States Rights?
-
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.
-
I can't wait until the Feds shut down all the businesses in Colorado, and stop any from opening in CA,
-
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
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
You take wasted people with nothing but time on their hands and bad things happen.
Yeah at some point when the Donald moves us to underemployment the labor force will need to pick up the slack.
-
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
You take wasted people with nothing but time on their hands and bad things happen.
Yeah at some point when the Donald moves us to underemployment the labor force will need to pick up the slack.
You take wasted people with nothing but time on their hands and bad things happen.
that's exactly true. Welcome to Utopia.
Yeah at some point when the Donald moves us to underemployment the labor force will need to pick up the slack.
unfortunately the day has passed when we can all live like kings while doing jobs that a monkey can do. We don't need 200000 men to run a software firm. The days of earning an upper middle-class income by loading and unloading semi trucks is in the rear view. Sure we could open up the borders and let unskilled laborers flood in like rats to pick fruit but don't kid yourself bacon, their children and grandchildren won't do it.
WSS
go back to Robert Reich and his participation wage thread I put up. What will those people have to do with their lives than sit around and smoke weed?
WSS
-
-
I have no use for christie. opportunistic fraud loudmouth.
-
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
You take wasted people with nothing but time on their hands and bad things happen.
Yeah at some point when the Donald moves us to underemployment the labor force will need to pick up the slack.
You take wasted people with nothing but time on their hands and bad things happen.
Wasted people, bad things.
High people, art and Sheet. Or just nothing
-
This little thing called the civil war sort of put the kibosh on states' rights.
-
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?
That is a very slippery slope, my friend.
We have a Republic, not a Democracy. Protecting 'minority' views, persuasions, etc. if what America is all about.
I like to see the Federal Drug Laws amended. I do not want to see 'Majority Rule' used as a broad brush.
-
If something is legal on a federal level, can a state make it illegal?
I am far from - even - being an armchair Attorney, never mind a Constitutional one.
I believe, though, Federal Law trumps States Laws.
Gip can, certainly, answer this question with much more velocity than can I.
-
Nullification, in United States constitutional history, is a legal theory that a state has the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal law which that state has deemed unconstitutional. The theory of nullification has never been legally upheld by federal courts.[1]
The theory of nullification is based on a view that the States formed the Union by an agreement (or "compact") among the States, and that as creators of the federal government, the States have the final authority to determine the limits of the power of that government. Under this, the compact theory, the States and not the federal courts are the ultimate interpreters of the extent of the federal government's power. Under this theory, the States therefore may reject, or nullify, federal laws that the States believe are beyond the federal government's constitutional powers. The related idea of interposition is a theory that a state has the right and the duty to "interpose" itself when the federal government enacts laws that the state believes to be unconstitutional. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison set forth the theories of nullification and interposition in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions in 1798.
Courts at the state and federal level, including the U.S. Supreme Court, repeatedly have rejected the theory of nullification.[2] The courts have decided that under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, federal law is superior to state law, and that under Article III of the Constitution, the federal judiciary has the final power to interpret the Constitution. Therefore, the power to make final decisions about the constitutionality of federal laws lies with the federal courts, not the states, and the states do not have the power to nullify federal laws.
Between 1798 and the beginning of the Civil War in 1861, several states threatened or attempted nullification of various federal laws. None of these efforts were legally upheld. The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions were rejected by the other states. The Supreme Court rejected nullification attempts in a series of decisions in the 19th century, including Ableman v. Booth, which rejected Wisconsin's attempt to nullify the Fugitive Slave Act. The Civil War ended most nullification efforts.
In the 1950s, southern states attempted to use nullification and interposition to prevent integration of their schools. These attempts failed when the Supreme Court again rejected nullification in Cooper v. Aaron, explicitly holding that the states may not nullify federal law.
-
Nullification, in United States constitutional history, is a legal theory that a state has the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal law which that state has deemed unconstitutional. The theory of nullification has never been legally upheld by federal courts.[1]
The theory of nullification is based on a view that the States formed the Union by an agreement (or "compact") among the States, and that as creators of the federal government, the States have the final authority to determine the limits of the power of that government. Under this, the compact theory, the States and not the federal courts are the ultimate interpreters of the extent of the federal government's power. Under this theory, the States therefore may reject, or nullify, federal laws that the States believe are beyond the federal government's constitutional powers. The related idea of interposition is a theory that a state has the right and the duty to "interpose" itself when the federal government enacts laws that the state believes to be unconstitutional. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison set forth the theories of nullification and interposition in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions in 1798.
Courts at the state and federal level, including the U.S. Supreme Court, repeatedly have rejected the theory of nullification.[2] The courts have decided that under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, federal law is superior to state law, and that under Article III of the Constitution, the federal judiciary has the final power to interpret the Constitution. Therefore, the power to make final decisions about the constitutionality of federal laws lies with the federal courts, not the states, and the states do not have the power to nullify federal laws.
Between 1798 and the beginning of the Civil War in 1861, several states threatened or attempted nullification of various federal laws. None of these efforts were legally upheld. The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions were rejected by the other states. The Supreme Court rejected nullification attempts in a series of decisions in the 19th century, including Ableman v. Booth, which rejected Wisconsin's attempt to nullify the Fugitive Slave Act. The Civil War ended most nullification efforts.
In the 1950s, southern states attempted to use nullification and interposition to prevent integration of their schools. These attempts failed when the Supreme Court again rejected nullification in Cooper v. Aaron, explicitly holding that the states may not nullify federal law.
Nullification, in United States constitutional history, is a legal theory that a state has the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal law which that state has deemed unconstitutional. The theory of nullification has never been legally upheld by federal courts.[1]
Like Reagan used to say - the States formed the Federal Government, not the other way around.
Thanks for the explicit law, Die, but we both know a State usurping the authority of the Federal Government ain't even going to happen. And I hate to use the word, "Never".
Sounds like a legal Catch-22 to me.
-
Jeff Sessions is a scumbag!
Republicans claim "states rights! leave the government out of my life!"
but will kow tow to this PoS... Shmuck him!Congress needs to step up and change the federal laws to reflect the views of the people that put them into office!
64% of Americans support pot legalization. but this fukwit wants to go after legal businesses??
I hope a piano falls from the sky and lands on Sessions and we can get a new AG..
-
Don't bogart that joint pot head!
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