PA Medical Marijuana Law

[GeneCC]

Dafuq?


9th Amendment to the US Constitution:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

What you are doing is talking in circles to try and justify to "the public" your bizarre beliefs, which you have swallowed without question from your political party, which you can't even justify to yourself.

I'm stating that the champions of the "living constitution" changed the game, making our Constitution into a document that ratifies tyranny.

If this strikes you as "talking in circles" please be aware that I am not the one who wants a "living Constitution". I just have to suffer it like you do.

BTW - it's not necessary to be confrontational to people. Challenge the ideas if you like but let's keep it cordial.

I'm not here to impress anyone. I'm here to persuade and I hope give a lot of decent people who are afraid for the future some hope.

[GeneCC]

he intent of the Constitution was to preserve liberty, and the 9A, along with the 10A (that specifically mentions powers delegated to state government) do a lot to demonstrate that the Federal government is supposed to be strictly limited... Radically limited compared to what we have now.

The 9A also helps people remember that there is a lot of value to limiting the power of government at all levels.

The Federal Government was not only limited but the balance of power with respect to the States was once far more in favor of the States.

Senators were once appointed by State legislatures. That changed with the Seventeenth Amendment, which was first proposed in the early 1800s and was finally ratified in 1913. States no longer appointed Senators, they were elected like the House of Representatives had been since the founding.

The big decider was the US Civil War. The States were not permitted to secede any longer.

I agree with Carnes that "local is best". Besides "Tar and Feather" there is also the option of "voting with one's feet".

As we're seeing in New York as people flee the madness....

[JenniferG]

Prior to Wickard vs Filburn, Jennifer, Congress's power to regulate Drugs, Guns and other items was limited by the "Interstate Commerce Clause".

The first drug law was the Harrison Narcotics Act of 1914. This law mandated that Cocaine and Heroin were to be subject to special taxes. Those who did not pay the tax were to be punished.

The NFA of 1934 and the Marijuana Tax Stamp Act of 1937 both required people to pay taxes to obtain Machineguns, Saw Off shotguns, Supressors, Pen Guns or Marijuana.

After Wickard vs. Filburn the Commerce Clause began to expand so that Congress could make laws against Drugs. They also could infringe on our Second Amendment rights.

Why?

The very same "Authority" that gave Congress the "power" to regulate "Illegal drugs" is the same "Authority" that gave them permission to ban firearms - Activist Judges who view our Constitution as a "living document".

These Judges pretend that the Interstate Commerce Clause does not limit Congress's power. They pretend that it JUSTIFIES Congress's power.

They also pretend that our Right to Keep and Bear Arms must be "constrained for the Public Good".

The original Intent of the Interstate Commerce Clause was to regulate Trade between the States, not to make a Federal Case out of everything.

So in an ironic way, M'am, the very source of Congress's "power" to regulate drugs that you site is also the source of our collective misery as gun owners.

Well, all of that is true. Congress does have the power to regulate drugs. The thing of it is that Congress used to act on the will of the majority of voters. If they felt enough heat from voters they changed things, they acted on the will of voters back then. The whole thing really comes down to is citizen participation in their governance. That has virtually disappeared and now Congress acts on whoever puts up the most money and for groups that are able to turn out the most voters.

Back in 1934 they enacted the laws because there was a public clamor about gangsters having shootouts on the streets using Tommy guns. It began with the outrage over the St Valentines Day Massacre in Chicago in 1929. Congress reacted to a public outcry from voters. Marijuana laws were a reaction to the outcry and fear of Americans of a mass immigration of Mexicans in the southwest. Americans were concerned back then as they are today of the mass exodus out of Mexico, Central and South American taking American jobs and bringing their culture of drugs and corruption with them. They used tactics we see today against gun ownership. Cartoonish characters making regular people look and seem evil and demonic.

You are right about at least one thing; Judges. Judges that rule on things in certain ways are purposely put into courts where they will act on the political will of their sponsors that award them those positions. This is how things are changed once the political will has been made. Judges are the hammer they use to nail political positions into place. Why do you think Obama had Harry Reid and the democrats change the rules on Judge appointments. Notice that Obama has bee stacking the federal courts in Washington DC with social engineers like himself. Roosevelt tried to stack the Supreme Court to push his socialist agenda through but was defeated by a Congress that still had some semblance of constitutionality left.

It's all about political will and power just like the Teacher Union Lawyer said upon his retirement in the video I've posted so many times. Congress has the power to enact legislation, they send it over to the President to sign, He agrees or disagrees. If he signs and there is challenge to the law it goes to the courts where the courts legislate from the bench. There isn't a thing Constitutional about Obamacare but the Supreme Court approved of it anyway. That's how it works my friend. Either change the system to your liking or learn to manipulate it to your benefit. The Constitution for all practical purposes has been dead since Woodrow Wilson finished it off back in 1918 with the Espionage Act and Sedition acts.

Power is the key in our governmental system now and if you don't have it you are nothing and they will run you over and take everything you own in the process. That is why the NRA is so important to our rights. We as NRA members have power and that power prevents the total confiscation of our firearms for now. You can smoke all the pot you want and become a total dufuss as they run the rest of your rights out of the existence. You're free to do that as it is today. Pot and other drugs are just another way for the powers that be to control you. If your always looking for your hit and hiding and dodging the law you're doing exactly as they want.

Legalizing drugs will do nothing to change it, you'll just be paying taxes to the government and giving them more money to use to control your behavior. It's all about control. If you're a pot head they already own you.

You can live your whole life in cloud, completely unaware of what is going on without so much as sneeze from law enforcement, they don't care if you smoke pot. It only makes it that much easier for them to manipulate you. I choose to go another way. My kitchen included a full education including a stint with the school of hard knocks.

[lexluger]

Lively discussion, I will jump in.

I fought the drug war (not as exciting as it sounds) and it isn't working. It has never worked. At most, we (the police) make a short term supply problem in a localized area. Those that want drugs get drugs, simple as that. Their desires drive a violent business due to the large sums of money to be made. That violence extends beyond the users and dealers. Innocents are caught in the crossfire (literally) all of the time. It costs huge sums of money to fight the war, far more than is ever seized. For what?

I want to see drugs, all drugs decriminalized. Take a tenth of what is spent fighting the war and put it into rehabs to make them available to anyone that wants to seek help. No one that didn't want help was ever helped by being sentenced to rehab.

Legalized is a no go, that just trades the bad dealer for the government sanctioned one. Guys in suits and ties instead of oversized coats and hoodies. If you want to do drugs, do them. No one stops you from eating cow pies and no one should stop you from ingesting any other harmful substance.

Why am I not surprised that the only voice of reason is being widely ignored here?

Why would we take the word of an ex-cop who has had actual EXPERIENCE with this topic? You know, boots on the ground experience, not "I have done own my research" experience.

Most of you sound like children and have no real evidence to what you are spewing. Equating pot with cooking "meth on your porch" or "crack cocaine"?Wow. It's obvious most of you have no clue.

I guess it's ok to smoke 2 packs of cigarettes per day and come home to a few drinks right? But someone doesn't have that same right to smoke a joint?

Pot is not addictive. I know from experience as I have been around many, many people who smoked regularly. Like, my dentist, my lawyer and my accountant. Yeh, all Republicans too. Republicans smoke that good weed, not the brick mexican-cartel ghetto crap, btw. None of which has ever had any physical addiction to the drug AT ALL.

While my father, his father and several uncles are either dead or terminally ill from alcohol and tobacco. My father's "pot head" friends are still alive and enjoying their children and grandchildren. I don't expect this insight to go too far here on such a backward forum such as this. I picture most of you morbidly obese alcoholics who chain-smoke Marlboros with your car windows rolled up and your children trapped inside.

Now, onto some real talk...

At age 40, I still know a few "pot heads".

1. An ultra-marathon runner.

2. A bank manager.

3. A former Army Sniper.

4. Several Jiu Jitsu black belts who regularly "tap" cops, body builders and other very fit individuals. I can smell the weed on these guys when I roll with them and they are SAVAGES. I get tapped all the time from these "pot heads".

So I think it's time you Fudds start to evolve because your Nixon-era stereotypes don't hold water anymore. The majority of people in this country understand this and are voting accordingly. Just like most things debated here, a lot of you think you are in a special club and when the rights of others are trampled on you care not, you already have yours secure.

Reminds me of the Niemöller quote:
"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me."


Oh and since this most of you speak only in memes, heres one!

[gummy jones]

Most of you sound like children and have no real evidence to what you are spewing.

just pointing out that your "real evidence" (bankers, lawyers, cage fighters, ultra runners, etc) is just as anecdotal as the other posters' evidence. just like jumbo's. just like mine.

for every example of someone who claims to be successful despite pot use (not because of) there is at least one example to the contrary.

and btw, you can get addicted to pretty much anything (food, alcohol, cigarettes, sex, etc), especially something that causes euphoria (i.e pot)

[dazeeman]

Why am I not surprised that the only voice of reason is being widely ignored here?

Why would we take the word of an ex-cop who has had actual EXPERIENCE with this topic? You know, boots on the ground experience, not "I have done own my research" experience.

Most of you sound like children and have no real evidence to what you are spewing. Equating pot with cooking "meth on your porch" or "crack cocaine"?Wow. It's obvious most of you have no clue.

I guess it's ok to smoke 2 packs of cigarettes per day and come home to a few drinks right? But someone doesn't have that same right to smoke a joint?

Pot is not addictive. I know from experience as I have been around many, many people who smoked regularly. Like, my dentist, my lawyer and my accountant. Yeh, all Republicans too. Republicans smoke that good weed, not the brick mexican-cartel ghetto crap, btw. None of which has ever had any physical addiction to the drug AT ALL.

While my father, his father and several uncles are either dead or terminally ill from alcohol and tobacco. My father's "pot head" friends are still alive and enjoying their children and grandchildren. I don't expect this insight to go too far here on such a backward forum such as this. I picture most of you morbidly obese alcoholics who chain-smoke Marlboros with your car windows rolled up and your children trapped inside.

Now, onto some real talk...

At age 40, I still know a few "pot heads".

1. An ultra-marathon runner.

2. A bank manager.

3. A former Army Sniper.

4. Several Jiu Jitsu black belts who regularly "tap" cops, body builders and other very fit individuals. I can smell the weed on these guys when I roll with them and they are SAVAGES. I get tapped all the time from these "pot heads".

So I think it's time you Fudds start to evolve because your Nixon-era stereotypes don't hold water anymore. The majority of people in this country understand this and are voting accordingly. Just like most things debated here, a lot of you think you are in a special club and when the rights of others are trampled on you care not, you already have yours secure.

Reminds me of the Niemöller quote:
"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me."


Oh and since this most of you speak only in memes, heres one!

What do you mean "the only voice of reason". Did you miss my posts here? I said basically the same stuff you did.

[leplat]

Just leave this here
http://www.drugpolicy.org/drug-facts...bout-marijuana

http://www.drugscience.org/Petition/C4I.html

[GeneCC]

Back in 1934 they enacted the laws because there was a public clamor about gangsters having shootouts on the streets using Tommy guns. It began with the outrage over the St Valentines Day Massacre in Chicago in 1929.

No, that's how it went, Jennifer. There was no popular demand to end private ownership "machineguns". They were extremely expensive to purchase and to feed.

FWIW - The Maxim, the Hotchkiss and the Browning machineguns were fundamentally developed in the US by private parties. People did not care about automatic firearms. They minded their own business.

A Thompson Submachine gun in the 1920s cost $900.00. A lot of people did not earn that much money in a year. What was it to them if such things were outlawed?

AG Harold Cummings lobbied Congress to "do something about legions of criminals armed with automatic weapons". He shamelessly demagogued the topic for months whipping up popular sentiment.

The vast bulk of the criminals obtained their firearms from State Miiltias, where they stole them.

The NRA went along with the ban because they considered such firearms "non essential". The NRA rep also opined that most people did not need to carry handguns either.

Most folks were indifferent to the Tax Stamp because they could not afford such things.

Marijuana laws were a reaction to the outcry and fear of Americans of a mass immigration of Mexicans in the southwest. Americans were concerned back then as they are today of the mass exodus out of Mexico, Central and South American taking American jobs and bringing their culture of drugs and corruption with them. They used tactics we see today against gun ownership. Cartoonish characters making regular people look and seem evil and demonic.

Harry Anslinger, the cashiered "Untouchable" who joined the Bureau of Narcotics, went around to Churches fanning outrage about Marihuana. He began this BEFORE the end of Prohibition.

Some of his critics [12] allege that Anslinger and the campaign against marijuana had a hidden agenda, DuPont petrochemical interests and William Randolph Hearst together created the highly sensational anti-marijuana campaign to eliminate hemp as an industrial competitor. Indeed, Anslinger did not himself consider marijuana a serious threat to American society until in the fourth year of his tenure (1934), at which point an anti-marijuana campaign, aimed at alarming the public, became his primary focus as part of the government's broader push to outlaw all recreational drugs. Members of the League of Nations had already implemented restrictions for marijuana in the beginning of the 1930s and restrictions started in many states in the U.S years before Anslinger was appointed. Both president Franklin D. Roosevelt and his attorney general publicly supported this development in 1935.[

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_J...0.E2.80.931937

[Qtrborecrazy]

For all that want to legalize drugs a question for you, want are we going to do with all those outstanding individuals who stand on the street corners selling thier drugs? Will we train them to become brain surgeons, bankers, computer geeks, liberal politicians, pharmacist or how about your friendly McDonalds employee. Remember for every action there is a reaction, I see more robberies, homicides, home invasions, muggings, purse snatching, beat downs, ID theft and any other scam they can think up. Be careful for what you wish.

[Ranger P229]

For all that want to legalize drugs a question for you, want are we going to do with all those outstanding individuals who stand on the street corners selling thier drugs? Will we train them to become brain surgeons, bankers, computer geeks, liberal politicians, pharmacist or how about your friendly McDonalds employee. Remember for every action there is a reaction, I see more robberies, homicides, home invasions, muggings, purse snatching, beat downs, ID theft and any other scam they can think up. Be careful for what you wish.

So let me get this straight. Currently they sell drugs, we decriminalize drugs, and suddenly no one wants to buy drugs anymore? How about they can still stand on the same street corner and sell the same shit?