[Ruble Noon]

Originally Posted by onebigelf

I have to agree with this one. The Constitution is not meant to be ignored for the sake of convenience nor personal views. It protects all of the people all of the time, or, as we have seen, none of us. I don't like drug use, but the nation's drug laws are clearly and unequivocally unConstitutional. The drug laws were passed with the exact same arguments that had been used 40+ years earlier to pass prohibition. However, prohibition required a constitutional amendment to give government the power to make alcohol illegal. Where is the amendment to give the government the power to make drugs illegal? There isn't one. They invented the authority and we let them get away with it because we agreed with the goal. Once we established that the government could create this new authority, however, that authority was then used in myriad other ways, not all of which we've really agreed with, have we.

We must insist that the Constitution be obeyed, fully and at all times, or that it be properly amended and ratified. Otherwise, what we get is... this.

John

Spot on, now all the statist and progressive republicrats will chime in in disagreement......Ooops, looks like they already have.

[Bren]

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

So why was a COTUS amendment required to prohibit alcohol but not a plant?

Because the 18th amendment was in 1920. Same reason the National Firearms Act of 1934 was enacted under the taxing power, while the Gun Control Act of 1968 could be eneacted under commerce clause jurisdiction. The legal view of federal jurisdiction changed over time.

In 1934 they didn't ban NFA weapons, they just placed very strict tax requirements on them. Notice that federal marijuana regulation started the same way, with the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937.

[Jerry]

Originally Posted by Bren

Because the 18th amendment was in 1920. Same reason the National Firearms Act of 1934 was enacted under the taxing power, while the Gun Control Act of 1968 could be eneacted under commerce clause jurisdiction. The legal view of federal jurisdiction changed over time.

What's really sad about that is the Constitution, with regards to such matters, HAS NOT changed but the government has learned how to do end runs around it and WE'VE allow it.

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by Bren

Because the 18th amendment was in 1920. Same reason the National Firearms Act of 1934 was enacted under the taxing power, while the Gun Control Act of 1968 could be eneacted under commerce clause jurisdiction. The legal view of federal jurisdiction changed over time.

In 1934 they didn't ban NFA weapons, they just placed very strict tax requirements on them. Notice that federal marijuana regulation started the same way, with the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937.

But the document remained the same (with regard to applicable federal powers and restrictions).

This *IS* a glaring example of Progressivism.

[countrygun]

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

But the document remained the same (with regard to applicable federal powers and restrictions).

This *IS* a glaring example of Progressivism.

Just like ending slavery and giving women the vote. This Countrty is going to hell I tell you. To many dag nabbed changes since the good old days of 1776

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by countrygun

Just like ending slavery and giving women the vote. This Countrty is going to hell I tell you. To many dag nabbed changes since the good old days of 1776

You're referring to amendments that followed the Constitutional process and thus became part of the COTUS. Perhaps you can point me to the one that permits the fedgov to regulate marijuana?

[Ruble Noon]

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

You're referring to amendments that followed the Constitutional process and thus became part of the COTUS. Perhaps you can point me to the one that permits the fedgov to regulate marijuana?

Or healthcare.

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by Ruble Noon

Or healthcare.

Precisely.

Once you lay down and accept the government seizing power it wasn't granted in areas you agree with you have to be prepared to accept it doing the same in areas you don't.

You reap what you sow. The conservatives here who support the WOD deserve to have Obamacare shoved down their throats.

[Ruble Noon]

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

Precisely.

Once you lay down and accept the government seizing power it wasn't granted in areas you agree with you have to be prepared to accept it doing the same in areas you don't.

You reap what you sow. The conservatives here who support the WOD deserve to have Obamacare shoved down their throats.

I agree.

[Jerry]

Originally Posted by Ruble Noon

Or healthcare.

You must have missed the memo. They aren't regulating healthcare... it's a tax. and I still have some swampland in Arizona if anyone is interested.

[G19G20]

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

Precisely.

Lots of "conservative" progressives.

The correct term for them is "neo-conservatives" or "neocons". The folks that aren't able to accept that much of the Republican platform is actually inventions of the far left, such a federal drug prohibition and interventionist foreign policy. But hey, wrap it up with some Jesus sprinkled in and a big American flag and suddenly it's conservative!

[G19G20]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

I'm just not caring. I have to take care of patients with real life threatening problems. if you happened to ask them, they would probably prefer that I wasn't a doper.

What if those same patients said they wanted to legally use cannabis as pain medicine or appetite stimulant for their ailments because they think it works? What would you say to them?

[series1811]

Originally Posted by G19G20

What if those same patients said they wanted to legally use cannabis as pain medicine or appetite stimulant for their ailments because they think it works? What would you say to them?

I don't know. What would he say to them if they needed a transplant and said they wanted to buy an organ from China from a prisoner?

Stinking laws.

[G19G20]

Originally Posted by series1811

I don't know. What would he say to them if they needed a transplant and said they wanted to buy an organ from China from a prisoner?

Stinking laws.

I'd rather hear Cav's reply since I asked him.

But for the sake of argument, if there were no organs available for a dying patient, would you have a problem with the patient getting the organ from a Chinese prisoner? Just because something may be against the law doesn't mean the law is just.

In fact, there's an entire legal principle surrounding this question that has been seeing a resurgence, to the chagrin of the justice industry. It's called jury nullification. Jurors have the legal right to decide not only whether a law was broken but whether the law itself should exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/jury_nullification

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by Snowman92D

We've always had some legal restrictions on who is allowed to own and possess firearms. It's been a constant fight to keep them from encroaching on our liberty, and it always will be...Jefferson warned us to jealously guard our freedoms...but there have always been some restrictions.

I find it hilarious that you equate the RKBA to your imagined right to stayed stoned.

Thankfully, the rest of us can take comfort in the knowledge that there are so few Americans who think that way. Otherwise Ron Paul would have fared better in the primaries.

Jefferson said no free man should be disallowed gun ownership.

The fact that we've accepted restrictions on gun Ownership is a perfect analogy.

[G29Reload]

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

Well that applies to guns too

No, it doesn't. Apples and oranges. There are plenty of legit uses for firearms starting with your own personal safety.

Having LSD around, or heroin does not compare.

[G29Reload]

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

So why was a COTUS amendment required to prohibit alcohol but not a plant?

Because alcohol could and was also being consumed responsibly but it was arguable as to how much trouble it was causing.

LSD, Heroin, not so much. Pretty much clear that's not up for debate. I agree pot is arguable, but the view of it back when was pretty much agreed on by society, though it was inflamed by films like reefer madness.

[G29Reload]

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

Precisely.

Once you lay down and accept the government seizing power it wasn't granted in areas you agree with you have to be prepared to accept it doing the same in areas you don't.

You reap what you sow. The conservatives here who support the WOD deserve to have Obamacare shoved down their throats.

No, they don't. apples and oranges again.

Healthcare is a perfectly legitimate pastime and part of our pursuit of happiness. The .gov has no business regulating it or forcing us to purchase it, John roberts be damned.

HEalthcare is a good thing, no one is against it, we just think the .gov should stay out of it.

Drugs, which are perceived to be and at times demonstrably ARE dangerous in an uncontrolled environment, do deserve restriction in their sale and use in order to provide for public safety. The .gov does has the right to establish an ordered society. Someone that's whacked out on drugs can harm you or your family, and are practially guaranteed to with their dangerous effects…falls under your rights stop where mine begin. Drugs are not the victimless crime some make them out to be.

Guns have legit uses.
Healthcare has legit uses.
Drugs in an uncontrolled environment taken by people NOT ill and not prescribed by a doctor…do NOT have legit uses.

Pretty much why things are the way they are. Don't see the issue here.

Pot I do see in a somewhat grey area, I know people who have enjoyed it responsibly over the years and I've seen folks who made me glad its not legal. Marihoochee is a discussable item, just about all else is not…not heroin, meth, coke, etc.

[G29Reload]

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

Jefferson said no free man should be disallowed gun ownership.

Imagine him saying, no free man should be disbarred from drug use!


And he invented the dumbwaiter so he could get his wine up from the cellar faster. Not like he was stick in the mud ya know?

If you ever visit I'll drive you down to Charlottesville to show you his place. Its a treat.

[G19G20]

Originally Posted by G29Reload

Drugs, which are perceived to be and at times demonstrably ARE dangerous in an uncontrolled environment, do deserve restriction in their sale and use in order to provide for public safety. The .gov does has the right to establish an ordered society.

Please point out where the Constitution gives the federal government the right to "provide for public safety" and/or to "establish an ordered society".

[countrygun]

Originally Posted by G19G20

Please point out where the Constitution gives the federal government the right to "provide for public safety" and/or to "establish an ordered society".

Preamble,

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."


I realize that it may be complicated for you to figure out how public safety and "oredered society' couls possibly be realted to those principles in the preamble. It is probably too abstract for you

[G19G20]

The Preamble is not law, never mind that it doesn't mean what you are claiming it means. Article I Section 8 is the section that carries the weight of law regarding the limits on federal government. I realize it may be complicated for you to understand that the Preamble has no legal impact but it is true. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

[DOC44]

what a load of stupid, bias crap.

Doc44

[countrygun]

Originally Posted by G19G20

The Preamble is not law, never mind that it doesn't mean what you are claiming it means. Article I Section 8 is the section that carries the weight of law regarding the limits on federal government. I realize it may be complicated for you to understand that the Preamble has no legal impact but it is true. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

Odd from a Constitutional Libertarian (at least you claimed that once) to dismiss the outlined intentions and priciples the Founders laid down with the preamble, I guess you don't love the Constitution, just the parts that make legalizing weed a possibility.

[G19G20]

The Preamble is not law. It also doesn't mean what you think it means. Are you suggesting the federal government operate based on the Preamble and not Article I Section 8? Look, you don't have any understanding of constitutional law so just save yourself the embarrassment of trying to defend a legally inaccurate statement.