it somewhere (under an extraordinarily vague interpretation of the “Interstate Commerce” clause, whilst simultaneously ignoring the plain English of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments).
Yeah, and Hank Aaron is “just” the all time leading home run hitter, Kareem Abdul-Jabar is “just” the all time leading NBA scorer, and Wayne Gretzky is “just” the all time leading NHL scorer.
Actually, the better analogy would be if you said that Hank Aaron was the Greatest hitter, not the greatest home run hitter. While he may have been the greatest home run hitter if you only look at the raw numbers rather than HR/AB, or slugging%, or any other statistics, he was clearly not the best all-around hitter, just as Emmitt was not the “Greatest running back ever”.
(IE, it is stupid to not take into account all the other things that RB’s do, like blocking, catching passes out of the backfield, not fumbling, etc. Factor all of those other things in, and Emmitt was not THE BEST. He was definitely ONE of the best, just not THE best.)
(IE, it is stupid to not take into account all the other things that RB’s do, like blocking, catching passes out of the backfield, not fumbling, etc. Factor all of those other things in, and Emmitt was not THE BEST.
Emmitt Smith was possibly the best blocking HB in the league at his peak, had more than 100 catches than Barry Sanders, and, except for 2 seasons, Smith carried the ball more than Sanders did, which makes fumbling more likely (and, really, he only had 20 more fumbles while carrying the ball about 1400 more times).
I would venture to bet that most people who go through the justice system with marijuana-related charges either have some other issue that led to the charge in the first place or they are remarkably stupid, with their intellect getting them in trouble in the first place.
I would submit to you that when people are high on marijuana, they are prone to doing remarkably stupid things.
That’s why they smoke it.
To allow states the right to legalize private possession of enriched uranium, pipe bombs, and pedophilia sickens me to the point of disregarding the concept of “states’ rights” entirely.
Pipe bombs aside, which, I suppose, might be entertained in a few states for a while, can you name one state that you believe would legalize these things? What else sickens you? Gun ownership?
“I live in California, but it’s not enough that the law be my way in California! I demand that the laws be this way for EVERYONE!” Fuck, why don’t we just let the UN do it? Would meddling federal bureaucrats please butt the hell out so Missourians can be Missourians and Nevadans can be Nevadans, the way the Founding Fathers intended? If you want the federal government to have a power it doesn’t currently have, push for a constitutional amendment. If the rest of the states don’t want to be like yours, leave us alone.
As for slavery, one might point out that the constitutionality of disallowing slaves and the rights of citizenship were made under duress. The Civil War decided the role of the federal government, no?
No, ratification in 27 of the 36 states. Most of those states had already abolished slavery years and years earlier.
Why is someone bringing LSD and pot into the same discussion? Marijuana, from what I’ve researched is relatively harmless at the levels most users consume it at.
LSD, when used in an unsupervised manner can be extremely dangerous. Conversely, before it was banned, LSD was shown to have some very interesting capabilities in the area of removing phobias and violent imprints when administered in a very structured, clinical environment.
To me, the use of stuff like LSD, marijuana, or PCP shouldn’t be illegal, but rather law enforcement should be focused on those dumbasses who drive under the influence of said substances, or who commit other crimes while under the influence - exactly as alchohol related crimes are prosecuted.
Hell, it would be ok with me to make it illegal to be under the influence of PCP anywhere other than in your house by yourself. LSD could be illegal to use except by order and supervision of a physician. Illegal by laws of the respective states where such legislation is supposed to be enacted.
To allow states the right to legalize private possession of enriched uranium, pipe bombs, and pedophilia sickens me to the point of disregarding the concept of “states’ rights” entirely.
Coincidentally, you *are* aware that the federal government itself can repeal the laws about child pornography and the like *anytime they like*, right? Again, based on that, should we just disregard the concept of “national sovereignty” entirely, and let the UN regulate everything that sickens you?
Why do you believe it is morally superior for the federal government, which is far removed from the people, versus the state government, which is close to the people, to manage these issues? Why do you assume that they are somehow less likely to repeal these laws or more trustworthy to handle them fairly?
Aaron wins, he has changed my mind.
But I still think the arguments that marijuana should be legalized purely on medicinal purposes are disingenious and full of shit and I’m weary of the idea that our freedoms are allegedly founded upon a bedrock of personal taste. I dismiss the idea as a defense for nihilism.
Wait ‘til I start arguing that marijuana should not be “legalized”, but (rather) “decriminalized”. ;-)
A narrow distinction, but a Constitutionally arguable one.
Aaron wins, he has changed my mind.
Oh my God! I may be the first person ever to change a mind in an argument on this website! *crowns self*
But I still think the arguments that marijuana should be legalized purely on medicinal purposes are disingenious and full of shit and I’m weary of the idea that our freedoms are allegedly founded upon a bedrock of personal taste. I dismiss the idea as a defense for nihilism.
Well, our freedoms aren’t founded on personal taste, but personal taste is a matter of freedom. That said, the true purpose of our freedoms is to protect the individual from the tyrannt that is so often referred to as “the common good” or “what’s best for society”.
Oh my God! I may be the first person ever to change a mind in an argument on this website! *crowns self*
The irony is the advocate of freedom puts a crown on his head when he wins :) I give you credit though. You did have some good points.
Well, our freedoms aren’t founded on personal taste, but personal taste is a matter of freedom. That said, the true purpose of our freedoms is to protect the individual from the tyrannt that is so often referred to as “the common good” or “what’s best for society”.
I should repeat my sentiment that to allow the government to “legalize” or “protect” something is to give it the right to regulate it.
I see the same sentiment of the public clamoring for “gimme gimme gimme!” for trivial rights as an ironic method for kicking down the door and allowing the government to increase its stake in “the common good.” That the French people went apeshit when the government even hinted at questioning the economic value of the 35-hour work day is a blatant example when you invent and hadn out rights that aren’t really rights in the first place.
er, 35 hour work week…
A) The French are idiots.
That goes for points B-Z also.
A work week isn’t a right. Living your life how you want to is your right. As long as you take responsibility for your actions, you should be able to enjoy your accomplishments, and fix your own failures without society being forced to do it for you. If someone or a group wants to voluntarily help, that’s their business. If you want to help someone else, that should be your choice too. I don’t do drugs myself and don’t really care for people who do; I don’t like lefties bitching about this country all the time. There are tons of things I don’t like, but that also means I probably do things others don’t like. I defend their freedoms to defend mine. If I am actually harming someone physically or economically in a malicious manner, then I should pay a price. Same goes for anyone else. Until then, they have no more business telling me what to do, than I have telling them. That’s my argument for today anyhow.
I should repeat my sentiment that to allow the government to “legalize” or “protect” something is to give it the right to regulate it.
That’s actually Drum’s point about “decriminalizing”. It’s a matter of wordage: The theory upon which government is based starts from the premise that the natural condition of man is anarchy. The government has no inherent right to regulate anything, except that which we gave it when we established government. “Rights” are those things which come naturally to you as a free human being, not things which the government must do for you but rather things which the government cannot take away from you or do to you. A 35-hour work week isn’t a “right”, it’s just another tiny tyranny that has turned Europe into the ongoing disaster it is.
You’re arguing, I think, that the government, in it’s supremacy, either “allows” or “disallows” all things and that they are equivalent states, like “on” and “off”, and that’s just not how the law was established to operate, even though there are some people who try to turn our government into that.
The theory upon which government is based starts from the premise that the natural condition of man is anarchy. The government has no inherent right to regulate anything,
I was going to ask this, but didn’t find an appropriate moment to sneak it in and I guess this is as good as any.
We take the above sentiment for granted...that man is naturally free and we simply take away rights when its protects his overall rights to continue to do so.
So let’s not assume anything, here, and turn things around: why SHOULD pot be legal? I suppose you can think up not just philosophical but practical reasons.
except that which we gave it when we established government. “Rights” are those things which come naturally to you as a free human being, not things which the government must do for you but rather things which the government cannot take away from you or do to you.
I’m also having recent doubts as to how viable or truthful the “social contract” is and no longer know if I subscribe to it or not. I didn’t give the government permission FOR ANYTHING and neither did any other living American. Haven’t really articulated or concluded what the consequences of that are, but rather a sentiment I’ve been throwing around lately...Just thinking out loud.
A 35-hour work week isn’t a “right”, it’s just another tiny tyranny that has turned Europe into the ongoing disaster it is.
If society accepts it as a right, then it’s a tad hard to overcome the tide. I think what is critical here is to define where rights derive from. Which is my objection to “personal tastes” being the basis of civil rights and I kind of feel that this is the general trend of our own society...to become more like Europe.
Also, I see a natural conflict with the idea of assuming everything is “okay” as long as it’s one person’s own business by default up front. Seems to feed into the idea that everything is a natural right in the grand scheme of things, short of murder and theft.
You’re arguing, I think, that the government, in it’s supremacy, either “allows” or “disallows” all things and that they are equivalent states, like “on” and “off”, and that’s just not how the law was established to operate, even though there are some people who try to turn our government into that.
Well, maybe I’m publicly having a philosophical identity crisis, but originally my objection to the consensus here was that state law overrode federal law and that’s now how I understand things to work. My concern was with traditional American government protocol.
Emmitt Smith was possibly the best blocking HB in the league at his peak, had more than 100 catches than Barry Sanders, and, except for 2 seasons, Smith carried the ball more than Sanders did, which makes fumbling more likely (and, really, he only had 20 more fumbles while carrying the ball about 1400 more times).
You keep wanting to compare Emmitt and Barry....I would say Emmitt vs. Walter is a much closer comparison based on career length, running style, etc.
go here and tell me how many times Emmitt has the highest yards-per-carry average of the three backs, and remember, EMMITT HAD AN INCREDIBLE OFFENSIVE LINE IN FRONT OF HIM!!! (You seem to continue to ignore that point....)
Hey, all -
Just a thought here. My wife and brother-in-law constantly criticize me for wanting to argue all the time. I am guessing that that is why I like this blog so much, and I am guessing that birds of a feather.....
Do the rest of you guys get similar comments from friends or family?
I am just curious......
go here and tell me how many times Emmitt has the highest yards-per-carry average of the three backs
I’d say yards gained is more impressive than yards/carry...besides, Emmitt had more attempts than Barry which will necessarily depress his yards/carry stat. I mean, what about the big games? Barry only broke 100 yards in one playoff game and even had a -1 game. Sanders carried for 4.2 in the playoffs, which is what Smiths was during his regular season career. And Barry’s numbers are inflated there, because in his 2nd best game, he ran for 69 yards in 12 attempts, but one rush was a 47 yard rush: his 5.8 yards/attempt there would only be 2.0 yards/attempt were it not for that single run. Smith, on the other hand, had over 1500 rushing yards in the playoffs alone, with 19 TDs...that would be pretty mind blowing if it were done in a single season.
EMMITT HAD AN INCREDIBLE OFFENSIVE LINE IN FRONT OF HIM!!! (You seem to continue to ignore that point....)
Jim Brown was surrounded by all stars, a great line, a great defense to help the offense out, and a Hall of Fame Coach. Besides, I think it’s folly to think that Emmitt Smith wasn’t a key part of the team. The Cowboys were 1-5 whenever Emmitt didn’t play and he played through some awful teams (7 losing seasons). He got the all time rushing record, nobody has run for more yards than him, best running back ever. All time rushing TDs record holder also should slam the door shut on it. That’s Pete Rose and Hank Aaron combined…
I’ve written this shit three times, so IE had better not crash this time. (Don’t even start, Lee. Screw your Mac with a butterknife. Heh.)
We take the above sentiment for granted...that man is naturally free and we simply take away rights when its protects his overall rights to continue to do so.
I would add that the natural state is anarchy, which is not inherently free, but can end in slavery and tyranny. Good government defends the virtues of anarchy while suppressing the violence and fraud that can come to dominate the marketplace and society.
So let’s not assume anything, here, and turn things around: why SHOULD pot be legal? I suppose you can think up not just philosophical but practical reasons.
Why SHOULD pre-marital sex be legal? We can’t start from that premise, as that question shows. Just because it has no redeeming value to John doesn’t entitle him to decide for anyone else. If I were arguing for it though, I’d point out the tiny social cost of marijuana versus the huge burden it places on our justice system and law enforcement. Of course, medical marijuana isn’t the same as legalization.
I didn’t give the government permission FOR ANYTHING and neither did any other living American. Haven’t really articulated or concluded what the consequences of that are, but rather a sentiment I’ve been throwing around lately...Just thinking out loud.
You inherited it. It’s been passed down to you from ancestors who fought for the thing, elected the state legislatures that ratified it, or made the decision to flee Dominicylvania and come through Ellis Island. You’re welcome to push for changes here through the amendment system, or alternately, join another elsewhere, that you might pass down to your children along with all the crap in your basement.
...I kind of feel that this is the general trend of our own society...to become more like Europe.
I think we’ve slain that dragon: Europe is hilarious.
Seems to feed into the idea that everything is a natural right in the grand scheme of things, short of murder and theft.
If you aren’t infringing on anyone else’s natural rights, and you aren’t consuming someone else’s taxpayer dollars with it, can you really name anything that *isn’t*?
...but originally my objection to the consensus here was that state law overrode federal law and that’s now how I understand things to work. My concern was with traditional American government protocol.
Traditional government protocol, of course, is to refer to the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land (TM). In my original draft of this, I had tons of cool excerpts from the Constitution showing how both before and after the Civil War, it was clearly understood that the Constitution delineated two seperate spheres of influence for state and federal government, but screw that.
All the same, there are very specific powers which are given to Congress. All other powers, except those forbidden to the states in the Constitution (and there are a few), default to the states and the people.
The framers thought at the time, interestingly, that the Bill of Rights was redundant, and it was not in the final draft of the Constitution. For example: The Bill of Rights forbids Congress from establishing a state religion, but Congress never had the power to establish a state religion in the first place. (Read Alexander Hamilton’s “Federalist” #84 for more about this.) Anti-federalist paranoia eventually won out.
So, no, the traditional protocol of American government is not whatever Congress says goes, “because we’re bigger than you are, bwahahaha”. Traditional protocol is that each state is effectively a sovereign nation, but delegating many of those powers to the government of our “united states”: Congress handles affairs between states (like regulating interstate commerce) and affairs that involve how the states deal with the outside world (such as treaties), while states handle their internal affairs (like schools and hospitals).
Schools frequently give the impression that the federal government can do anything that doesn’t offend the Bill of Rights, and gloss over this part, but the first ten amendments hold no more weight than any other portion of the document. The low point in all this, in my opinion, was FDR’s New Deal. When the Supremes finally tried to stand up to him, he tried to smash the Supreme Court, too. Since then, the boundaries have pretty much been in tatters, with abominations like the federal Department of Education serving as friendly reminders that we apparently don’t need no stinking Constitution.
I’m a states rights believer all the way, and rather than get into my reasoning re this Supreme “edict”:
Hmmmm…
I don’t seem to be in sinc with your “link” function, Lee. I was trying to link to
http://sethblog.squarespace.com where I already expressed my opinion at length in my post there, Supreme Micromanagement…
No, it doesn’t, because there IS no “interstate marijuana commerce”.
Oh, right. That’s rich. So nobody ever grew pot in the Oregon woods and drove it down to sunny L.A. to sell it on the beach? Oregon to California. California to Massachusetts. Whatever. Seems pretty obvious it is interstate. Not to mention YOU’RE MISSING THE FUCKING POINT. The law was not decided on the interstate illegal drug trade, but the legal drug trade.
It’s really simple. Try and follow the bouncing ball.
The medicinal marijuana laws designated pot as “medicine”. There is interstate commerce for medicine. Not only are medicinal drugs regulated by the Feds, their interstate market is to. Duh. That is what this case was decided on, go read it.
For a complete list, go take a look at your local drug store, and see how many kinds of “medical use material” you can walk out of there with, and no prescription needed.
Your insane if you think non-prescription is the same as non-regulated. Get real.
Why marijuana? Why not personal use fruit trees? How about backyard vegetable gardens? Do those violate “Interstate commerce”?
According to decided Supreme Court cases, they can implicate (nothing “violates” interstate commerce, that is a market not a law) it. That was the corn case that started this whole thing. Farmer grew corn for his own use - to eat and to use as feed for his animals. That violated the restrictions/quoatas set up by the Feds under the Commerce Clause. The farmer lost that case. If there were quotas on the types of fruits you grow in your backyard, then yes, that could arguably fall under the Commerce Clause authority of Congress. Fortunately for you, the government isn’t paying farm subsidies to artificially inflate the price of fruit, like they do with corn and other crops.
Try and follow the bouncing ball.
Follow THIS, you dumbass.
So nobody ever grew pot in the Oregon woods and drove it down to sunny L.A. to sell it on the beach?
Arrest them. Prosecute them. But that isn’t what this case is about.
This is about person who was growing a plant in her own home, for personal consumption medical use. She neither bought nor sold it, and had no intentions to buy or sell.
The Government claimed that this makes a “market” for it. Bullshit.
That violated the restrictions/quoatas set up by the Feds under the Commerce Clause.
Until you can show that “the government is paying farm subsidies to artificially inflate the price of pot”, or that “there are quotas on the types of pot I could grow in my spare bedroom”, they have no case here, by your own logic.
I am NOT talking about growing it for random distribution on high school campuses. I am talking about personal medical use, which does NOT fall under the Commerce clause. And if you are trying to claim that any new medications into a market that is already saturated is going to negatively influence the multi-billion dollar prescription drug market, then I am going to open up a coal oil plant and demand that Congress make anything else that comes along to compete gets punished under the Commerce Clause.
Until you can show that “the government is paying farm subsidies to artificially inflate the price of pot”, or that “there are quotas on the types of pot I could grow in my spare bedroom”, they have no case here, by your own logic.
Look, you made the analogy to fruit trees, that’s what the quota comment was about. Sheesh. Medicine is already regulated by the Feds, as is the interstate market for medicine. Intrastate production of medicine falls under that authority because it still has a direct effect on the interstate commerce of medicine. That is such a simple concept.
The problem here, you dumbass, is that some other dumbasses thought that by classifying weed as a “medicine” they could get around the whole illegal drug use thing. They screwed up because they moved pot from the Feds criminal law enforcement authority to its medicinal/interstate commerce authority. Cripes. Read the fucking Supreme Court decision rather than just the excerpts, it will prove enlightening.
And if you are trying to claim that any new medications into a market that is already saturated is going to negatively influence the multi-billion dollar prescription drug market, then I am going to open up a coal oil plant and demand that Congress make anything else that comes along to compete gets punished under the Commerce Clause.
Cripes, what a load of crap. You clearly do not understand the argument. They are two separate things. The quota reference had to do with your lame analogy of fruit trees. Don’t like the fact that Congress has the authority to regulate intrastate activity that affects interstate commerce? Start a petition to amend the Constitution.
The coal oil plant analogy is equally stupid. Feel free, start it up. That already falls under Fed authority (think FERC), so you’ll have to jump through several hoops. Fail to jump through them and the Feds will show up and shut you down. Follow the ruls and they’ll play nice-nice with you.
Nobody’s claiming that medicinal pot is going to negatively impact the prescription drug market. The fact that it is now classified as a medicine brings pot into the legitimate interstate market of all medicine (like that laundry list you posted earlier - at least I think it was you and don’t feel like looking for it now). Once the brain trust that came up with the “medicinal” marijuana argument did this they subjected pot and the “medicinal” users to Federal authority.
If you think you can introduce a new form of aspirin without falling under Federal authority, you’re insane. Even if you only mean to produce and distribute it locally. It really is a simple concept, whether you think its right or not it happens to be the law and constitutional.
” Wait ‘til I start arguing that marijuana should not be “legalized”, but (rather) “decriminalized”. ;-)”
Geez, Drumwaster, you’re starting to sound like a Canadian Liberal. :-)
Not at all. Pure Gum American conservative. Strict constructionist, even.
If I were to accept “legalization”, I would be granting the Federal Government the right to have declared it criminal in the first place. A semantic difference, but a crucial one.
I would add that the natural state is anarchy, which is not inherently free, but can end in slavery and tyranny. Good government defends the virtues of anarchy while suppressing the violence and fraud that can come to dominate the marketplace and society.
Yeah, but I’d say that we’re so removed from “the natural state” that the concept of an anarchy-ridden nature is too alien for our sensibilities. And, rather, that the “natural state” for us is society itself, the society we are born in.
Why SHOULD pre-marital sex be legal? We can’t start from that premise, as that question shows.
Well, then, why should it be? I mean, everyone seems to presume that everything is a right unless it is unreasonable. But why should it be that way?
Just because it has no redeeming value to John doesn’t entitle him to decide for anyone else.
I don’t know if I agree with that common sentiment anymore....I mean, the sacred “your rights end where others begin.” It’s an illusion to believe people are unaffected by their personal tastes and they carry that with them into society. The sum collection of a society believing in “live and let live” has led our generation to leave “reality television” to history as its greatest cultural contribution and Paris Hilton as the standard bearer of our society. What incentive is there aspire for any other standard than cheap horseshit if personal tastes and live/let live are the basis of our society?
I know, I know...it’s elitist and I’m not comfortable with it...I’m just chewing on a new philosophical bag out loud.
If I were arguing for it though, I’d point out the tiny social cost of marijuana versus the huge burden it places on our justice system and law enforcement.
Fair enough. I would consider that a legitimate reason. But I’d also point out, again, that I don’t think cops are bustin’ their asses off just to find stoners. At least not here, it may be different elsewhere. The modus operandi here seems to be that as long as you keep it private and relatively secretive, you’re not going to get busted for weed alone. If you have it on you and get caught for some other crime, that’s another story. And I think that’s a fair paradigm.
You inherited it. It’s been passed down to you from ancestors who fought for the thing, elected the state legislatures that ratified it, or made the decision to flee Dominicylvania and come through Ellis Island. You’re welcome to push for changes here through the amendment system, or alternately, join another elsewhere, that you might pass down to your children along with all the crap in your basement.
Well, yes, we have democratic institutions and we can affect our own government, but that is all inherited to my generation, not created by it. And this country is great because of its time tested institutions and the people who preserved it, along with their own ingenuity and resourcefulness, which a culture of “live and let live” does not foster. I have a hard time buying the idea that Patrick Henry offered his life over a bong collection or General Sherman razed Atlanta for the hope of gay marriage.
I don’t know...I’m just finding the status quo argument for what our society is based on as trivial or unsatisfying and I kind of feel like there was something greater and more profound that was forgotten...What that was, hell if I know! ;)
I think we’ve slain that dragon: Europe is hilarious.
Ha, well I get the sinking feeling that Europe and the United States are converging both culturally and politically. We’re becoming more like them, for the worst, and they’re becoming more like us, for better or worse.
If you aren’t infringing on anyone else’s natural rights, and you aren’t consuming someone else’s taxpayer dollars with it, can you really name anything that *isn’t*?
That we all have to live with each other in the grand scheme of things makes everyone’s “natural rights” everyone else’s business, I’m starting to feel. We can’t really blame someone for being an illiterate idiot if our values simply allow him--hell, support him to be an illiterate idiot. What incentive does he have to be anything else? His own personal choice? Meh...not really encouraging to hear.
I mean, everyone seems to presume that everything is a right unless it is unreasonable. But why should it be that way?
Because the Constitution says so.
I don’t know if I agree with that common sentiment anymore....I mean, the sacred “your rights end where others begin.”
And so you would seek to legislate anything and everything that your neighbor might do that might offend you personally.
No garage sales, because I don’t like crowds parking on the street.
No family visiting, because I don’t like the sound of little kids running around.
That we all have to live with each other in the grand scheme of things makes everyone’s “natural rights” everyone else’s business, I’m starting to feel.
But that’s the whole point. Unless you can show a harm to you or your family, you should have no right to dictate terms to your neighbor.
Be specific, if you can. How are you harmed by your neighbor smoking a joint? (Especially if that act was prescribed by his doctor.) He’s not tying you down and blowing waste smoke in your eyes, or forcing you to run to the store for Cheetos…
I really get offended by clothing - any clothing. I want a federal law that says no one can wear clothes in the United States because it is so repugnant to me.
And everyone has to get breast implants, cause, damn people, flat breasts are SO ugly when your clothes are off. And shave that fucking bush, it’s so annoying to ME ME ME.
And don’t get me started on penises ...
Because the Constitution says so.
But how does the Constitution justify everything under the sun being “a right”? If there is no difference between the freedom to seek redress against the government and the freedom to smoke a joint, then our freedoms are trivial.
And so you would seek to legislate anything and everything that your neighbor might do that might offend you personally.
No garage sales, because I don’t like crowds parking on the street.
No family visiting, because I don’t like the sound of little kids running around.
Not really. I suppose you can even argue that the first person in your examples is actually displaying the very “personal preferences over social concerns” I’m arguing against, although they’re not examples I would have thought up.
But that’s the whole point. Unless you can show a harm to you or your family, you should have no right to dictate terms to your neighbor.
Be specific, if you can.
Sure. A household that fosters apathy or outright disrespect for authority and fails to stress any motivation or importance for education that sends children into a school contributes towards a classroom culture which disrespects the virtues schools exist to inculcate in the first place, including intellectual development. That household is “infringing” on the rights of others, if the worldview is consistent at all (since education, and the basic need to stimulate one’s intellect are “rights” by the definition given here).
How are you harmed by your neighbor smoking a joint? (Especially if that act was prescribed by his doctor.) He’s not tying you down and blowing waste smoke in your eyes, or forcing you to run to the store for Cheetos…
If said smoker is a stupid fucking idiot, well I can’t seperate his lifestyle from the end product and you’ll excuse me for reacting in kind. I mean, if I employ a stoner who is as dumb as a box of sand, then I should be able to fire him for incompetence and poor job performance, which could WELL stem from his lifestyle...but to claim that his lifestyle is a “right”, well then my case to fire him is certainly lessened, isn’t it? I’d be infringing on something that “doesn’t harm me”.
If said smoker is a stupid fucking idiot, well I can’t seperate his lifestyle from the end product and you’ll excuse me for reacting in kind. I mean, if I employ a stoner who is as dumb as a box of sand, then I should be able to fire him for incompetence and poor job performance, which could WELL stem from his lifestyle...but to claim that his lifestyle is a “right”, well then my case to fire him is certainly lessened, isn’t it? I’d be infringing on something that “doesn’t harm me”.
Unfortunately, that is where the Left has misconstrued the rights under the Constitution as well. It is his right to be a screw up and not be punished by the government, but as a boss it is your right to not have him as part of your company. That’s where the pendulum swings too far, and the Liberals take away your right to run your business. His right to be a stoner is infringing on your right to make a profit by having to keep his ass around. But the problem can be solved without a battering ram, and armed cops busting down his door. You should have the right to fire him, but I agree laws have made that more difficult. See how freedom is getting fucked by both sides these days?
But how does the Constitution justify everything under the sun being “a right”?
Matt, you’re missing the point. The idea of the Constitution was to place limits on government power. Essentially, EVERYTHING is a right, unless the government has a compelling need to regulate something. Do I have the right to walk into my bathroom and take a dump? Nowhere is it listed in any government document that I specifically have the right to do so, but it would be ridiculous for the government to try to regulate bowel movements. The issue here is whether or not the federal government has any constitutional authority to regulate something that has no relation to interstate commerce. I believe that it does not. Now, if the individual state wants to regulate the sale and use of marijuana, then that’s up to each state to decide. I, personally, would campaign California to totally decriminalize the sale of marijuana for any purpose by anyone over 18 years of age. If the federal government wanted to pass federal laws controlling the transportation of marijuana over state lines that would be perfectly acceptable to me.
I don’t know where you guys live, but in GA, you can be fired for NO REASON. Just a c’ya, and you carry a box of your crap out to the car.
I am not aware of many that think pot is a “right”. It should be governed at the State or local level, is all that most are saying. That way, some communities would have it and others wouldn’t. You then can choose where to live on that and other criteria. Don’t like the stoners in Hippieland? Move to Puckerville where it’s illegal to posses it.
The failure here is the Nationwide “War on Drugs”, which has proven to be a big moneypit that has done this country vastly more harm than any good that can be found in it.
I don’t know where you guys live, but in GA, you can be fired for NO REASON. Just a c’ya, and you carry a box of your crap out to the car.
The magic words out here in CA is I’m going to call my lawyer. I’ve seen it, and people have gotten away with all kinds of shit.
That household is “infringing” on the rights of others,
But what if they choose to walk around naked in their own home, with the windows closed and drapes closed.
How is that private behavior impacting on your rights?
Unfortunately, that is where the Left has misconstrued the rights under the Constitution as well. It is his right to be a screw up and not be punished by the government, but as a boss it is your right to not have him as part of your company. That’s where the pendulum swings too far, and the Liberals take away your right to run your business. His right to be a stoner is infringing on your right to make a profit by having to keep his ass around. But the problem can be solved without a battering ram, and armed cops busting down his door. You should have the right to fire him, but I agree laws have made that more difficult. See how freedom is getting fucked by both sides these days?
Which is why I’m very eager to understand what the basis of our rights are.
And I’m not against “personal tastes”. I’m not against pot, or porn, or watching TV. I just don’t think it’s healthy for society to not show a little self-control or maybe wrench up its standards a few notches. I’m just not convinced what a person does in public is that seperated from what they do in private. Hell, I’m willing to say that if a person is a hell of an asset in some public function, that maybe their personal choices help make them that person. What if Winston Churchill couldn’t have his nightly cocktail? But it goes both ways, including negative judgments, and I reject the notion that the private and the public realms are as disattached as people make them out to be.
Matt, what you are talking about really has nothing to do with marijuana or even laws. It is the result of living in vast cities with virtually no accountability and the ease with which we move around. Small towns still have an everyone knows everything about everyone feel to them, and there are real social consequences to abberant behaviour. Not so in a large city, where, at worst, you have to move to a different section of town. There really isn’t a concept of “reputation” anymore, unless you live in a really small town, where you can be shunned.
Matt, you’re missing the point. The idea of the Constitution was to place limits on government power. Essentially, EVERYTHING is a right, unless the government has a compelling need to regulate something. Do I have the right to walk into my bathroom and take a dump? Nowhere is it listed in any government document that I specifically have the right to do so, but it would be ridiculous for the government to try to regulate bowel movements.
I suppose I’m a tad hung up on the semantics of what a “right” is and the philosophical justification for how and where rights derive from and why they exist at all. I mean, the government not regulating your regularity seems to me more a matter of obvious function as there’s no practicality nor reason in such regulations.
But this thread mentioned earlier about “well, it’s okay if each state decides for itself.” Well, okay, but why? I mean, I’ve heard people say that gay marriage should be legalized because marriage is a basic, fundamental right. Same with education. Well I’ve always thought of a right as something that is due to the citizen seeking to exercise it. If marriage is a right, then aren’t they owed a bride/groom? If education is a right, then aren’t they owed a teacher? I mean, what if someone determines their right hasn’t been recognized because they didn’t like their teacher? Can they sue for better education, and where will it come from?
I mean, this is all ridiculous hyperbole, but it seemed to unearth my conception of rights and I’m starting to feel like people have confound rights for desires.
Which is why I’m very eager to understand what the basis of our rights are.
In referring to ‘rights’ I am, at least, referring to what authority the government has over you or anyone else. Punishment by the government should be limited to harmful actions against one another. If pot is legal for example, that means the government cannot incarcerate or fine you. That doesn’t mean a parent can’t punish their kid for smoking it, or a business owner telling that person their services are not needed if they engage in that kind of activity. If they are using pot and beat the crap out of someone, then they should go to jail. The fact that they were using it is not and should not be a viable defense if a harmful action is committed.
That is the ideal world. Of course, none of that falls into place anymore. You can go to jail for spanking your kid, the employer can be sued, and the person can claim they didn’t know what was going on when they beat some one, and get away with it, because some numb nuts judge allows this BS, and some paid shrink convinces the jury it’s true. The system is falling apart on many fronts. Adding more problems to it won’t solve it.
I’m going to have to give props to Sean M. on on point. Classifying marijuana as medicine has compromised the movement for decriminalization.
I’m for decriminalization. I might accept a ban on buying/selling/trafficking for the ability to grow your own without prosecution. That way, if you want it for medicinal purposes, that’s your business.
All these arguments about what people do when stoned, effectiveness of workers, THE CHILDREN!!!, are all bullshit. They amount to hysteria generated by people who don’t really know what they’re talking about.
If marriage is a right, then aren’t they owed a bride/groom? If education is a right, then aren’t they owed a teacher?
Ah. I see the confusion. You are defining “right” as “something that is required to be provided by the government”. But when I say “right”, the government’s job stops at “making sure I have the same chance to get one as everyone else”.
Education is a right. It is up to each individual to figure out what level of education best meets his/her needs, whether it is nothing more sophisticated that knowing where the best fishing places are and how to mend nets or something as complicated as thoracic surgery.
Schools are best handled at the local levels, with each community having their own school board. Each state can define for itself what is required for a diploma (at either the High School or college levels) to be issued. The Federal Government has absolutely ZERO Constitutional authority to set any kind of Federal standards regarding education, and barely any authority to have an entire Executive Department and Cabinet-level Presidential successor.
As for marriage being a “right”, apply that same definition of “making sure I have the same chance to get one as everyone else”, and follow that mental path. Once again, the Federal Government has absolutely ZERO Constitutional authority being involved in marriage, either defining or controlling.
I think Walter Williams said awhile ago that something cannot be a “right” if somebody else has to give something up in order for you to have it. A “right to housing”, for example, implies that somebody else has to give you a house, or else they are violating your rights. No one has to give anything up, however, for you to have a right to free speech. You can say anything you want and it doesn’t cost me anything.
For marriage to be a right, that would mean you could marry anyone you choose, regardless of whether they agree to marry you. If I choose to marry Cindy Crawford, (I’m dating myself here, perhaps :-) ) then she wouldn’t have any right to refuse if marriage were a right.
But then again, I’m on my fourth glass of wine, so who knows?
For marriage to be a right, that would mean you could marry anyone you choose, regardless of whether they agree to marry you.
Not really. The right to marry the person of your choosing is a fundamental human right, and it’s been codified in the Loving decision of the SCOTUS. The gay marriage movement tries to claim that this decision should be extended to gay relationships, but I don’t really think it’s applicable. Marriage, since the beginning of time, has been an institution between a man and a woman. The Loving decision concerned a state prohibition on interracial relationships. Marriage was still in its fundamental format, between a man and woman. So the gay marriage issue, it seems to me, is more about whether the fundamental right to marry the person of your choice can be curtailed by sex. Right now it can, but that’s the argument they make.
But to get back to the point you made before, there are reasonable restrictions on fundamental rights all the time. The right to free speech is not absolute, the right to own a weapon is not, and so on. So the right to marriage is, obviously, contingent on both parties wanting to voluntarily enter into the relationship. When one party is under duress this is not, by definition, a marriage.
. So the right to marriage is, obviously, contingent on both parties wanting to voluntarily enter into the relationship.
That’s what I was trying to say. :-)
That logic applies equally to the “right” to education, too, fwiw.
Next entry: Rumors of War
Previous entry: Hell Freezes Over
Who's Logged In
Total Members: 27587
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 31
Total anonymous users: 0
Capitalism
Recent Comments
The ACLU and Terry Jones
(5 total, Last @ 07:53)
sahrab: Hall_10000 - bastion of tolerance, France Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys Sorry its an automatic response to the word France Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys
The ACLU and Terry Jones
(5 total, Last @ 07:53)
sahrab: Hall_10000 - bastion of tolerance, France Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys Sorry its an automatic response to the word France Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys
The ACLU and Terry Jones
(5 total, Last @ 07:53)
sahrab: Hall_10000 - bastion of tolerance, France Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys Sorry its an automatic response to the word France Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys
The ACLU and Terry Jones
(5 total, Last @ 07:53)
sahrab: Hall_10000 - bastion of tolerance, France Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys Sorry its an automatic response to the word France Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys
The ACLU and Terry Jones
(5 total, Last @ 07:53)
sahrab: Hall_10000 - bastion of tolerance, France Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys Sorry its an automatic response to the word France Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys
Last 30 Comments
Un.
Be.
Farkin’.
Lievable.
But this can’t be “judicial activism”, because it’s what the social conservatives want. That makes it all okay.
Black-robed bastards.