States Rights?
-
Just kidding
No weed
-
Silly Little monkey States rights is only for sht we agree with. Duh!
-
Just kidding
No weed
No kidding needed, MLD.
The 'States Rights' folks are all-to-ready to jump on Federal Government intervention if the particular policy doesn't align with their beliefs.
Of course, Blue State Governers continue to make noise about the Federal Government usurping their State soverngty.
We are all hypocrites.
-
There is just a fine line - Federal rights, like the 1st/2nd Amendments, etc... are not trashable by
states. But there is no amendment that says "the right of the people to do and sell bad illegal drugs shall not be infringed"
It's simple.
-
Obama just let it go, Sessions is giving authority to federal prosecutors to go ahead and ENFORCE FEDERAL LAWS. I hope they do it in CA and CO. It will really piss off their Governor's. Fuk em.
-
There is just a fine line - Federal rights, like the 1st/2nd Amendments, etc... are not trashable by
states. But there is no amendment that says "the right of the people to do and sell bad illegal drugs shall not be infringed"
It's simple.
There is just a fine line - Federal rights, like the 1st/2nd Amendments, etc... are not trashable by
states. But there is no amendment that says "the right of the people to do and sell bad illegal drugs shall not be infringed"
It's simple.
If the majority of voters in a state want it, should they have the right to make it into law?
-
Should weed be legal?
No
Why?
Because it's an illegal drug
......
-
"I really believe you should leave [legalization] up to the states; it should be a state by state situation..."
-
MAGA!
-
There is just a fine line - Federal rights, like the 1st/2nd Amendments, etc... are not trashable by
states. But there is no amendment that says "the right of the people to do and sell bad illegal drugs shall not be infringed"
It's simple.
If the majority of voters in a state want it, should they have the right to make it into law?
If the majority of voters in a state want it, should they have the right to make it into law?
not if it directly contradicts clear cut Constitutional Rights.
-
If the majority of voters in a state want it, should they have the right to make it into law?
not if it directly contradicts clear cut Constitutional Rights.
-
If the majority of voters in a state want it, should they have the right to make it into law?
not if it directly contradicts clear cut Constitutional Rights.
-
If it is illegal federally, it cannot be legal on a state basis, as I understand it.
Here is a great explanation - I didn't write it...
"Wrong. The law that applies to situations where state and federal laws disagree is called the supremacy clause, which is part of article VI of the Constitution. The supremacy clause contains what's known as the doctrine of pre-emption, which says that the federal government wins in the case of conflicting legislation.
-
Marijuana isn’t mentioned in the constitution. So if the majority of citizens in a state want it legal, it is fine?
It was in the Declaration of Independence, we hold these truths to be self-evident that all non-weed smoking white men are created equal.
-
-
So I see this has devolved from states rights into a 'hey man, I want to get high' thread.
The biggest dangers involved with oxy or heroin are impure sources, the drugs being laced with even more powerful or dangerous substances.
So for the safety of those who like the buzz why not just legalized it all and control it, making sure the pills you buy on the street are safe and dose controlled?
WSS
-
So I see this has devolved from states rights into a 'hey man, I want to get high' thread.
The biggest dangers involved with oxy or heroin are impure sources, the drugs being laced with even more powerful or dangerous substances.
So for the safety of those who like the buzz why not just legalized it all and control it, making sure the pills you buy on the street are safe and dose controlled?
WSS
So I see this has devolved from states rights into a 'hey man, I want to get high' thread.
The biggest dangers involved with oxy or heroin are impure sources, the drugs being laced with even more powerful or dangerous substances.
So for the safety of those who like the buzz why not just legalized it all and control it, making sure the pills you buy on the street are safe and dose controlled?
WSS
Biggest danger to the individual, yes. The biggest danger with the opioid epidemic is decreased human productivity and crime.
The States' rights vs strong central government discussion it worthwhile but gets oversimplified too often to make a point. For instance this Country couldn't allow a State to legalize burglary.
-
So I see this has devolved from states rights into a 'hey man, I want to get high' thread.
The biggest dangers involved with oxy or heroin are impure sources, the drugs being laced with even more powerful or dangerous substances.
So for the safety of those who like the buzz why not just legalized it all and control it, making sure the pills you buy on the street are safe and dose controlled?
WSS
Biggest danger to the individual, yes. The biggest danger with the opioid epidemic is decreased human productivity and crime.
The States' rights vs strong central government discussion it worthwhile but gets oversimplified too often to make a point. For instance this Country couldn't allow a State to legalize burglary.
Biggest danger to the individual, yes. The biggest danger with the opioid epidemic is decreased human productivity and crime.
The States' rights vs strong central government discussion it worthwhile but gets oversimplified too often to make a point. For instance this Country couldn't allow a State to legalize burglary.
Why would crime be a problem if it were freely distributed at a low cost? And the doses were controlled and safe? Heck the pillbillies could just stay home all day, never venture out into the public.
Human productivity, you're kidding about that one right?
WSS
-
If something is legal on a federal level, can a state make it illegal?
-
The law that applies to situations where state and federal laws disagree is called the supremacy clause, which is part of article VI of the Constitution. The supremacy clause contains what's known as the doctrine of pre-emption, which says that the federal government wins in the case of conflicting legislation.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login