“You will find that the State is the kind of organization which, though it does big things badly, does small things badly, too.”
John Kenneth Galbraith (1908 – 2006)

We elect these people to SERVE us. They are not our bosses, we are theirs. The best move to never to vote for an incumbent. Vote all the bastards out.

Ok everyone, answer me this: Have you ever met a violent stoner?

The Conservative Argument for Legalization

I believe the SCOTUS logic went something like this. The feds have the power to regulate shipping marijuana (MJ) from, say, Texas to California because this is clearly interstate commerce. Now, if Californians get their own seeds, plant their own MJ, and then use their own or sell it to someone within the state, then the supply of marijuana within the state of California increases. Given a steady demand for marijuana within California, an increase of production in the state REDUCES THE NEED TO IMPORT from out of state…. Therefore, as such actions as growing MJ within the state of California would impact interstate commerce, the federal government has the power to regulate it.

Obviously, this logic can be applied to anything. This interpretation of the Commerce Clause is ultimately what has given the feds the power to pass laws on almost anything they want to involving trade, goods, or services.

Any takers, neocons? Or are you all pussies like Bush, Cheney, et.al.? We’re *waiting….*

Maybe some right-winger can explain to me the wisdom of having a bullying, overbearing federal government forcing the states to deny sick people the medication that gives them relief. I’d also like someone on the right to explain to me why federalism should prevail when it comes to allowing the states to arrest gay people, ban dildoes, or to trample all over civil rights, but when it comes to letting sick people use marijuana to keep their medication down, we ought to genuflect before the power of the federal government.

Simple, with the “right-wingers” who support this crap it’s about the Bible. When the federal government does things that they think the Bible supports, then the federal government can do what they want. When the states do things that they think the Bible would support, they’re for states’ rights. The Constitution and individual rights don’t really factor into it. Especially when it comes to taking away rights from people they find personally repugnant or sticking their noses into their neighbors’ private lives. If anyone can push this country into totalitarianism, it’ll be the chirpy Jesus freaks.

*quietly skulks away*

Do you understand that attacking the GOP doesn’t always equate to defending the Democrats? There’s a decidedly pox-on-both-their-houses attitude, here.

If you’d called on statist leftwingers to defend their positions, too, your position might have translated a bit better.

That’s what all this drug nonsense is about. It’s easy enough to continue laying the blame at the feet of the “moral majority” or “religious right” but that glosses over the simple fact that drug laws, like all other violations of liberty, are simply exercises in statism. And the left has no claim to any higher ground in the fight between statists and Libertarians.

That’s not true. I think your interpretation of the Constitution is reasonable but the Supreme court has very clearly interpretted the Constitution to say that intrastate can be touched by the feds because of the fact that intrastate commerce will affect interstate commerce and the necessary and proper clause thus links one to the other.

So, established law says that what the feds are doing here is legal, even though we’d all prefer a different interpretation.

And Bruce, your definition of the word “regulate” would not fly in any reasonable interpretation of the Constitution. There is simply no way the drafters of the document intended to deny the feds the right to ban a product, and general rather than hyper-technical interpretations have been consitently preferred by the high Court.

Of course this case is still total fucking bullshit.

A few judges issuing ridiculously short sentences would give the Feds some significant pause before pursuing these types of cases.

Nando, wishful thinking only. It would run afoul of the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.

The Supremacy Clause does not apply to legislation that violates the Constitution. Intrastate commerce in marijuana has no federal component to it, and thus any federal agent who enforces federal laws on the matter can be legitimately treated by the state police as a violent criminal.

Nothing would make me happier on this issue than to see a state police SWAT unit bust down the DEA’s doors, no-knock style. It would also be legal under the constitution.