greentoker
Active Member
ok thank for the up date
Dying woman not immune to drug charges?!....
- Thread starter Kryztina
- Start date
entropic
Well-Known Member
You said:
Gonzales v. Raich - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Then you said you know a lot about the Constitution and that the Article in the Constitution that I cited and that the Supreme Court based their decision on probably wasn't really ratified.
Then Kryztina posted the actual date of ratification with links and the day each state ratified the Constitution, you can even see all the amendments with the dates they were ratified.
The court case you link to in your last post is from 1931 and dealt the ability to pass Constitutional Amendments with state legislatures rather than Constitutional Conventions, and all it did was affirm that an amendment can be passed as long as 3/4 of state legislatures pass it. It has no bearing on the matter at hand, as I've shown in other posts in this thread the Supreme Court has specifically ruled that state laws legalizing marijuana are superseded by federal drug laws and that they can and will raid your ass.
I don't believe it's just and I don't believe it's the way things should be but this is the current situation in our country.
http://www.aclu.org/drugpolicy/medmarijuana/27446prs20061116.html
The link above is to a recent ruling in favor of medical marijuana in California but take note that this is only a Superior Court in California, and that the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that they can and will prosecute people on drug charges even in states where it's legal. (See Below)
Supreme Court Rules Against Medical Marijuana
I say you backpedaled because your original arguments was that federal laws can't supersede state laws pertaining to marijuana, and then I offered proof that they did supersede them, then you said that it probably wasn't ratified and therefore isn't valid, then you were given proof that it was indeed ratified, then you went back to saying that states rights in this matter were above the federal governments rights even though I had already given you proof that the federal laws took precedent over state laws regarding marijuana.
How about you show us a case where Marijuana grower was allowed to continue growing by the feds? If it is as you say then there shouldn't be any busts on medicinal growers in states where it's legal, and this is not the case.
And then I showed that the Supreme Court ruled that Federal Drug Laws superseded state laws, in a case pertaining specifically to marijuana.
Gonzales v. Raich - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Then you said you know a lot about the Constitution and that the Article in the Constitution that I cited and that the Supreme Court based their decision on probably wasn't really ratified.
Dankdude said:
You said that an Article of the Constitution is an amendment which is wholly incorrect, Amendments to the Constitution are Amendments to the Constitution, the Articles were the original contents of the Constitution.Dankdude said:
Then Kryztina posted the actual date of ratification with links and the day each state ratified the Constitution, you can even see all the amendments with the dates they were ratified.
The court case you link to in your last post is from 1931 and dealt the ability to pass Constitutional Amendments with state legislatures rather than Constitutional Conventions, and all it did was affirm that an amendment can be passed as long as 3/4 of state legislatures pass it. It has no bearing on the matter at hand, as I've shown in other posts in this thread the Supreme Court has specifically ruled that state laws legalizing marijuana are superseded by federal drug laws and that they can and will raid your ass.
I don't believe it's just and I don't believe it's the way things should be but this is the current situation in our country.
http://www.aclu.org/drugpolicy/medmarijuana/27446prs20061116.html
The link above is to a recent ruling in favor of medical marijuana in California but take note that this is only a Superior Court in California, and that the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that they can and will prosecute people on drug charges even in states where it's legal. (See Below)
Supreme Court Rules Against Medical Marijuana
I say you backpedaled because your original arguments was that federal laws can't supersede state laws pertaining to marijuana, and then I offered proof that they did supersede them, then you said that it probably wasn't ratified and therefore isn't valid, then you were given proof that it was indeed ratified, then you went back to saying that states rights in this matter were above the federal governments rights even though I had already given you proof that the federal laws took precedent over state laws regarding marijuana.
How about you show us a case where Marijuana grower was allowed to continue growing by the feds? If it is as you say then there shouldn't be any busts on medicinal growers in states where it's legal, and this is not the case.
Dankdude
Well-Known Member
Certainly not, no I didn't backpeddle, I was directing you to the 10th amendment the whole time.
And if you read the tenth amendment it says in plain English that the federal government can not encroach on the rights of the state.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people."
The Amendment, which makes explicit the idea that the federal government is limited only to the powers it is granted in the Constitution, is generally recognized to be a truism.
Meaning that it can not get involved in state matters. That means also unless the marijuana has crossed state lines, there has been no federal laws violated.
If you were to go and read the Gonzales v. Raich, What laws were the feds trying to use as a basis for their case?
It was Federal Commerce Clause. Raich was growing for herself. She wasn’t involved in sales, distribution or trafficking and her product sure as hell didn’t cross state lines. Thus she was not guilty of violating the Federal Commerce Clause.
I never said that the government has left growers alone. I am saying that the federal government violated the tenth amendment of the US Constitution. I am also saying that the Supreme Court ruled in error.
I did not step into this argument to play oneupsmentship, I got into this to show how the government is being selective on which laws it is willing to obey.
Funny though, it sounds as though you are cheering on the feds in this matter.
And if you read the tenth amendment it says in plain English that the federal government can not encroach on the rights of the state.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people."
The Amendment, which makes explicit the idea that the federal government is limited only to the powers it is granted in the Constitution, is generally recognized to be a truism.
Meaning that it can not get involved in state matters. That means also unless the marijuana has crossed state lines, there has been no federal laws violated.
If you were to go and read the Gonzales v. Raich, What laws were the feds trying to use as a basis for their case?
It was Federal Commerce Clause. Raich was growing for herself. She wasn’t involved in sales, distribution or trafficking and her product sure as hell didn’t cross state lines. Thus she was not guilty of violating the Federal Commerce Clause.
I never said that the government has left growers alone. I am saying that the federal government violated the tenth amendment of the US Constitution. I am also saying that the Supreme Court ruled in error.
I did not step into this argument to play oneupsmentship, I got into this to show how the government is being selective on which laws it is willing to obey.
Funny though, it sounds as though you are cheering on the feds in this matter.
entropic
Well-Known Member
I apologize then, your posts seemed to indicate that should you find yourself prosecuted by the government you could adequately defend yourself by deferring to the 10th amendment.
I'm not arguing that it shouldn't be the states (peoples) right to decide on the legality, but it's important to know the way it's being handled now as this is the precedent court cases on marijuana go by, and until the courts or the people change it this is how it will continue.
I'm not cheering the police, I'm decrying painting a rosy picture of our legal system for the uninformed to read and think we're immune to prosecution because my state says I can grow it.
I'm not arguing that it shouldn't be the states (peoples) right to decide on the legality, but it's important to know the way it's being handled now as this is the precedent court cases on marijuana go by, and until the courts or the people change it this is how it will continue.
I'm not cheering the police, I'm decrying painting a rosy picture of our legal system for the uninformed to read and think we're immune to prosecution because my state says I can grow it.
Dankdude
Well-Known Member
Personally, I think if the DEA were made to report to the General Accounting Office (which they are not required to do so) the people would demand an end to that agency.
Theirs is a budget that is only rivaled by the Iraq War and has padded their books more than Halliburton.
Theirs is a budget that is only rivaled by the Iraq War and has padded their books more than Halliburton.
entropic
Well-Known Member
I think one of the main problems with this is that the Government is trying to tell doctors what works and what has medical value, so we're forced to take medical advice from the government rather than people trained in medicine and the doctors that may have us as patients, removing a doctors ability to properly treat someone is forcing them to either break the law or their Hippocratic oath, and in most cases a doctor is far more willing to help a human being rather than follow a ridiculous law.
Kryztina
Well-Known Member
I agree.....alot of women (ppl I know) r encouraged to formula feed their young if they encounter the slightest problem nursing-nursing aint easy! but some support is nice...its like the doctors make a cut out of 'upselling'....
headache-take a pill,
tummy rumblies-take a pill
then when u really need meds ur system is so clogged the stuff u need cant work!
(just rambling....pissed @ my mom...lol, sorry if I hit any nerves
)
headache-take a pill,
tummy rumblies-take a pill
then when u really need meds ur system is so clogged the stuff u need cant work!
(just rambling....pissed @ my mom...lol, sorry if I hit any nerves
)
ViRedd
New Member
Growing your own herb and not transporting it across state lines would seem to be in compliance with the Tenth Amendment. But ... But ... what about the equipment, nutrients and all the other stuff required to grow the herb that HAS crossed those state lines? The courts would/will/have used this to negate the Tenth Amendment defense.
And by the way ... I haven't done my taxes for last year yet. I'm seriously considering writing off my growing expenses due to my medical status as a legal California medical grower. Any comments??
Vi
And by the way ... I haven't done my taxes for last year yet. I'm seriously considering writing off my growing expenses due to my medical status as a legal California medical grower. Any comments??
Vi
Dankdude
Well-Known Member
The nutes would not fall under the Commerce clause, nor be in violation of the Tenth Amendment because the lights, nutes or anything that is used to grow the plant should not be negated due to the fact that there are legit uses for the stuff.Growing your own herb and not transporting it across state lines would seem to be in compliance with the Tenth Amendment. But ... But ... what about the equipment, nutrients and all the other stuff required to grow the herb that HAS crossed those state lines? The courts would/will/have used this to negate the Tenth Amendment defense.
And by the way ... I haven't done my taxes for last year yet. I'm seriously considering writing off my growing expenses due to my medical status as a legal California medical grower. Any comments??
Vi
7xstall
Well-Known Member
so, if it's built into the Constitution, which i admit i understand little of, that would explain why the feds almost always "track" stuff till it crosses state lines.
a few weeks ago the DEA busted people that took some marijuana (a hundred pounds or something) from Savannah Georgia to Athens Georgia. is that illegal, Dank? is using a federal Interstate grounds for getting the feds involved even if you don't cross state lines?
a few weeks ago the DEA busted people that took some marijuana (a hundred pounds or something) from Savannah Georgia to Athens Georgia. is that illegal, Dank? is using a federal Interstate grounds for getting the feds involved even if you don't cross state lines?
ViRedd
New Member
The Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. That, is the essence of the "Commerce Clause." This is the clause that has allowed the Supreme Court to run rough-shod over state's rights. In other words, if something has crossed state lines, then it falls under federal jurisdiction. Most who have libertarian viewpoints would say that the courts have misinterpreted the commerce clause, as the founders intended it to prevent taxing of goods coming from one state into another.
Vi
Vi
Dankdude
Well-Known Member
yes 7x, when the drug (i use the term loosely) crosses a state line, it's a violation of federal law... But nutes, lights, substrate cross state lines, it is not because hydroponic supplies have other purposes than marijuana.
And I do know of a lot of hydroponic gardeners who grow vegetables hydroponically.
And I do know of a lot of hydroponic gardeners who grow vegetables hydroponically.
7xstall
Well-Known Member
so, basically, the constitution delegates the management of "intrastate" commerce to the states themselves. it doesn't take a linguist to understand this:
"Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
this expressly says that the constitution is the only thing which can override the state's rights. if this were not the case then i suspect that alcohol prohibition would not have required an amendment. all federal laws pertaining to marijuana are, then, unconstitutional - or they WOULD be if not for that little statement on the end. "OR TO THE PEOPLE". this seems to potentially refer to legislation, such as drug schedules?
i also found "dormant commerce clause" on wiki, yes, that's where i did my research.
it seems that it would be unconstitutional for one state to impose laws that affect the commerce of any other states. say for example that Maine legalized growing, but it was an "island" surrounded by anti-growing states. those states would not be allowed to prevent the distribution of weed to states where distribution is legal. is that correct?
"Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
this expressly says that the constitution is the only thing which can override the state's rights. if this were not the case then i suspect that alcohol prohibition would not have required an amendment. all federal laws pertaining to marijuana are, then, unconstitutional - or they WOULD be if not for that little statement on the end. "OR TO THE PEOPLE". this seems to potentially refer to legislation, such as drug schedules?
i also found "dormant commerce clause" on wiki, yes, that's where i did my research.
it seems that it would be unconstitutional for one state to impose laws that affect the commerce of any other states. say for example that Maine legalized growing, but it was an "island" surrounded by anti-growing states. those states would not be allowed to prevent the distribution of weed to states where distribution is legal. is that correct?
Dankdude
Well-Known Member
As long as the drug it self didn't cross state lines, there would be no violation of law.
BTW there was a constitutional amendment overturning alcohol prohabition.
It's called the 21st amendment.
Twenty-first Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
BTW there was a constitutional amendment overturning alcohol prohabition.
It's called the 21st amendment.
Twenty-first Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dankdude
Well-Known Member
21st amendment of the United States Costitution
“ Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
Section 2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use there in of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.
Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress. ”
“ Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
Section 2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use there in of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.
Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress. ”