[ilgunguygt]

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

You too huh?

Problem is sometimes its truly the only word that will do.

Thats a fact!

[muscogee]

Originally Posted by Sveke

Again, think first....

Why would you think someone would rob your stash when they can grow their own?

My greenhouse will be open of you want any, I'll have plenty.

There will be no demand anymore.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

Because their parents won't let them.

[BigDog[RE]]

Originally Posted by John Galt

What????

Answer the question. How does giving my neighbor a few bucks for some fruits and vegetables that he grew in his backyard fall under interstate commerce, and therefore Federal regulation?

The Feds will probably claim that the topsoil that it was grown in was blown in by the wind from another state, therefore it is interstate! ;-)

Sad thing is that SCOTUS would probably uphold that interpretation...

[Sveke]

Originally Posted by John Galt

What????

Answer the question. How does giving my neighbor a few bucks for some fruits and vegetables that he grew in his backyard fall under interstate commerce, and therefore Federal regulation?

I don't think it does, all i was saying is that when money is introduced is when the govt sticks their nose in.

If you grow a field of pot, keep it to yourself, smoke it all. No one will bother you.


Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

[Sveke]

It should be treated the same as cigarettes and alcohol.

Its just downright stupid that it's not.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

[syntaxerrorsix]

Originally Posted by Sveke

It should be treated the same as cigarettes and alcohol.

Its just downright stupid that it's not.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

Not unless we import it.

If I make something it's mine. If I trade with my neighbor it's ours.

**** government taxation of my labor.

[syntaxerrorsix]

And **** government taxation of my income while we are at it.

[RC-RAMIE]

Originally Posted by Sveke

I don't think it does, all i was saying is that when money is introduced is when the govt sticks their nose in.

If you grow a field of pot, keep it to yourself, smoke it all. No one will bother you.


Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

Where?

....

[Bren]

Originally Posted by John Galt

How exactly does me giving my neighbor a couple dollars for fruits and vegetables fall under interstate commerce, and therefore Federal regulation?

The law says, at this point, that even if you eat those fruits and vegetables you grew, it falls under the commerce clause jurisdiction. The theory was that if you grow and eat your own food, it affects interstate commerce because you don't have to buy food that was shipped from elsewhere, therefore Congress has jurisdiction to regulate what you can grow for yourself on your land. Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942),

[syntaxerrorsix]

Originally Posted by Bren

The law says, at this point, that even if you eat those fruits and vegetables you grew, it falls under the commerce clause jurisdiction. The theory was that if you grow and eat your own food, it affects interstate commerce because you don't have to buy food that was shipped from elsewhere, therefore Congress has jurisdiction to regulate what you can grow for yourself on your land. Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942),

The only thing I want to know is do YOU have a problem with that.

[hogfish]

Originally Posted by Hauptmann6

Exactly the same thing.

Good to know. I've never had medical MJ.

[Lampshade]

Originally Posted by M&P Shooter

I would need it in writing so junkies couldn't take advantage of any loopholes to get away with smoking that trash and driving down a street filled with kids.

Its already in writing.

They call these writings "statutes."

The fact that you haven't read them doesn't mean they don't exist.

[DanaT]

Originally Posted by Bren

The law says, at this point, that even if you eat those fruits and vegetables you grew, it falls under the commerce clause jurisdiction. The theory was that if you grow and eat your own food, it affects interstate commerce because you don't have to buy food that was shipped from elsewhere, therefore Congress has jurisdiction to regulate what you can grow for yourself on your land. Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942),

Bren,

Even you know that was a mystical stretch of the definition of commerce.

Commerce is now something you DONT buy because it may affect the other party that you didnt buy it from?

If you look objectively that was simply a govt power grab to rule that way.

Imagine the real implications. I could sue you for NOT buying something because you affected my interstate commerce by not buying it.

Just because some justices rule something doesnt mean it is right.

[PettyOfficer]

Originally Posted by Sveke

Tell me about it....

He's from Texas, remember they have churches that hold 50,000 people and worship dudes like Joel osteen and pat Robertson. I shouldn't have to say anymore. Haha

Go ahead secede, form your own retard republic, announce war on the cartels, and have your own little Alamo 2013. We'll help you pack then we'll light one up and watch.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

Oh man, I came here for work, it's a little crazy, but I just stay away from them.

But it's those crazies that legalized recreationally shooting guns at moving targets from helicopters!!

[Gunhaver]

Originally Posted by Bren

The law says, at this point, that even if you eat those fruits and vegetables you grew, it falls under the commerce clause jurisdiction. The theory was that if you grow and eat your own food, it affects interstate commerce because you don't have to buy food that was shipped from elsewhere, therefore Congress has jurisdiction to regulate what you can grow for yourself on your land. Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942),

Has anyone ever been told that they can't grow their own food and have to buy from someone else? Seriously asking. If that case ever happened I'd love to read about it.

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by DanaT

Bren,

Even you know that was a mystical stretch of the definition of commerce.

Commerce is now something you DONT buy because it may affect the other party that you didnt buy it from?

If you look objectively that was simply a govt power grab to rule that way.

Imagine the real implications. I could sue you for NOT buying something because you affected my interstate commerce by not buying it.

Just because some justices rule something doesnt mean it is right.

I find it incredibly hard to believe that the founders would have gone to such great lengths to draft a document which repeatedly paints the fedgov into such a tight corner, and then negate it all with an obscure clause.

Proper application would simply mean that if an individual in Louisiana is selling weed to someone in Mississippi, that the fed ensure no tariffs are imposed.

[PettyOfficer]

Originally Posted by RC-RAMIE

3 states will vote on marijuana legal next week.

The polls show WA is flying 'high', CO is very close, and OR doesn't seem to have enough support to pass.

I'm watching this closely, I have a few $K in some related stocks.

[klmmicro]

Originally Posted by JBnTX

Legalize marijuana and you'll instantly bring all the Mexican drug violence into the United States.

Might as well just legalize it by your argument. What you are saying is the cartels will control it one way or the other. At least if it is legal, the profit for them drops considerably.

Seriously, you think the cartels will set up state regulated dispensaries?

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by certifiedfunds

I find it incredibly hard to believe that the founders would have gone to such great lengths to draft a document which repeatedly paints the fedgov into such a tight corner, and then negate it all with an obscure clause...

Alexander Hamilton, one of the main forces behind writing and ratifiying the Constitution, was a monarchist. He wanted a king. Knowing that would never happen, he argued for a strong centralized government. He got it. I don't find it hard to believe at all. Study the Anti-Federalist papers and the arguments against ratification of the Constitution, and see how those arguments have panned out 200 years later.

[PettyOfficer]

Originally Posted by Sveke

It should be treated the same as cigarettes and alcohol.

Except alcohol and tobacco are addictive

[certifiedfunds]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Alexander Hamilton, one of the main forces behind writing and ratifiying the Constitution, was a monarchist. He wanted a king. Knowing that would never happen, he argued for a strong centralized government. He got it. I don't find it hard to believe at all. Study the Anti-Federalist papers and the arguments against ratification of the Constitution, and see how those arguments have panned out 200 years later.

That is very insightful. Never thought of it that way.

[Harper]

Originally Posted by klmmicro

Seriously, you think the cartels will set up state regulated dispensaries?

I have no idea what he's thinking but clearly a black market will see a decrease in demand as a white market is created. You'd think that would be common knowledge but willful ignorance is a powerful force.

[ilgunguygt]

Originally Posted by Sveke

I don't think it does, all i was saying is that when money is introduced is when the govt sticks their nose in.

If you grow a field of pot, keep it to yourself, smoke it all. No one will bother you.


Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

What world do you live in?

[RustyL]

and in this hemisphere, where is that, who has the money to buy?

Originally Posted by Sveke

Yeah OK dude.

You are a clear example of the stupidity surrounding this topic. Do some fing research.

Mexican drug cartels invading the USA over weed???? Wow.

The Mexican cartels would see no profit from us anymore and invading us is certainly not going to help the cause. They would shift their focus to a country where it's still illegal and profit there.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

[M&P Shooter]

Originally Posted by Lampshade

Its already in writing.

They call these writings "statutes."

The fact that you haven't read them doesn't mean they don't exist.

My dad is bigger then your dad I gave up on this thread a while ago but some can't seem to let go. Have fun with your smart remark war as I am going to out with the wife to the movies, and we are not smoking pot tonight either