Trump needs to lay off the states on the pot issue - Page 4 - Talk About Marriage
Politics and Religion This is the place to discuss politics, morality, religion, and anything controversial.

User Tag List

 72Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
post #46 of 53 (permalink) Old 03-04-2017, 12:40 PM
Member
 
bandit.45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 17,431
Re: Trump needs to lay off the states on the pot issue

As ugly as Americans are acting towards one another over the Trump election we have never needed pot more than we do now.

bandit.45 is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #47 of 53 (permalink) Old 03-04-2017, 02:48 PM
Member
 
2ntnuf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: PA
Posts: 13,989
Re: Trump needs to lay off the states on the pot issue

I don't have a dog in the mj fight. The main issue I have is the use of it while driving, performing duties or work and working with others. I don't want anyone to be harmed by the actions of someone using it and being intoxicated. I don't care if someone uses it at home in privacy. That will never be the only place it's used. I have legitimate concerns. I also wonder how it will come to affect those who use it regularly. I saw something on television that suggested it's use over extended time periods has caused some sort of issue with brain functions. I'll leave that for those who are more interested due to use. If it's true, it could cause costs of health insurance to rise. Who knows?

I do wonder if this is really a states rights issue, rather than a federal issue.

Here is something I found while searching a bit.


Quote:
State interposition was first presented in the 1798 Virginia and Kentucky resolutions, written by Thomas Jefferson and James ******* to protest the anti-Republican Alien and Sedition Acts. In these documents Jefferson and ******* applied the social contract theory formulated by 17-century English philosophers Thomas Hobbes and John Locke to the U.S. Constitution. They argued that because representatives of the states had written the Constitution, the power of constitutional interpretation rested with the states. So if a state believed the federal government was violating the terms of the national charter, it had the right to interpose itself between its people and the federal government to provide protection from tyranny. The Fort Hill Address of July 1831 was the first time Calhoun openly and unambiguously identified himself with the nullification cause. In that speech, he proclaimed that the right of state interposition was ‘the fundamental principle of our system’ and that the federal government must accept that right in order to keep the Constitution and the Union secure. ‘The Constitution of the United States is, in fact, a compact, to which each State is a party,’ he argued. Since, in his view, ‘the States…formed the compact, acting as Sovereign and independent communities…, the several States, or parties, have a right to judge of its infractions.’

http://www.historynet.com/john-c-cal...-civil-war.htm
Of course, states can take away rights provided under the Constitution, if they can change others. I am not advocating anything. I am trying to provide a bit of background and educate myself on what this means, while sharing it for anyone else interested.

Here is another excerpt on how that worked out.

Quote:
Calhoun’s exercise went beyond mere theorizing. He helped develop a procedure for states to use their power of interposition. He suggested a state should first call a convention to consider any federal action in question. If the convention determined that the action violated its understanding of the Constitution, then it could declare the action ‘null and void,’ denying the federal government the power to execute the law within that state. The federal government would then have to either amend the Constitution to legitimize its action or repeal the measure. And if the Constitution was amended in a way the state considered unacceptable, the state had the right to leave the Union.
In developing the concept of nullification, Calhoun did not intend to encourage states to secede. He sought only to give them a way to ensure a strict interpretation of the Constitution and lead the nation away from ‘the dangerous and despotic doctrine of consolidation’ and back to ‘its true confederative character.’ This was especially important for the minority South. ‘The major and dominant party will have no need of these restrictions for their protection,’ Calhoun wrote. The minority, however, required ‘a construction [of the Constitution] which would confine these powers to the narrowest limits.’
My apologies for finding this in such an article.


What is this thread really about, mj or states rights?

"I'm significant!! Screamed the dust speck." - Bill Watterson

"And this, too, shall pass away."
2ntnuf is offline  
post #48 of 53 (permalink) Old 03-04-2017, 06:43 PM
Member
 
bandit.45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 17,431
Re: Trump needs to lay off the states on the pot issue

Driving under the influence is driving under the influence. Doesn't matter what the substance is. You do it, you go to jail.
bandit.45 is online now  
 
post #49 of 53 (permalink) Old 03-04-2017, 07:49 PM Thread Starter
Forum Supporter
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 5,507
Re: Trump needs to lay off the states on the pot issue

Quote:
Originally Posted by Haiku View Post
I'm fine with allowing each state to determine whether weed is legal within its borders and bringing it under ATF.

The legalization of "drugs" movement? Preposterous. Nope.
ATF is a fascist organization that should be demolished.

Other than that, great comment!

Always remember the LD motto: "Sex isn't important!!!"
tech-novelist is offline  
post #50 of 53 (permalink) Old 03-05-2017, 07:42 AM
Member
 
2ntnuf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: PA
Posts: 13,989
Re: Trump needs to lay off the states on the pot issue

ATF is federal, so if states want the right to use pot, don't they also have the responsibility to police it? Sort of like the water issues in Michigan, they don't come in unless the state is in a 'pickle', and requests their help?

I think this should be true for any state choice. Isn't it already? I'm a mess. I don't know these things. Sorry.

"I'm significant!! Screamed the dust speck." - Bill Watterson

"And this, too, shall pass away."
2ntnuf is offline  
post #51 of 53 (permalink) Old 03-06-2017, 09:34 AM
Member
 
Kivlor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Rural Midwest
Posts: 3,120
Re: Trump needs to lay off the states on the pot issue

A part of me hopes that Sessions and the DOJ go all out against the states on this. I think that enforcing the law is important--even when I hate those laws. And I think this will come with the added bonus of Congress actually considering legalization.

Pot has become pretty socially tolerable, in that most people think that it shouldn't be illegal, or at worst shouldn't be punished with more than a fine. Forcing the populace to face these laws, now that there are actual businesses to be crushed under their weight, and the news can't completely bury the stories with the internet may be able to create a serious movement for repeal.

Do you hear the people sing / Lost in the valley of the night?
It is the music of a people / Who are climbing to the light.
For the wretched of the earth / There is a flame that never dies.
Even the darkest night will end / And the sun will rise...
Kivlor is offline  
post #52 of 53 (permalink) Old 03-06-2017, 04:37 PM
Member
 
2ntnuf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: PA
Posts: 13,989
Re: Trump needs to lay off the states on the pot issue

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kivlor View Post
A part of me hopes that Sessions and the DOJ go all out against the states on this. I think that enforcing the law is important--even when I hate those laws. And I think this will come with the added bonus of Congress actually considering legalization.

Pot has become pretty socially tolerable, in that most people think that it shouldn't be illegal, or at worst shouldn't be punished with more than a fine. Forcing the populace to face these laws, now that there are actual businesses to be crushed under their weight, and the news can't completely bury the stories with the internet may be able to create a serious movement for repeal.
States don't have the rights they should. That's what should be looked into with vigor. I think it is way more important, and would help to solve this issue and many others.

"I'm significant!! Screamed the dust speck." - Bill Watterson

"And this, too, shall pass away."
2ntnuf is offline  
post #53 of 53 (permalink) Old 03-06-2017, 05:04 PM
Member
 
bandit.45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 17,431
Re: Trump needs to lay off the states on the pot issue

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2ntnuf View Post
ATF is federal, so if states want the right to use pot, don't they also have the responsibility to police it? Sort of like the water issues in Michigan, they don't come in unless the state is in a 'pickle', and requests their help?

I think this should be true for any state choice. Isn't it already? I'm a mess. I don't know these things. Sorry.
Well it's like gun laws. The states have "policing authority" over the sale, licensing and distribution of firearms, but the 2d Ammendment prohibits any state or municipality from completely restricting gun ownership. They can make you wait, go through a background check, get a certain kind of license for certain kinds of firearms, register your firearms, and make you jump through hoops....but ultimately they cannot usurp Constitutional authority.

In 1880, after the murder of Marshal Ed White in Tombstone, Arizona, the town council outlawed the carrying of loaded firearms within the city limits of Tombstone. It was one of a series of circumstances that led to the gunfight between the Earps and the Clanton gang. And since the 1950s, the largest percentage of the town's e economy has been generated through tourism. When tourists visit Tombstone they expect to see reenactors carrying holstered sidearms. Now, since the 1950s, you could carry a sidearm within city limits, but you could not have your firearm loaded with projectile ammunition. The ammo had to be blanks, or you had to carry the gun empty. You also had to register your firearm with the Tombstone Marshall's office, obtain a permit, and carry it with you at all times.

Here is the problem. Arizona has always been an open carry state. You can carry a holstered, fully loaded revolver or semi-automatic on your person, in plain view, in public, at any time. The only restriction is that you cannot carry a gun into a liquor store, bar, government building or public school. Well a few years back there was a lawsuit filed against he city of Tombstone with the Federal Circuit Court wherein the plaintiffs said that the municipality of Tombstone could not legally prohibit the carry the of loaded firearms, and that the 1880 ordinance was unlawful since it usurped the State of Arizona's authority to police and oversee the sales, carry and ownership of firearms. The court agreed with the plaintiffs and Tombstone's ordinance was essentially declared null and void.

Now every nutcase (and unfortunately Tombstone has more than its fair share) who thinks he is Wyatt Earp's long lost great grandson, can carry a fully loaded Colt .45 on his hip with no restriction. It's sobering to go to that town and see dozens of reenactors, hawkers and store owners packing big iron at all times.
bandit.45 is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on Talk About Marriage, you must first register. Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

Important! Your username will be visible to the public next to anything you post and could show up in search engines like Google. If you are concerned about anonymity, PLEASE choose a username that will not be recognizable to anyone you know.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Those lazy unmotivated pot heads? tech-novelist The Social Spot 23 04-26-2016 04:49 PM
Need help from the ladies - body image issue bbdad The Ladies' Lounge 15 02-15-2016 12:32 PM
Great Marriage with One Major Issue R0badab0b General Relationship Discussion 9 01-16-2016 06:50 AM
Who knows more about how pot affects programmers? tech-novelist Politics and Religion 58 12-27-2015 08:04 PM

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome