Pot Criminalization: Up in Smoke?

[IMaDick]

Dick is confusing democracy with anarchy. "No rules" is not the same thing as "civil rights protected by government." The very fact that he is allowed to go on the internet, announce he's a dick, and begin preaching anti-government diatribes defeats his ludicrous claims of oppressive dictatorship. The basic flaw in his reasoning, that there should be no government interference in the affairs of men, is the assumption that most people in situations with no consequences or repercussions WILL INDEPENDENTLY CHOOSE TO BEHAVE THEMSELVES and respect their neighbors' right to do the same. We all know this is not true. Hell, Dick himself had the opportunity to practice his stated belief of "mind your own bjsiness" in the debate over gay marriage and couldn't manage to keep his nose out of it. Man doesnt even have government ties or lawmaking duties, and STILL he felt entitled to tell others what to do.

I'm not singling Dick out, I'm just pointing out the folly of thinking any political party, system, or method of civilization will EVER be able to avoid dictating rules to the governed

and you're confusing tyranny with freedom.


Get a grip.

[James Madison]
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. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

[HairOfTheDog]

The state will never know if they keep it in the government sector and refuse to let the people have a voice.

It's a damn shame people are so fucking complacent.

Typically, I sense that you're a Constitutionalist. But, on some matters you seem to support more of democratic than republic system. You want the electoral college done away with and direct population vote on some (or all?) Federal and State legislation, right? The framers of the Constitution are essentially noted as saying that the general public is not qualified to make wise decisions on their own.

I don't think the marijuana possession issue is a big enough concern for the majority of voters to petition outside of their elected officials, but another issue that affected a great number of people more directly might.

I think when the Government is taking from the people it's the peoples responsibility to tell them to fuck off.

Please show me the quote from the founders you referenced.

Typically I will always and have always believed the people are supposed to control the government, not the government control the people and keep them mute in the process.

Dick, the whole reason the founders chose a republic rather than democratic form was because they feared that the general public wasn't qualified (or consistent/astute) enough to make the decisions directly. Therefore, they preferred elected officials.

Writing of the merits of a republican or representative form of government, James Madison observed that one of the most important differences between a democracy and a republic is "the delegation of the government [in a republic] to a small number of citizens elected by the rest." The primary effect of such a scheme, Madison continued, was to:

. . . refine and enlarge the public views by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the same purpose (Federalist No. 10).

There are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice and truth can regain their authority over the public mind(Federalist No. 63).

http://www.thisnation.com/question/011.html

[IMaDick]

I hope one day you read what you posted and understand that those sent to washington are to take with them the voice of the people of their state.

at some point you should understand that the federal war on drugs is Constitutionally illegal since it takes from the states their right to decide.

bought and paid for bondage.

[Donovan]

We stopped being an alliance of loosely affiliated autonomous states with the civil war. The underlying question of that war was "state rights vs. Federal rights". Federal rights and a centralized government won. It was that decisive shift in national identity that led to us being a world power. I'd go into it further but your argument of "get a grip" has defeated me.

[IMaDick]

The state will never know if they keep it in the government sector and refuse to let the people have a voice.

It's a damn shame people are so fucking complacent.

Typically, I sense that you're a Constitutionalist. But, on some matters you seem to support more of democratic than republic system. You want the electoral college done away with and direct population vote on some (or all?) Federal and State legislation, right? The framers of the Constitution are essentially noted as saying that the general public is not qualified to make wise decisions on their own.

I don't think the marijuana possession issue is a big enough concern for the majority of voters to petition outside of their elected officials, but another issue that affected a great number of people more directly might.

I think when the Government is taking from the people it's the peoples responsibility to tell them to fuck off.

Please show me the quote from the founders you referenced.

Typically I will always and have always believed the people are supposed to control the government, not the government control the people and keep them mute in the process.

Dick, the whole reason the founders chose a republic rather than democratic form was because they feared that the general public wasn't qualified (or consistent/astute) enough to make the decisions directly. Therefore, they preferred elected officials.

Writing of the merits of a republican or representative form of government, James Madison observed that one of the most important differences between a democracy and a republic is "the delegation of the government [in a republic] to a small number of citizens elected by the rest." The primary effect of such a scheme, Madison continued, was to:

. . . refine and enlarge the public views by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the same purpose (Federalist No. 10).

There are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice and truth can regain their authority over the public mind(Federalist No. 63).

http://www.thisnation.com/question/011.html

I marked a couple of interesting points in your post, I make a suggestion that you inspect them together and try to reconcile them with the Constitution as written.

I think you will find the outcome enlightening.

[HairOfTheDog]

I hope one day you read what you posted and understand that those sent to washington are to take with them the voice of the people of their state.

at some point you should understand that the federal war on drugs is Constitutionally illegal since it takes from the states their right to decide.

bought and paid for bondage.

I always read references that I post, usually having read them many times before and therefore knowing that the references exist. I happen to agree with you, though. I think there are too many unnecessary impedements on the states' constitutional powers due to federal intervention (as we've discussed a lot in relation to marijuana legalization and same sex marriage legalization). I also agree that many of our elected officials cast votes for personal political gain rather than as our "voices".

IDK, Dick. It's not a perfect system. But, no system is and it generally works, though reform is needed when it comes to campaign finance and other election protocols, imo. Believing that (1) the Fed needs to refrain from legislating matters that are actually decided by the states (thereby introducing conflict) and (2) believing that we should do away with the electoral college (or petition around the votes of our elected officials) and go to popular vote are two different topics. The first is in agreement with the Constitution. The second is in disagreement with it. I think a mix of the two works as well. I don't have the answers, was just curious about your position.

I think I understand your points. Some parts of the original system stand the test of time and work better than others, imo.

[IMaDick]

Our system works by majority rule by a vote of the people not by an elected body tabling and silencing the people.

If there is contention within the elected body the right way to deal with that contention is to let the people speak by vote on the subject.

In the case of legalization of marijuana the state decided based on federal dollars to just not do anything with the question.

that is not the role of the elected , and silencing the electorate by not posing the question to the people is tyrannical and Constitutionally bankrupt.

The State never left ownership of the people,stewards of our trust do not own what is rightfully the property of the people.

[Riotgear]

Everyone needs to mind there own goddamn business.

This.

[IMaDick]

We stopped being an alliance of loosely affiliated autonomous states with the civil war. The underlying question of that war was "state rights vs. Federal rights". Federal rights and a centralized government won. It was that decisive shift in national identity that led to us being a world power. I'd go into it further but your argument of "get a grip" has defeated me.

I laugh in the face of your bullshit.

The Constitution is intact.

The civil war didn't change it.

[HairOfTheDog]

Everyone needs to mind there own goddamn business.

This.

This is where I hope we're headed. If you need medicinal marijuana, it should be available to you - no questions asked and nobody's business.

If you want to smoke some weed for recreational or other personal reasons, nobody's business.

If you can possess in personal-use quantities in your home in NY, should be okay to possess it when you're outside of your home, imo. I'd go so far as to say it's nobody business if you grow your own (perhaps within a set amount below distribution-level) and it should still be nobody else's business.

Right now, the government makes it the business of law enforcement (and, at least in NY), neither the cops nor the DAs want to be busting people for holding small amounts of weed. I wish Cuomo's proposal had passed. One step at a time, but it's slow going.

[IMaDick]

Everyone needs to mind there own goddamn business.

This.

This is where I hope we're headed. If you need medicinal marijuana, it should be available to you - no questions asked and nobody's business.

If you want to smoke some weed for recreational or other personal reasons, nobody's business.

If you can possess in personal-use quantities in your home in NY, should be okay to possess it when you're outside of your home, imo. I'd go so far as to say it's nobody business if you grow your own (perhaps within a set amount below distribution-level) and it should still be nobody else's business.

Right now, the government makes it the business of law enforcement (and, at least in NY), neither the cops nor the DAs want to be busting people for holding small amounts of weed. One step at a time, but it's slow going.

You will never get that as long as the decision is in the hands of the elected officials and the fed is allowed to over rule the states that have decided for themselves.

[Disciple]

HELL YEAH!!!!!!!

[HairOfTheDog]

You will never get that as long as the decision is in the hands of the elected officials and the fed is allowed to over rule the states that have decided for themselves.

Optimist!

I'm not happy about what the Justice Dept is doing to sneakily circumvent California's decision to legalize medicinal marijuana distribution by threating distributors' landlords with civil action (as posted upthread). It's a perfect example of your point, imo. BUT, the distributors themselves still cannot be busted because California voted it legal - so it's progress. The California law is not being overruled, but circumvented by the Fed in this example. Medicinal distribution is legal in CA, so it's progress (imo).

[IMaDick]

Semantics

[Donovan]

We stopped being an alliance of loosely affiliated autonomous states with the civil war. The underlying question of that war was "state rights vs. Federal rights". Federal rights and a centralized government won. It was that decisive shift in national identity that led to us being a world power. I'd go into it further but your argument of "get a grip" has defeated me.

I laugh in the face of your bullshit.

The Constitution is intact.

The civil war didn't change it.

So what I've just made you do is insist the Constitution is still sound and remains unaffected by later events. A direct contradiction to your earlier assertion that we are currently living in a dictatorship.
To borrow a phrase my old pal Gear is fond of...
/bows.

[IMaDick]

We stopped being an alliance of loosely affiliated autonomous states with the civil war. The underlying question of that war was "state rights vs. Federal rights". Federal rights and a centralized government won. It was that decisive shift in national identity that led to us being a world power. I'd go into it further but your argument of "get a grip" has defeated me.

I laugh in the face of your bullshit.

The Constitution is intact.

The civil war didn't change it.

So what I've just made you do is insist the Constitution is still sound and remains unaffected by later events. A direct contradiction to your earlier assertion that we are currently living in a dictatorship.
To borrow a phrase my old pal Gear is fond of...
/bows.

Shit runs from the corners of your mouth.

States rights are intact dipshit was my point, The people have a voice was my point, and when our elected officials fail the question belongs to the people was my point , all of which you denied.

go back to the indoctrination camp shitbird you are failing.

[HairOfTheDog]

Semantics

It's not semantics, Dick. To "overrule" legal distribution means to make distribution illegal again. To "circumvent" means to find indirect ways for the Fed to work around the state law and interfere with the legal distribution. The distributors can move around (and do) and continue to distribute legally, no matter what the Fed would like. Also, the landlords could refuse to evict the distributors and go to court against the US Attorneys and might win, though I understand their business reasons for not doing so (yet).

[IMaDick]

Semantics

It's not semantics, Dick. To "overrule" legal distribution means to make distribution illegal again. To "circumvent" means to find indirect ways for the Fed to work around the state law and interfere with the legal distribution. The distributors can move around (and do) and continue to distribute legally, no matter what the Fed would like. Also, the landlords could refuse to evict the distributors and go to court against the US Attorneys and might win, though I understand their business reasons for not doing so (yet).

When the fed overules the state it is as simple as this statement.

"While some states, including California, have legalized medical-marijuana businesses, the federal government does not recognize states’ authority to do so and has targeted the businesses for violations of the 40-year-old Controlled Substances Act."

Federal law over ruling state law is what the action is, it is based in the Fed "Not Recognising states rights".

Don't be fooled by the lawyers.

[HairOfTheDog]

I'm not fooled by the lawyers, or the press, or anyone's posts. The Fed might want to overrule the California law, but they cannot (at least not without a major backlash and huge political cost). That's why they are using the landlord strategy to make it difficult, without "overruling".

I think it's fucked either way, but California medicinal marijuana distribution is very much alive, well and striving - that's a fact. It wouldn't be so if the Fed had overruled the California law.

[IMaDick]

If California law wasn't being over ruled no lawsuit could be filed by the fed.