Trump Administration moves to end legal marijuana.

Rune said:
Wrong dipshit.
Click to expand...
You're a truly weird man, you nearly died ffs. Most people would take that as a sign and behave differently, yet you seem even more angry than before. You are not really a good advert for the calming effects of dope, it just seems to make you incredibly paranoid.

You should read this heartbreaking story, it is tragic that she died so young.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...html?ICO=most_read_module&mrn_rm=rta-fallback

Sent from my Lenovo K8 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
USFREEDOM911 said:
But does the need for them to back off, include just ignoring the existing law and then complaining when someone is arrested for ignoring the law?
Click to expand...

No. But the changes necessary in getting government to back off do not start with blindly following idiots who argue absurdities in support of the law simply because it is "the law". Bad law needs to be changed, and the first step is in getting people to reject absurdities like the inarguably inane idea that deliberately creating and supporting black markets is the best way to "control" or "wage war on" any substance.
 
Damocles said:
No. But the changes necessary in getting government to back off do not start with blindly following idiots who argue absurdities in support of the law simply because it is "the law". Bad law needs to be changed, and the first step is in getting people to reject absurdities like the inarguably inane idea that deliberately creating and supporting black markets is the best way to "control" or "wage war on" any substance.
Click to expand...

As I currently understand it, the federal position ultimately derives from the Supreme Courts decision on Wickard v. Filburn which creates complete federal authority over every thing under the name of interstate commerce even when no commerce is involved.

Even with 29 states now showing clear consent for tolerance, how do we role back such legislative power from SCOTUS? I doubt we will ever pass another actual constitution amendment ever again, but outside of that, I am not sure what can be done.
 
zymurgy said:
As I currently understand it, the federal position ultimately derives from the Supreme Courts decision on Wickard v. Filburn which creates complete federal authority over every thing under the name of interstate commerce even when no commerce is involved.

Even with 29 states now showing clear consent for tolerance, how do we role back such legislative power from SCOTUS? I doubt we will ever pass another actual constitution amendment ever again, but outside of that, I am not sure what can be done.
Click to expand...

What the SCOTUS "allows" does not necessarily mean it is required. For example, the SCOTUS has ruled that after the 27th week you can simply ban all abortions, but almost no state does. The SCOTUS, even if it decided that MJ was the "worst drug that ever existed" because they all watched Reefer Madness the night before, it wouldn't mean that the Congress cannot pass a law that doesn't treat it as such.

The reality is, the best way to change the law is to simply elect people that will vote differently than those who have voted on this in the past.
 
Damocles said:
What the SCOTUS "allows" does not necessarily mean it is required. For example, the SCOTUS has ruled that after the 27th week you can simply ban all abortions, but almost no state does. The SCOTUS, even if it decided that MJ was the "worst drug that ever existed" because they all watched Reefer Madness the night before, it wouldn't mean that the Congress cannot pass a law that doesn't treat it as such.

The reality is, the best way to change the law is to simply elect people that will vote differently than those who have voted on this in the past.
Click to expand...

well, you would think we would already be beyond critical mass on this issue, but I've seen enough to truly think the Federal Apparatus has setup a system that is able to withstand the will of the people for a lot longer then you think.

until we can roll back federal power, even if a short term win is found, it will prove to be short lived.
 
zymurgy said:
As I currently understand it, the federal position ultimately derives from the Supreme Courts decision on Wickard v. Filburn which creates complete federal authority over every thing under the name of interstate commerce even when no commerce is involved.

Even with 29 states now showing clear consent for tolerance, how do we role back such legislative power from SCOTUS? I doubt we will ever pass another actual constitution amendment ever again, but outside of that, I am not sure what can be done.
Click to expand...

What interstate commerce?
 
Damocles said:
No. But the changes necessary in getting government to back off do not start with blindly following idiots who argue absurdities in support of the law simply because it is "the law". Bad law needs to be changed, and the first step is in getting people to reject absurdities like the inarguably inane idea that deliberately creating and supporting black markets is the best way to "control" or "wage war on" any substance.
Click to expand...

OR, now this might not work; Or people could actually elect the people they want to change this and after ALL these years, it does appear that it may not be as wildly acceptable as everyone keeps suggesting. :dunno:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top