Personally, I'm all for making it legal. Living in a state that is flat broke, I'll take any money we can get from this endeavor. At least this way we'll have more money for the government to misappropriate before we go broke again.
Yea or Nay: Legalize Marijuana (Prop 19 in CA)
Personally, I'm all for making it legal. Living in a state that is flat broke, I'll take any money we can get from this endeavor. At least this way we'll have more money for the government to misappropriate before we go broke again.
Legzman
what the fuck you lookin at?
Fuck yes!
It only takes one and eventually all the rest of the states will fall into line. Eventually the federal government will just legalize it once they see how much money the states are getting from it.
They vote nov. 2nd. I'll be checking on the results as soon as I get up nov. 3rd! Though I'm sure it'll pass.
It only takes one and eventually all the rest of the states will fall into line. Eventually the federal government will just legalize it once they see how much money the states are getting from it.
They vote nov. 2nd. I'll be checking on the results as soon as I get up nov. 3rd! Though I'm sure it'll pass.
PlasmaTwa2
The Second-Hottest Man in my Mother's Basement
Shit, if they can overturn Prop 8, I can't see them not challenging this if it passes...
PT2 there would be no constitutional grounds by which this would be subject to overturning.
If a proposition or measure passes legalizing marijuana...it violates no one's rights hence no one would have standing to challenge the law's constitutionality.
The majority can pass anything. The test as to whether some court can intervene (on behalf of some complainant/plaintiff) in the law is whether it violates some provision or right in our constitution.
I don't smoke but Legalize, Legalize, Legalize!
Yea
roronoa3000
Banned
Legalize everything, everywhere, anytime!!
As much as I want to agree with you, there is one possible constitutional issue: the Commerce Clause.
In Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), the Supreme Court ruled that any aspect of trade which might potentially significantly affect interstate commerce falls within Congress' power to regulate. In Wicker v. Filburn (1942), the court, building from the Gibbons ruling, ruled against a farmer growing wheat on his own private property for his own private home consumption, which was never sold on the market, on the grounds that if everyone could grow their own wheat then nobody would buy it, thus significantly affecting interstate commerce. (Because, in that case, the government wanted to price fix the price of wheat.) In Gonzales v. Raich (2005), the court ruled that by and through the power of the commerce clause that Congress has the power to prohibit medical marijuana in all states.
I'm guessing that the argument against Prop 19 would basically follow that the government has an interest in squashing interstate black market trade which would flow from California into the other states. I think our only hope is that by the time the case reaches the Supreme Court that enough justices will be sympathetic with broad popular opinion and with the number of states which will also, by then, have legalized weed, for the justices to pull an amazing opinion out of their ass. Only Clarence Thomas has a consistent track record to protect personal liberties, but maybe there will be a surprise.
Without a doubt... HELL YES. I think history has proven that prohibition doesn't work. People are going to do what they want and making it illegal has not stopped the demand for that sweet cheeba. All it has done is help line the pockets of the politicians that support prohibition and criminalized people who simply grow and/or smoke (or eat) a plant that makes you feel funny.
Weed will never be legal in the US...people are trying to sell cigarretes you know? There's even a movie about the cigarrete struggle: "Thank You For Smoking".
It's all about the business. It's not that the politicians care about marijuana, it's that they don't want to bring forth a strong competitor against cigarretes (which are 8 dollars per pack, imagine that).
It's all about the business. It's not that the politicians care about marijuana, it's that they don't want to bring forth a strong competitor against cigarretes (which are 8 dollars per pack, imagine that).
We live in a Nanny State. We have a bunch of people with Type A personalities with an interest in politics who like to sniff their noses up other people's asses and tell us what's the upright way to live. It's hard to argue against safety prevention. Look what happened to trans fat, which made candy taste good, and is now illegal and candy tastes more like crap because some people are irresponsibly fat. Despite the shady reasons why weed was criminalized, pertaining to racism and hemp production, that's not why it remains illegal—the puritanicals of social conservatism like how it keeps people "safe" from themselves. I have to agree with Penn Jillette when he compares government to a ratchet effect: every time you allow government to grow a little bigger, it's very hard to ever pull it back.
I really don't think there's a "cigarette competitor" conspiracy, it's not the best explanation. Tobacco smoking keeps getting more and more regulated, restricted, and I believe politicians would like to outright ban it, if wasn't for the enormous uproar which would erupt from smokers.
Good post. Without looking into the case law and prevailing opinion on them...I believe those cases deal with regulation on personal growth/use not prohibition of medical marijuana.
I don't smoke it but they legalize it then they can tax the crap out of it.
Jagger69
Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
Pot is as much a potential competitor to cigarettes as whiskey is to coffee. Sure, both of them are drinks but people consume them for vastly different reasons.
Besides, I remember back in the day many a time lighting up a Marlboro Red immediately after smoking a joint and I'm sure there are still millions of people who do the very same thing to this day.
impdaddy
Article VI of the Constitution says hi.
You can't pass a state law that interferes with federal law. Federal law always supersedes. If people want marijuana legalized, it's the federal government they should be worrying about. California has already essentially delegated the legality of medicinal marijuana to local governments, and the federal courts have so far, abrogated it. Thus, this entire proposition is really at this point a pointless statement.
Similar threads
