Total Posts:18|Showing Posts:1-18
Jump to topic:

Happy 420

Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2011 11:35:00 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Happy 420 everyone! I hope everyone is enjoying the $1 Billion we spent this week fighting the war on drugs!

Anyway, I took out Gonzales v. Raich (Oyez Breif) for a good read:

Facts of the Case:
In 1996 California voters passed the Compassionate Use Act, legalizing marijuana for medical use. California's law conflicted with the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), which banned possession of marijuana. After the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) seized doctor-prescribed marijuana from a patient's home, a group of medical marijuana users sued the DEA and U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft in federal district court.


Bush 43 makes the call to send in troops to arrest citizens who are guaranteed under the State of California's laws. America. Fvck Yeah.

The medical marijuana users argued the Controlled Substances Act - which Congress passed using its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce - exceeded Congress' commerce clause power.

So if a weed (literally) is growing in my backyard and I pick it and smoke it then I am interfering with interstate commerce.

Stevens' majority opinion asserts that "One need not have a degree in economics to understand why a nationwide exemption for the vast quatity of marijuana locally cultivated for personal use may have a substantial impact on the interstate market..." He meant to say 'One need not have a degree in economics to understand that local cultivation would all but destroy the interstate market which the law is trying to extinguish by oppressing local cultivation.'

The district court ruled against the group. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and ruled the CSA unconstitutional as it applied to intrastate (within a state) medical marijuana use. Relying on two U.S. Supreme Court decisions that narrowed Congress' commerce clause power - U.S. v. Lopez (1995) and U.S. v. Morrison (2000) - the Ninth Circuit ruled using medical marijuana did not "substantially affect" interstate commerce and therefore could not be regulated by Congress.

Lopez and Morrison were both logically sound decisions; both relied on laws (the Gun Free Schools Act and the Violence Against Women Act) that used a dubious economical connection to justify federal interference. Gonzales v. Raich should have followed suit (and restricted federal abuse of the Commerce Clause), and as Justice Thomas' dissent attests to, basically sets the playing field for the feds to use the Commerce Clause any way they'd like. Gonzales v. Raich's very existence is an excuse to give the feds the ability to create an illicit market for something (prohibition inevitably leads to an illicit market) and then use that market as the economic link towards Constitutional Federal intervention.

Question:
Does the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801) exceed Congress' power under the commerce clause as applied to the intrastate cultivation and possession of marijuana for medical use?


Conclusion:
No. In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court held that the commerce clause gave Congress authority to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana, despite state law to the contrary. Stevens argued that the Court's precedent "firmly established" Congress' commerce clause power to regulate purely local activities that are part of a "class of activities" with a substantial effect on interstate commerce. The majority argued that Congress could ban local marijuana use because it was part of such a "class of activities": the national marijuana market. Local use affected supply and demand in the national marijuana market, making the regulation of intrastate use "essential" to regulating the drug's national market. The majority distinguished the case from Lopez and Morrison. In those cases, statutes regulated non-economic activity and fell entirely outside Congress' commerce power; in this case, the Court was asked to strike down a particular application of a valid statutory scheme.


Thomas' dissent goes into how "the Court announces a rule that gives Congress a perverse incentive to legislate broadly pursuant to the Commerce Clause-nestling questionable assertions of its authority into comprehensive regulatory schemes-rather than with precision decisions." What Thomas is saying has to do with the very last line of the Oyez Brief; if Congress makes a very specific statute ("do not bring guns to school..." "do not rape women...") then the Commerce Clause will fail to provide the economic framework to ban it. After all, raping women and shooting classmates is not an economic activity. But if Congress creates a vast, comprehensive bill, in which only a specific provision actually breaks ground into civil rights, then that specific provision will be linked to indirect economic activity within the entire scheme.

Indeed, Thomas points out that had Congress framed the Gun-Free Schools act in terms of transfer or possession of guns anywhere in the nation, then the framework presented here would allow them to dodge the Court's logic completely. All of a sudden the Commerce Clause supports the Drug-Free Schools act and just about anything else you can imagine.

It's sort of like earmarks if you think about it; and it works to incent complexity, length, and confusion into the policymaking process. We are already in an economic chokehold by politicians (and hence unable to cooperate in the system), and this is just one more way to keep average people in the dark about how things are run.
kfc
m93samman
Posts: 2,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2011 12:23:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/20/2011 12:20:15 PM, OreEle wrote:
cool story brah.
: At 4/15/2011 5:29:37 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
: Pascal's wager is for poosies.
:
: I mean that sincerly, because it's basically an argument from poooosie.
:
: I'm pretty sure that's like a fallacy.. Argument ad Pussium or something like that.
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2011 1:14:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/20/2011 11:35:00 AM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
Happy 420 everyone! I hope everyone is enjoying the $1 Billion we spent this week fighting the war on drugs!

haha is that where the 1 billion in your name came from?
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2011 3:39:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/20/2011 1:14:09 PM, belle wrote:
At 4/20/2011 11:35:00 AM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
Happy 420 everyone! I hope everyone is enjoying the $1 Billion we spent this week fighting the war on drugs!

haha is that where the 1 billion in your name came from?

Sure :P
kfc
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2011 6:56:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
woah man, check out your fingers.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2011 7:34:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Parrot: well, there are definitely connections between the two. Playing on racism, cannabis is popularly called 'marijuana' (started in William Randolf Hearst's newspaper, an entrepreneur who felt financially threatened by the plant). The people who want cannabis prohibited are usually those who also are emphatically anti-immigrant. The authoritarian mentality is definitely similar in both cases, however I wouldn't be able to show any concrete link between the two.
kfc
Aaronroy
Posts: 749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2011 8:49:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I find it hysterical that smoking tobacco in public is illegal in California (except in designated areas), but smoking cannabis is all well and good apparently (their philosophy).

Left-wing hypocrisy at it's best, gentlemen.

I have nothing against those who smoke cannabis, but just admit it; it's bad for you.
I have nothing against the legalization of cannabis, as long as you pot heads understand that it is bad for you!. My dad works in the ICU of Chippenham Hospital and he gets a lot of patients that come in from drug abuse. Thus far, each heavy-drug-doer he's come across has started with cannabis. You can't possible expect a psychoactive drug to be legalized, do you? Be practical and realistic.

I come from a respected family with moral values and ethics, thus I do not smoke or do anything extraneous to body. But to those who do wish to smoke cannabis, STAY AWAY FROM OTHER DRUGS (Cocaine, Heroine, Crystal Meth, ect.) Being "high" is not worth screwing your entire life over.
turn down for h'what
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2011 10:40:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/22/2011 8:49:59 PM, Aaronroy wrote:
I find it hysterical that smoking tobacco in public is illegal in California (except in designated areas), but smoking cannabis is all well and good apparently (their philosophy).

Left-wing hypocrisy at it's best, gentlemen.

As I've told you before, you'll learn to avoid the hasty generalizations if you converse on this site for long enough; most people do not package their beliefs up into what the status quo deems 'right' and 'left.' I learned that the hard way about 3 years ago when I accused Ragnar of being a Christian because he was espousing right-wing views. That was the last time I assumed.

I have nothing against those who smoke cannabis, but just admit it; it's bad for you.

Pffft. I don't smoke; I vaporize. Toluene, benzene, carbon monoxide, and many other chemicals that cigarette and weed smokers inhale are not part of my repertoire. The net detriment to my health after that is not as bad as the french fries I ate today. Do you want to ban french fries too? I can come up with all kinds of studies, much more reputable (likely) than anything you can come up with about cannabis, to show how french fries are bad for your health. The American lifestyle is full of health detriments and I fail to see what your point is to bring up cannabis in this light. We don't ban things just because they are "bad for you" and certainly not when they aren't even 'that' bad for you.

I have nothing against the legalization of cannabis, as long as you pot heads understand that it is bad for you!. My dad works in the ICU of Chippenham Hospital and he gets a lot of patients that come in from drug abuse. Thus far, each heavy-drug-doer he's come across has started with cannabis. You can't possible expect a psychoactive drug to be legalized, do you? Be practical and realistic.

Every morbidly obese person probably started with french fries at some point. Big deal.

I come from a respected family with moral values and ethics, thus I do not smoke or do anything extraneous to body.

I'll let that slide.

But to those who do wish to smoke cannabis, STAY AWAY FROM OTHER DRUGS (Cocaine, Heroine, Crystal Meth, ect.) Being "high" is not worth screwing your entire life over.

Sound advice; but but if someone wants to do meth then they are probably going to do it - and roll straight through cannabis on their way there. By deleting cannabis from the equation, I find it hard to believe that people aren't going to try the harder drugs. If anything, people are going to break these barriers while drunk instead. If you've ever been high and/or drunk, you'll know that drinking lowers inhibitions while cannabis raises them.
kfc
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2011 11:55:04 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/22/2011 8:49:59 PM, Aaronroy wrote:
I find it hysterical that smoking tobacco in public is illegal in California (except in designated areas), but smoking cannabis is all well and good apparently (their philosophy).

Left-wing hypocrisy at it's best, gentlemen.

It is not legal to smoke cannabis in public in California so you've demonstrated no hypocrisy. Also, I'm not a gentleman and I highly doubt the guys on this forum are gentlemen anyway.

I have nothing against those who smoke cannabis, but just admit it; it's bad for you. I have nothing against the legalization of cannabis, as long as you pot heads understand that it is bad for you!.

It can be bad for you depending on how you consume it. So?

My dad works in the ICU of Chippenham Hospital and he gets a lot of patients that come in from drug abuse. Thus far, each heavy-drug-doer he's come across has started with cannabis.

I bet every heavy drug user he's come across has also started with baby food. Correlation =/= Causation.

You can't possible expect a psychoactive drug to be legalized, do you? Be practical and realistic.

I absolutely do. There are innumerable psychoactive drugs that are legal btw.

I come from a respected family with moral values and ethics, thus I do not smoke or do anything extraneous to body.

I come from a respected family with moral values and ethics. And I smoke cannabis.

But to those who do wish to smoke cannabis, STAY AWAY FROM OTHER DRUGS (Cocaine, Heroine, Crystal Meth, ect.) Being "high" is not worth screwing your entire life over.

I don't do any of those, but I've done some "hard" stuff and it didn't ruin my life. Stop fear mongering.
President of DDO
Aaronroy
Posts: 749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2011 5:57:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/23/2011 11:55:04 AM, Danielle wrote:
At 4/22/2011 8:49:59 PM, Aaronroy wrote:
I find it hysterical that smoking tobacco in public is illegal in California (except in designated areas), but smoking cannabis is all well and good apparently (their philosophy).

Left-wing hypocrisy at it's best, gentlemen.

It is not legal to smoke cannabis in public in California so you've demonstrated no hypocrisy. Also, I'm not a gentleman and I highly doubt the guys on this forum are gentlemen anyway.

I have nothing against those who smoke cannabis, but just admit it; it's bad for you. I have nothing against the legalization of cannabis, as long as you pot heads understand that it is bad for you!.

It can be bad for you depending on how you consume it. So?

My dad works in the ICU of Chippenham Hospital and he gets a lot of patients that come in from drug abuse. Thus far, each heavy-drug-doer he's come across has started with cannabis.

I bet every heavy drug user he's come across has also started with baby food. Correlation =/= Causation.

Don't tell me you're comparing drugs to food now, are you?
You can't possible expect a psychoactive drug to be legalized, do you? Be practical and realistic.

I absolutely do. There are innumerable psychoactive drugs that are legal btw.

I come from a respected family with moral values and ethics, thus I do not smoke or do anything extraneous to body.

I come from a respected family with moral values and ethics. And I smoke cannabis.

Well I hope those certain individual moral values and ethics of yours don't make their way to your children in the future, I'm just saying.
But to those who do wish to smoke cannabis, STAY AWAY FROM OTHER DRUGS (Cocaine, Heroine, Crystal Meth, ect.) Being "high" is not worth screwing your entire life over.

I don't do any of those, but I've done some "hard" stuff and it didn't ruin my life. Stop fear mongering.

Condoning heavy drug doing, are we? Give me a break, you've totally contradicted your claimed "respected family" status. The whole act of getting "high" is counter-productive and unethical. Not that I'm saying I don't condone it, I'm just saying if you're going to smoke, stop acting like you're a perfect, innocent living angel. Apparently, the youth of today have nothing productive to do and instead go out and smoke to get "high". The whole concept of "going outside" and "playing with friends" is now, unfortunately, socially unacceptable. In the near future, I wouldn't be surprised if the general public is jabbering Big Brother for another fix.

All you have to do is admit it: the healthiest way to live is without drug/drug influence.

Looks like the Sheen Express has left the station, folks. *herp derp, I made a pun!*
turn down for h'what
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2011 6:12:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/24/2011 5:57:26 PM, Aaronroy wrote:

Condoning heavy drug doing, are we? Give me a break, you've totally contradicted your claimed "respected family" status. The whole act of getting "high" is counter-productive and unethical.

How is it unethical? She isn't hurting anyone.
What is exactly counter-productive? Engaging in non-productive activities is called leisure, a necessary part of life. Danielle is an aspiring lawyer and a great debater. She will likely be more 'productive' then you ever will be.

Not that I'm saying I don't condone it, I'm just saying if you're going to smoke, stop acting like you're a perfect, innocent living angel.

Don't think she did. But, again how is drug use unethical?

Apparently, the youth of today have nothing productive to do and instead go out and smoke to get "high".

strawman argument.

The whole concept of "going outside" and "playing with friends" is now, unfortunately, socially unacceptable.

strawman argument. And how is "going outside" any "better" than doing drugs. Neither activity helps those misfortunate, and both activities are designed for fun.

In the near future, I wouldn't be surprised if the general public is jabbering Big Brother for another fix.

strawman argument.

All you have to do is admit it: the healthiest way to live is without drug/drug influence.

most people don't live to maximize their physical health. You might as well argue that french fries are unethical since they are loaded with fat that kill people.

Even still, marijuana hasn't killed a single person directly. Your more likely to die from playing with your friends and getting a heart attack :)


Looks like the Sheen Express has left the station, folks. *herp derp, I made a pun!*

How funny, you made a horrible pun.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2011 9:41:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/24/2011 5:57:26 PM, Aaronroy wrote:
Well I hope those certain individual moral values and ethics of yours don't make their way to your children in the future, I'm just saying.

Aaron just bit off more than he can chew -_-

Don't worry, after she's done with you, the damage will heal over time. In the meantime I've got some popcorn popping. We don't get many conservative roasts going on anymore, and fresh meat is hard to find.
kfc