The Instigator
Jerred102
Pro (for)
Winning
19 Points
The Contender
Lightkeeper
Con (against)
Losing
18 Points

Resolved: The United States Federal Government should legalize Industrial Hemp.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 6 votes the winner is...
Jerred102
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/24/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,876 times Debate No: 5805
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (41)
Votes (6)

 

Jerred102

Pro

Guess what we could give millions of people the nutrition that they need, cut down on deforestation, bring back the agricultural industry, and you won't even get high in the process.

It's time that America faced the facts Hemp is a vital and needed resource that America needs to use much more efficiently . Here is the funny thing we are allowed to import hemp and use it in our products, but farmers can't grow it. So we spend millions of dollars a year importing this hemp. Makes a lot of since you know because were not in a economic crises or anything.

The agricultural industry is falling and fast and hemp could easily bring it back.

There is no reason why hemp should not be legal to grow in the United States!
Lightkeeper

Con

I thank my opponent for posting this interesting topic.

The resolution is that the US Federal Government should legalize industrial hemp.

I oppose this resolution.

My opponent contends that the Federal Government should do something that the Federal Government has no power to do. Section 8 of Article One of the Constitution of the United States names the powers that the US Congress has. There is no power in the article that would allow the Federal Government to legalize industrial hemp throughout the United States.

The government cannot have a moral or social (or ANY) obligation to do something that it has no power to do. It cannot be asked of the Governmnet to do something it has no power to do.

Consequently, the resolution that the Federal Government should legalize industrial hemp should fail.

Secondly, my opponent has not shown any benefits of industrial hemp over its alternatives. I contend that the onus is on my opponent to show such benefits as it is his resolution.
Debate Round No. 1
Jerred102

Pro

First off I would like to thank my opponent for having this debate with me.

My opponent made the statement that said this resolution was failed because the Federal Government does not have the power to do this, but when we look at what the Federal Government really is we see that yes they do have this power. The Federal Government is broken up into three branches the legislative, executive, and the judicial branch. Through a system of separation of powers and the system of "checks and balances," each of these branches has some authority to act on its own, some authority to regulate the other two branches, and has some of its own authority, in turn, regulated by the other branches. The policies of the federal government have a broad impact on both the domestic and foreign affairs of the United States
Therefore the Federal Government does have the power to change this law.

My opponent also pressed for some evidence on how hemp is better than other alternatives.

Here are a few reasons why hemp is better than the alternatives.

One, Hemp can be made into paper! As many of you know, we use a huge amount of trees each year just for paper production it is said that we cut down 16.32 million trees a year. (1) One acre of hemp paper is equivalent to 4 to 6 acres of trees. (2) Not only that, but hemp paper is much stronger it does not crack, it does not yellow, and it can be recycled many more times then regular paper. Also after we cut down a tree it takes about 40 to 80 years for that tree to mature and be able to cut down again. It takes hemp four months. So even if hemp is not good for anything else (which it is good for other things) we should pass this just so we can cut down on deforestation.

Two, hemp can be used as oil. Farming 6% of the continental U.S. acreage with biomass crops would provide all of America's energy needs. Hemp is Americas number one bio-mass it is capable of producing 10 tons per acre every four months. Biomass can be converted to methane, methanol, or gasoline at a cost comparable to petroleum, and hemp is much better for the environment. Hemp can produce 10 times more methanol than corn. Hemp fuel burns clean. Petroleum causes acid rain due to sulfur pollution. The use of hemp fuel does not contribute to global warming. (3) So yet again another example on why hemp is better than the alternative.

Three, hemp is used in thousands of products and we have to spend millions of dollars to import this from Canada and other countries. So why not grow it here so that people can make more money with it. Yet another reason my we need to legalize hemp.

There are multitudes of reasons on why we should legalize hemp these are just a few.

If I have not answered anything that my opponent has asked for I am sorry.

Thank You again

http://www.triplepundit.com...
http://www.hemphasis.net...
http://www.hempcar.org...
Lightkeeper

Con

The Federal Governent does not have the power to legalize Industrial Hemp.
The powers of Congress are enumerated in the First Article of the US Constitution (specifically Section 8 of the Article). The powers are:

To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
To establish post offices and post roads;
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
(http://en.wikipedia.org...)

There is no power under this article which could be applied to passing an Act to legalize Industrial Hemp.

My opponent has raised separation of power as a mechanism by which (he claims) the Federal Government could have the power to legalize Industrial Hemp. I contend this is not correct.
The Federal Goverment does indeed consist of three branches. Broadly speaking the position is as follows:
1. The Legislature is there to make law within the powers conferred on it by the Constitution.
2. The Executive is there to enforce the laws.
3. The Judiciary is there to resolve disputes and interpret laws as made by the Legislature.
Separation of power has nothing to do with the issue in question.

Any power to legalize industrial hemp rests with the States and not with the Federal Government.

Since the Federal Government has no power to legalize Industrial Hemp, it canno be said to have any obligation (social or moral to do so). Hence, it is incorrect to say that it "should legalize Industrial Hemp".

I will not address the second part of my opponent's argument. I'm sure there are many benefits of Industrial Hemp. There are probably also some disadvantages. However, I have no need to argue these. My opponent's resolution cannot stand as there is no power for the Federal Government to do what he asks of it.
Debate Round No. 2
Jerred102

Pro

The Federal Government does have the power to do this; I have two points.

First the theories of the argument are ok, but let's look at the argument itself.
If this argument is true than why is it that we have federal laws prohibiting the use of some narcotics such as cocaine? I'll tell you why in my second point.

My second point is that there is still a way that the Federal Government can do this; it's called the Necessary-and-Proper clause. The Necessary-and-Proper Clause is the provision in Article One of the United States Constitution, section 8, clause 18:

" The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.'

This is how Federal Laws are enacted.

There is still a way that this plan can get passed because it's something that would drastically help the economy, help the agricultural industry, provide alternative fuels, and will even cut down on deforestation.

My opponent said it himself, hemp has a lot of advantages, so this is necessary for the federal government to enact so that we can cut down on costs of energy and the government would be spending less money. The advantages of making hemp legal are a benefit for our country, and necessary for our economy.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Lightkeeper

Con

The Federal Government (USFG)has no power to legalize the industrial use of hemp.

My opponent claims that USFG has that power under the Incidental Powers provision of the Constitution. The Incidental Powers provision simply gives Congress power to introduce such legislation as is necessary for the proper exercise of the powers it expressely has under the Constitution. Thus for example, the power to legislate with respect of postal services carries with it the incidental power to provide for a system of criminal santctions related to postal matters and a system of enforcement of those sanctions. But the subject matter is still related to an express power. My opponent has not showed any express power that USFG could rely on in this way. In fact no such power exists.

My opponent is not correct as to how the Control Substances Act was enacted. The Control Substances Act was enacted pursuant to the International Treaties power (Art 6) (http://www.newswithviews.com...). The US became a signatory to the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs and thus it gained the power to prohibit those drugs so as to give effect to the Convention.
The Convention empowered USFG to legislate to prohibit drugs as a part of international law. However, it does not empower USFG to legislate to allow industrial production of hemp for non-drug use. The reason for this is in the wording of the Convention itself. I quote:

Art 28, Section 2:"This Convention shall not apply to the cultivation of the cannabis plant exclusively for industrial purposes (fibre and seed) or horticultural purposes." (http://en.wikisource.org...)

To simplify this, the Convention is about drugs. It is not about industrial and non-drug use about plants some parts of which are also capable of being used as drugs.

The Convention does not empower its members to either pohibit nor allow the manufacture of cannabis that is done solely for industrial and non-drug use use. USFG has no other power to allow such use. All it can do is decriminilize it on the federal level. That is, USFG could make an exemption in the Control Substances Act that would result in commercial production of Hemp for industrial purposes (non-drug related) not being a criminal offence. This would not, however, legalize industrial hemp in the USA because there are State laws against it and this area of constitutional power lies with the States. (see http://www.drug-rehabs.org..., http://www.canorml.org... as examples).

To conclude, the USFG cannot legalize industrial hemp becuase that power is a State power. Since it cannot do it, it cannot carry a social or moral obligation to do it and therefore any argument that it "should" is not and cannot be correct.
Debate Round No. 3
Jerred102

Pro

The Federal Government has the power to legalize the industrial use of hemp.

Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution is known as the "Necessary and Proper Clause." It gives Congress the power to make all laws that are necessary and proper for carrying out the duties of the legislative branch. It is also known as the "elastic clause" because it stretches the power of Congress. My opponent continues to say that the United States Federal Government does not have the power to do this, but this is completely untrue. The necessary and proper clause can undermine federalism. So the states have no say. When the congress uses the necessary and proper clause to stretch its powers the states have no choice, but to abide by it.

My opponent says that I have shown no express power, but not only does the congress not need an express power for the necessary and proper clause (because the clause stretches its power) but there are express powers that legalization of hemp can fit under.

The first express power that hemp can fit under is "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." By making hemp legal we are giving researches and scientist time to discover thing that hemp could be used for such as alternative energies.

Second express power that hemp can fit under is "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes." As I have said before we import hemp from other counties. Congress can regulate this, we can easily grow this in America but instead we depend on other counties to grow the hemp for use.

So even though for the clause I pointed doesn't need this express power because it stretches the powers of congress, but I just pointed two ways we can pass this plan under the express powers.

My opponent has says nothing against hemp other than my resolution is failed. As I have shown the Federal Government does have the power to do this.
Lightkeeper

Con

My opponent is absolutely right. I have not a thing to say against the industrial use of hemp being made legal. In fact, I support the idea.

However, I am against any suggestion that the Parliament of China should be the one to legalise industrial hemp in the USA. I am equally against a suggestion that industrial hemp in the USA should be legalised by a declaration of the President of Indonesia. I am opposed to the Pope legalising industrial hemp in the USA. And last but not least, I am against any suggestion that the Federal Government of the US should legalise industrial hemp in the USA.

All of the above have exactly the same power to legalise industrial hemp in the USA. For all of the above, that power is null. And you cannot impose a moral or social obligation on a party which does not have the power to fulfill that obligation.

My opponent seeks to rely on the Necessary and Proper Clause (NAPC). I have already commented on it previously (see my comment about Incidental Power).
The clause is indeed called an elastic clause. The clause is flexible in that it is not limited to a single field. Rather, it applies to any field where an express power exists in the Constitution, so long as the proposed law is necessary and proper for carrying out the duties of the legislative branch. Those duties are defined by the Constitution itself. They are confined to specific powers. Thus, mail theft is a Federal offence. That's because of the Postal Clause in the Constitution. For NAPC to be invoked, there must be some express power which necessitates such invokation. It is true that NAPC by its very nature extends the scope of Federal power. However, that scope is still confined to the powers within the Constitution. There is no power that could extend to the production of industrial hemp even if we were to attempt to link it via the NAPC.

My opponent makes some further contentions:

1. "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."

This clause of the Constitution allows Congress to legislate to promote the progress of science and arts and invention. The clause specifies the scope of this power. That scope is: "by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries". In other words, this power relates to regulating intellectual property. Examples include copyright law and patent law. I fail to see any rationale in suggesting that legalising hemp in the USA would help protect intellectual property rights of authors, scientists etc.

2. "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes."
This so called Commerce Clause relates to interstate and international trade. It is this clause that gives Congress the power to sanction the import of hemp products. My opponent is here closer to home as this power was in fact relied on by USFG to pass a law prohibiting production of marijuana for medical use and this DID include intrastate production. In Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005), it was decided that Congress could rely on the Commerce Clause for that purpose. The reason was that it is impossible to distinguish marijuana grown for interstate use from that grown for intrastate use. Thus, to stop interstate trade of marijuana, Congress had to stop its production on intrastate level. In other words, it was said that to effectively prohibit interstate trade in cannabis, we need to prohibit its intrastate production.
This would not apply in the opposite direction. In other words, had Congress decided that it wanted to allow production of cannabis, it could not use the Commerce Clause to pass such legislation. It could not be said that to effectively allow interstate trade in industrial hemp, it is necessary to allow its intrastate production. To allow interstate trade of cannabis, Congress would simply need to revoke any laws prohibiting such trade. The difficulty in distinguishing cannabis intended for interstate trade from that intended for intrastate trade would not even present itself as there would be no prohibition on the Federal level to start with. Thus, Gonzales does not apply in such a way as to support my opponent's case.
As for my opponent's reasoning in this part of the argument, it does not follow logically. He is correct that trade with other countries falls within the Commerce Clause, as does interstate trade. Thus, Congress can allow import of cannabis or trade in it amongst the states. But the power does not extend to intrastate production. It just does not logically follow.

At the end, I will address a comment made by a reader in the comments section. I thank that reader for taking interest in this debate. He has commented that my argument is semantic. Respectfully, it is not. My opponent's intention was NOT to argue that USFG should simply revoke Federal laws prohibiting the production of cannabis. If you look at his contentions in R1, you will see that he does not even address division of power. Instead, he focuses on the merits of producing industrial hemp. If USFG did revoke laws prohibiting production of cannabis, this would not achieve the ends sought and advocated by my opponent in the course of his argument. Therefore, what he is really seeking is blanket legalisation of industrial hemp in the USA. This is also evident from his R2 and R3. He is arguing in those rounds that USFG has the power to allow the production of industrial hemp in the USA. Needless to say, if my opponent were correct then the effect of the law subject of the resolution would be that the states would have no power to disallow such prodution. This is because Federal Law prevails over State Law in case of conflict.

My opponent is correct that I am attacking his resolution. I am entitled to. It is the resolution (and not the Initiator's reasons in support thereof) that must be proven or disproven. My opponent, with respect, has no power to dictate to me how I will argue my case. He could have stipulated in R1 what debate he is asking for and I would then oblige. However, given no such stipulation, I am perfectly entitled to argue on any basis I find fit.

In conclusion, USFG has no power to legalise industrial hemp in the USA. The power is with the States. My opponent has not shown (despite trying to) any source in the Constitution that would give USFG such power.

The resolution has a similar legal effect to one of "The Israeli Parliament should legalise gay marriage in Kansas City". The answer to that resolution would be obvious. "No it shouldn't. It can't. You're wrong." Well, the effect is the same. USFG has just as much power to legalise industrial hemp in the USA as Israel has to legalise gay marriage in Kansas City.

Finally, I would like to re-iterate that I am very much in favour of allowing the production of industrial hemp on US soil. In that regard, I am in heated agreement with my opponent. If the debate were "The 50 States should legalise industrial hemp", I would not take issue with it.

However, as it stands, the resolution cannot succeed.
Debate Round No. 4
Jerred102

Pro

My opponent has continued and continued to say that the Federal Government can not legalize hemp, BUT THEY CAN.

My opponent says that the states are the only ones that can do this, but there is this thing called Concurrent Powers! The powers are powers shared both by the Federal and State Government. These powers are:

collect taxes
borrow money (not to be confused with Coining Money)
establish and maintain courts
make and enforce laws

The Federal Government can make laws. So therefore they can make a law saying hemp is not illegal.

Next I have showed to express which Congress could use to change this. My first one was;

"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."

This clause of the Constitution allows Congress to legislate to promote the progress of science and arts and invention. With hemp being illegal we are not letting and scientist from any part of the nation be able to research anything about hemp for anything length of time.

My next express power was;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes.

The obviously fits because we import hemp; by making it legal this would change the amount we import and things of that nature.

My third point was even if hemp doesn't fall under any of these cat orgies (which it does) we still have the necessary and proper clause. This clause expands the power of congress farther then the express powers allow. Otherwise what is the point of the clause. As long as it is for the good of the country this can be used.

The Federal Government can do this. And if you notice my opponent does not give any sources when he says things like hemp wont fit under those express powers or that the necessary and proper clause doesn't expand the powers of congress. I have given specific sources on the necessary and proper clause that say they can do this.

The Federal Government can do this. This is the amazing thing about our government the constitution allows flexibility. This entire debate round has been over wording in the constitution. And the constitution wording can be argued all day and neither one of us well get anywhere. Our nation as been arguing the wording of the constitution since the day it was written. This debate round we should have been arguing the subject weather or not hemp should be legalized.

I Thank my opponent
Lightkeeper

Con

My opponent now wishes to rely on Concurrent Powers to show that the Federal Government of the USA has the power to legalise industrial hemp.

In doing so, he is saying that one of those concurrent powers is the power to make and enforce laws. He claims that this means that the Federal Government can make and enforce any law it pleases. This of course is a complete misstatement of the actual situation. Concurrent Powers are powers that relate to areas where both the States and the USFG have the power to make laws. One such example is the DELEGALISATION of Cannabis. I have shown that throughout my arguments. Both levels of government have the power to prohibit Cannabis. The Federal Government gets that power from its International Treaties power and from the Commerce Power (see my previous round). Keep in mind that the Commerce Clause can only operate in one direction in this regard (see my argument in the previous round). Another example is establishing and maintaining courts. Of course this relates to the respective levels of the judiciary. Thus, States can establish State Courts and USFG can establish Federal Courts. Each level can collect various taxes. State taxes are different from Federal taxes. Of course each level can also make and enforce laws. But only such laws as it has the constitutional power to make in the first place. If my opponent's argument were correct, each level of Government could make laws about absolutely anything it pleased, a good part of the First Article of the Constitution would be completely ineffective and about half of the USA's constitutional law cases would have never made their way to court because there would be nothing to argue; USFG would have unlimited power to start with (since Federal Law prevails over State Law in case of conflict).

It appears that my opponent is completely dismissing the doctrine of Division of Powers. Under that constitutional doctrine, USFG's powers are confined only to the powers granted to it by the constitution and all other powers remain with the states. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Thus, there is no general power on part of Congress to make ALL LAWS, such as that contended by my opponent.

I have addressed the Intellectual Property Power and the Commerce Power at some length in my previous round. I have demonstrated why each of them would not apply. The Commerce Power applies to trade between the States and between the USA and other nations. It has been applied to the production of marijuana previously. However, that was a negative (prohibit) application and not a positive (allow, State laws notwithstanding) application. I have explained above how the principles were different and why the same reasoning could not be applied.

My opponent now argues that the Commerce Power extends to the subject in question because by allowing domestic cultivation USFG would be able to regulate import and export. That is not a reasonable extension of the Power. You see, if USFG wants to limit the amount of imported hemp, all it has to do is impose limits on the import of hemp. It has that express power under the Constitution. It can impose tariffs, it can enforce licensing laws, etc. The power to regulate import and export is a power to regulate import and export practices, not to encourage or discourage import and export through controlling domestic production. This power exists in most federations and invariably rests with the Federal body. Nowhere in the world has it been applied in such a way as to deprive states of their residual powers to control intrastate production.

The Intellectual Property Power is clearly (on its very obvious wording) a power to protect intellectual property. It is not applicable to allow USFG to legislate in respect to every single area of life where science might be involved. Such application would extend that power to absolutely (or almost absolutely) everything. The Power is clear on its wording. The Necessary and Proper Power has also been addressed in my previous rounds. It enables Congress to make such law as is necessary and proper to give effect to laws made pursuant to express powers that Congress has. Just think about this. If the Necessary and Proper Clause meant that USFG can pass any laws at large as long as it thinks they are necessary and proper for the USA, there would be no Division of Powers at all. There would be no specific provisions about Federal Powers. Why would the Constitution bother to say that USFG has the Commerce Power (for example) if USFG had unlimited power in the first place under the Necessary and Proper Clause?

Of course I have not shown any sources to show that the power in question cannot arise out of the three powers outlined by my opponent. The reason is that there has never been a court ruling on the subject as such unreasonable extension has never been even attempted. By the same token, no court has ever ruled on China's power to pass a law allowing jaywalking in Las Vegas. Does that mean an argument could succeed that China has such power?

My opponent can complain that the debate was about the Constitution. However, if he wished to simply argue that hemp should be legalised, he was perfectly entitled to propose a resolution to that simple effect. He cannot, however, hope to run a debate about legal issues (legalisation is very much one of those) and at the same time avoid facing questions of law. The two go hand-in-glove. My opponent cannot tell me how to run my argument. It is entirely up to me. If he wished to limit the debate to the question of "hemp should be legalised" he could have stipulated that either by a properly framed resolution or by a clear stipulation in R1 that he wishes for a particular type of argument. He has done no such thing and the field is therefore open.

I will conclude by saying that my opponent has not contradicted my argument that USFG has no constitutional power to legalise industrial hemp in the USA. It can revoke Federal Laws that prohibit industrial hemp. However, that would not have the effect of legalising it. That's because it has no power to force the States to go against their residual powers. This of course could be reached by agreement. However, that would not be an act of USFG but rather a collaborative act of all law-making bodies with the required jurisdictional power.

Since USFG has no power to legalise industrial hemp, a proposition that it SHOULD do so is incorrect as it is impossible to impose a moral or social or legal obligation on a party that can't have the power to fulfill such an obligation.

I have much sympathy for my opponent's argument as I myself believe that industrial hemp should be legalised in the USA. However, my personal views do not matter in this debate.

Given all the above reasons, I urge you to vote Con.

I thank my opponent for this debate.
Debate Round No. 5
41 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Lightkeeper 8 years ago
Lightkeeper
Leftymorgan...

"I am not sure, but I believe that there has been compressions to Alcohol to Marijuana? If I remember correctly, Alcohol use to be illegal as well. "

Alcohol was illegal because of Prohibition which was in fact enshrined into the Constitution itself. It's very much different.
Posted by Lightkeeper 8 years ago
Lightkeeper
"US Farmers are not restricted from growing industrial hemp by international law, rather they are restricted by US Law. The DEA views industrialized hemp as cannabis- a schedule 1 drug, and the DEA has the power to remove industrialized hemp from this list. The Attorney General has the power to re-schedule marijuana in it's entirety. Any of these moves would be legalization. You are a coward because I presented you with a debate on this topic, and rather than accepting it you continue to debate in the comments section."

That's correct. And that US Law was passed pursuant to the Commerce Clause (as addressed in the debate). The Attorney General has the power to re-schedule marijuana ONLY BECAUSE USFG has the Constitutional power to prohibit marijuana. There's no contradiction.

"........... All these lawyers fighting for these laws need to meet you so they can learn somethin, huh?"

No. There's nothing I disagree with in what you said above. And???

Your abortion example completely supports my argument. I suggest you think about all this a little more carefully because you completely confuse the issues. But as I said, Con law is a complex thing and not everyone can grasp it. I can't be critical of you; after all you are trying :)
Posted by Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
And apparently you don't understand the difference between legalizing at the Federal level, and the effect it will have on legalization at the state level. Right now most state marijuana laws are based on Federal prohibition. Medical Marijuana is legal in 12 states, and is only restricted by Federal law. Were a Federal law passed, patients in these states would enjoy the freedom their States have been trying to afford them, and other states would follow suit as it is Federal law that is prohibiting progress in most states.

As I stated before- under Federal Law abortion is completely legal. States have the right to challenge Federal law, as South Dakota has, and enact their own bans on Federally legal acts. Right now it is the States fighting for a Federal law legalizing marijuana. All these lawyers fighting for these laws need to meet you so they can learn somethin, huh?
Posted by Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
Lightkeeper, you are contradicting yourself, and it is that contradiction that makes it evident you do not understand US Laws. Indeed to repeal a law making something illegal is to legalize it.

US Farmers are not restricted from growing industrial hemp by international law, rather they are restricted by US Law. The DEA views industrialized hemp as cannabis- a schedule 1 drug, and the DEA has the power to remove industrialized hemp from this list. The Attorney General has the power to re-schedule marijuana in it's entirety. Any of these moves would be legalization. You are a coward because I presented you with a debate on this topic, and rather than accepting it you continue to debate in the comments section.

According to you, thousands of lawyers in the US are not only wasting their time, but they are ignorant to the laws they have practiced under for decades. House members are wasting their time supporting bills like Medical Marijuana Patient Protection Act (H.R. 5842), and US Rep. Barney Frank is an idiot who needs to go to school in Australia because he wrote H.R. 5843: The Personal Use Act. Both acts would LEGALIZE the restricted use of marijuana by responsible adults at the Federal level.
Posted by Leftymorgan 8 years ago
Leftymorgan
I am not sure, but I believe that there has been compressions to Alcohol to Marijuana? If I remember correctly, Alcohol use to be illegal as well. And to my knowledge it really isn't legal now, just deregulated? If this is still the case then I believe that the feds could do the same here and permit each state to control Marijuana? Could be wrong here, but then I feel that Marijuana is no more harmful to someone than Alcohol and I have never messed with Marijuana, been around it and I get really bad headaches from the contact high you would get.
Posted by HempforVictory 8 years ago
HempforVictory
"The resolution (and the argument) was NOT about legalising at federal level. It was about legalising."
Since the federal government only has the power to change federal law, it is implied that legalization in this case refers to legalization at the federal level.
Posted by Lightkeeper 8 years ago
Lightkeeper
The resolution (and the argument) was NOT about legalising at federal level. It was about legalising. Legalising means "make legal". USFG can't make it legal because it doesn't have that power. By contrast, there are many things that USFG could legalise and its law would prevail over any state laws.

"And according to everyone on this website but you" ---- Not a single person in these comments has made that claim until you just now! The entire argument has been about whether or not USFG has the relevant power.
Posted by HempforVictory 8 years ago
HempforVictory
"All that USFG can do is revoke FEDERAL LAWS against marijuana."

And according to everyone on this website but you, revoking federal laws against marijuana is equivalent to legalizing it. The fact that states could maintain there own laws against it does not mean that it has not been legalized at the federal level.
Posted by Lightkeeper 8 years ago
Lightkeeper
Gosh this is almost annoying. How in the world can you cite Common Knowledge on an issue of Constitutional sources of power? I better take a cold shower LOL
Posted by Lightkeeper 8 years ago
Lightkeeper
The thing about international law "recognising industrial hemp versus marijuana" is that conventions prohibiting marijuana specifically say they do not apply to industrial hemp. That means that they DO NOT GIVE USFG the power to rely on the convention to delegalise marijuana. But that DOES NOT mean that they give the USFG any power to make marijuana legal. All that USFG can do is revoke FEDERAL LAWS against marijuana.

The fact that I live in Australia changes nothing. I lived in the USA long enough, I did enough legal studies courses in the USA, I've read enough US case law in the USA and in Australia :)

"Common knowledge" when it comes to law is wrong more than 75% of the time. These are technical issues, they're not "common knowledge issues". Now please tell me where that power comes from (the medical use one).
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by kels1123 8 years ago
kels1123
Jerred102LightkeeperTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by KRFournier 8 years ago
KRFournier
Jerred102LightkeeperTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by paramore102 8 years ago
paramore102
Jerred102LightkeeperTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
Jerred102LightkeeperTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Jerred102 8 years ago
Jerred102
Jerred102LightkeeperTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
Jerred102LightkeeperTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50