BTW, all of your links clearly show that Prohibition failed. Did you actually read these things?
Two of the links state that prohibition was a failure but they defined failure on their terms. They also indicate consumption was reduced. The graph indicates prohibition was a success in that the country reduced its alcohol consumption during the period. It also shows the increase in consumption once alcohol was legalized.
initially decreased and then went right back up. That is not what the graph that I posted indicates. It clearly indicates that consumption was significantly less at the time prohibition was repealed.
you may as well try to outlaw gravity. Only a druggie could come up with such a statement.
The school board made the decision. If the parents didn't like it they could appeal to the school board. if they don't get the result they want they can use the political processes to change the school board. it is called democracy and it is being undermined by the federal government.
This was taken from another thread Jethro, but I thought I would bring it here because I still wonder, how come democracy isn't working if state governments pass the use of marijuana and the federal government comes in and overturns it?
This was taken from another thread Jethro, but I thought I would bring it here because I still wonder, how come democracy isn't working if state governments pass the use of marijuana and the federal government comes in and overturns it?
Something called the commerce clause. Maybe you have heard about it.
Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
and whoever decided that congress can regulate a farmer growing crops for his own use is allowable under that clause, because it affects farmers in other states was legislating from the bench as well. because by the decision you've alluded to, i could argue that abortion should be left up to the federal government, by the same argument. it could affect the abortion "industry" in other states.
could argue that abortion should be left up to the federal government, by the same argument. it could affect the abortion "industry" in other states.
Yes you are able to argue a lot of dumb things. But under your argument you may need some Congressional action on abortion and I don't think there was any in 1973. Furthermore, I don't even think the abortionists want to claim that they have an industry upon which they make their fortune. The fact is that the Supreme Court did not base Roe v. Wadeon the Commerce Clause. But
did you miss the quotes there around industry? i never alleged that they did base roe v. wade on the commerce clause. just that if it were reversed (in a matter that left the decisions up to the states, as opposed to your real desire to have it be outlawed completely whether you'll admit it or not), it could just as easily be argued on those grounds.
that said, tell me, how can you possibly defend, under the commerce clause, federal prohibitions on people growing pot for their own personal use? because someone growing pot would affect an illegal "industry" in another state? fold is right. you arethe biggest dumb-ass mother fucker on these boards.
Hey its been done before so there are other big "dumb-ass mother fucker(s)" around. Some have sat on the U.S. Supreme Court. But I can't help thinking that if you weren't a person of limited mental capabilities you might understand the complexities. That is fold's problem, limited mental faculties. I guess it is yours, too.
ya know, for all the squawking and sabre-rattling you do about states rights, you ought to be able to see that the very concept that the commerce clause was intened to give congress the power to regulate commerce within a state, as you seem to indicate it does when it comes to drug laws, is totally assinine. it goes against every ideal that the states themselves are sovereign. and it goes against everything you've ever said about the intentions of the writers of the constitution.
Please note that ares attacked me and I am responding. I see no reason that I should turn the other cheek.
damn straight i did. and unlike you, i don't need to go off running to mommy, and announce it in 24 point type, when someone else attacks me.
oh, and don't get me started on how your defence of federal drug laws contradicts your stance on how slavery was handled 150 years ago. same principle. same constitution. same commerce clause. oh. but i forgot. its ok for the federal government to usurp power from the states if you agree with what its usurping that power to accomplish.
Something called the commerce clause. Maybe you have heard about it.
interstate?
hell, one can grow and consume it and it doesn't even have to leave your house, much less the state.
the ONLY reason that it's an interstate issua at all is because of the laws against it...it's against the law because it's interstate commerce because it's against the law because it's interstate commerce because it's against the law because it's interstate commerce...rinse...repeat
ya know, for all the squawking and sabre-rattling you do about states rights, you ought to be able to see that the very concept that the commerce clause was intended to give congress the power to regulate commerce within a state, as you seem to indicate it does when it comes to drug laws, is totally asinine. it goes against every ideal that the states themselves are sovereign. and it goes against everything you've ever said about the intentions of the writers of the constitution.
Congress has enumerated powers. One of the powers is to regulate commerce among the states. The Roe v. Wade case was not a question of Congressional power. It was a question of court legislating power on grounds not in the constitution. I do not believe that I have ever considered whether the power to regulate commerce was related to that issue before. However, I can see where that argument would be a viable constitutional argument if Congress acted in that area.
oh, and don't get me started on how your defence of federal drug laws contradicts your stance on how slavery was handled 150 years ago. I don't see a contradiction whatsoever. The federal government never passed a law to ban the slave trade within this country prior to the Civil War. There was a ban on international importation. Now if you are trying to say that somehow the federal government could regulate slavery through the commerce maybe they could. That doesn't change the fact that there was no constitutional prohibition for seceding.same principle. same constitution. same commerce clause. Maybe you should give it more thought after accumulating the facts.oh. but i forgot. its ok for the federal government to usurp power from the states if you agree with what its usurping that power to accomplish. That is the liberal mantra. I say if one side can play that game the other side can, too. However, I hope you can see the difference between drug laws based on the commerce clause and abortion laws based on application of the 14th amendment to the states that enforced some phantom privacy clause somewhere in the first ten amendments.
The Roe v. Wade case was not a question of Congressional power. It was a question of court legislating power on grounds not in the constitution.
when i made that post i was talking about your stance on slavery, not abortion.
What Congressional act prior to April of 1861 banned slavery? I am not sure what you are referring to here. Could Congress regulate slave trade between states. Yes they could have. They had the power. In fact there were Fugitive slave laws. But Congressional power over slavery is separate from the power to secede.
I wanted it clear that I was attacked first because I am always accused of being irrational and closed minded and unable to argue without name calling.
that's because you're not capable of arguing without name calling.
I don't see a contradiction whatsoever. The federal government never passed a law to ban the slave trade within this country prior to the Civil War. There was a ban on international importation. Now if you are trying to say that somehow the federal government could regulate slavery through the commerce maybe they could. That doesn't change the fact that there was no constitutional prohibition for seceding.
then open your eyes. you and i agree that the reason the states seceded was because of a perceived threat by the south that the federal government was going to take away their sovereignty in regard to slavery. i never said there were such laws, but they were likely to come. so it comes down to this. which is more important to you: states rights, or keeping drugs illegal and making abortion illegal? because you can't have it both ways. regardless of how you answer, you give up the right to bitch about something. which is it that i'm never going to read another post about from you again?
which is more important to you: states rights, or keeping drugs illegal and making abortion illegal? because you can't have it both ways. Yes you can. If Roe v. Wade was overturned and there was no congressional action on the subject a strong argument can be made that the states can regulate or ban abortion. On the other hand congress has acted on drugs on the basis of the commerce clause.regardless of how you answer, you give up the right to bitch about something. which is it that i'm never going to read another post about from you again? Think, damn it. You need to make some fundamental distinctions between the powers congress has and has used and the powers congress has not used. you need to understand the distinct legal basis for the drug laws (commerce clause)and the roe v. wade decision (some unknown privacy clause).
you can imply interstate which is not there or you can accept the word that is there. It is quite clear that commerce in one state may well affect another state. But be that as the case may be the basis for drug laws and the basis for abortion on demand are based on different legal bases.
i'll make you a deal. i'll start thinking as soon as i see you starting to think. given what i've read from you in the last year i highly doubt i'll have to worry about living up to my end of this deal anytime in the near future.
i'll make you a deal. i'll start thinking as soon as i see you starting to think. given what i've read from you in the last year i highly doubt i'll have to worry about living up to my end of this deal anytime in the near future.
If there is one thing that I have demonstrated here is that I am thinking. You do not like the conclusions that I reach, so be it. But you are badly mistaken if you actually believe that I have not given much thought to these issues.
It is quite clear that commerce in one state may well affect another state.
wow. imagine that. hypothetical scenario here, since i neither remember the details, nor the plaintiff and defendant names in the case you've mentioned about this. a farmer here in minnesota has his own cow, from which he and his family get their milk. as a result he doesn't need to go to the grocery store every week and buy 6 gallons of it from the farmer across the river in wisconsin. yet the federal government can regulate this activity under the commerce clause? it would seem so with what you've provided for us in the past.
what's my point? that its stupid to think that the writers of the constitution intended for that (lack of a) transaction to be regulated by the federal government, and as a result, the courts that have ruled on it, have done little more than legislating something there that isn't.
no shit, sherlock. so what pray tell is the complex questions i apparently want a simple answer to?
You want the results of the law to be consistent. Which would be fine except that when different statutes or constitutional provisions apply you get different results. While it may appear that the results should be similar the different provisions dictate different results.
you apparently want simple answers to complex questions
you mean like..."it should be against the law because it's against the law"?
that kind of simple answer?
and here's a simple question...if I grow and consume something and it never leaves my house, where is the "commerce" (much less interstate commerce) in that?
I used to think drug legalization should be on the table. Then I started listening to the proponents and it totally turned me off. I suppose the proponents would say I stopped listening to them. But somone should tell them to stop calling C-Span early in morning and babbling about the virtures of drug legalizaiton.
When someone says "wants to tell people what they can and cannot put in their own bodies" my eyes glaze,
Think of it like this. No one in their right mind would want to kill themselves. Therefore, when there's an attempted suicide, the government will step in and hospitalize the person that attempted suicde.
Well, no one in their right mind would want to inject heroin into their body...
These are actually human beings we're talking about here.
so are all the people in jail for drugs.
real live human beings not allowed their liberty because you don't want them to be able to decide for themselves what they can or cannot do with their own bodies.
so, you are trying to claim that all drug users are addicts?
BTW, all of your links clearly show that Prohibition failed. Did you actually read these things?
yes...how many people are "addicts" and how many are simply drug users?
you seem to think that all users are "addicts".
so, you are trying to claim that all drug users are addicts?
They are on the road to addiction.
BTW, all of your links clearly show that Prohibition failed. Did you actually read these things?
Two of the links state that prohibition was a failure but they defined failure on their terms. They also indicate consumption was reduced. The graph indicates prohibition was a success in that the country reduced its alcohol consumption during the period. It also shows the increase in consumption once alcohol was legalized.
so, you are saying all drugs users will either become addicts or teetotlers and there is no middle ground for simple use?
that is absurd
initially decreased and then went right back up.
it doesn't work.
and what were those terms?
violent crime went up, the cost to society went up, respect for the law went down
all this for a reduction (not elimination) of people doing something that effects no one else?
people do drugs.
it's a fact of life.
you may as well try to outlaw gravity.
initially decreased and then went right back up. That is not what the graph that I posted indicates. It clearly indicates that consumption was significantly less at the time prohibition was repealed.
you may as well try to outlaw gravity. Only a druggie could come up with such a statement.
The school board made the decision. If the parents didn't like it they could appeal to the school board. if they don't get the result they want they can use the political processes to change the school board. it is called democracy and it is being undermined by the federal government.
This was taken from another thread Jethro, but I thought I would bring it here because I still wonder, how come democracy isn't working if state governments pass the use of marijuana and the federal government comes in and overturns it?
This was taken from another thread Jethro, but I thought I would bring it here because I still wonder, how come democracy isn't working if state governments pass the use of marijuana and the federal government comes in and overturns it?
Something called the commerce clause. Maybe you have heard about it.
Oh yeah, the commerce clause. The part you think could be argued on that point.
United States Constitution Article I Section. 8.
Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
and whoever decided that congress can regulate a farmer growing crops for his own use is allowable under that clause, because it affects farmers in other states was legislating from the bench as well. because by the decision you've alluded to, i could argue that abortion should be left up to the federal government, by the same argument. it could affect the abortion "industry" in other states.
could argue that abortion should be left up to the federal government, by the same argument. it could affect the abortion "industry" in other states.
Yes you are able to argue a lot of dumb things. But under your argument you may need some Congressional action on abortion and I don't think there was any in 1973. Furthermore, I don't even think the abortionists want to claim that they have an industry upon which they make their fortune. The fact is that the Supreme Court did not base
Roe v. Wade on the Commerce Clause. But
did you miss the quotes there around industry? i never alleged that they did base roe v. wade on the commerce clause. just that if it were reversed (in a matter that left the decisions up to the states, as opposed to your real desire to have it be outlawed completely whether you'll admit it or not), it could just as easily be argued on those grounds.
that said, tell me, how can you possibly defend, under the commerce clause, federal prohibitions on people growing pot for their own personal use? because someone growing pot would affect an illegal "industry" in another state? fold is right. you arethe biggest dumb-ass mother fucker on these boards.
Hey its been done before so there are other big "dumb-ass mother fucker(s)" around. Some have sat on the U.S. Supreme Court. But I can't help thinking that if you weren't a person of limited mental capabilities you might understand the complexities. That is fold's problem, limited mental faculties. I guess it is yours, too.
ya know, for all the squawking and sabre-rattling you do about states rights, you ought to be able to see that the very concept that the commerce clause was intened to give congress the power to regulate commerce within a state, as you seem to indicate it does when it comes to drug laws, is totally assinine. it goes against every ideal that the states themselves are sovereign. and it goes against everything you've ever said about the intentions of the writers of the constitution.
Please note that ares attacked me and I am responding. I see no reason that I should turn the other cheek.
damn straight i did. and unlike you, i don't need to go off running to mommy, and announce it in 24 point type, when someone else attacks me.
oh, and don't get me started on how your defence of federal drug laws contradicts your stance on how slavery was handled 150 years ago. same principle. same constitution. same commerce clause. oh. but i forgot. its ok for the federal government to usurp power from the states if you agree with what its usurping that power to accomplish.
interstate?
hell, one can grow and consume it and it doesn't even have to leave your house, much less the state.
the ONLY reason that it's an interstate issua at all is because of the laws against it...it's against the law because it's interstate commerce because it's against the law because it's interstate commerce because it's against the law because it's interstate commerce...rinse...repeat
it's a bad law.
ya know, for all the squawking and sabre-rattling you do about states rights, you ought to be able to see that the very concept that the commerce clause was intended to give congress the power to regulate commerce within a state, as you seem to indicate it does when it comes to drug laws, is totally asinine. it goes against every ideal that the states themselves are sovereign. and it goes against everything you've ever said about the intentions of the writers of the constitution.
Congress has enumerated powers. One of the powers is to regulate commerce among the states. The Roe v. Wade case was not a question of Congressional power. It was a question of court legislating power on grounds not in the constitution. I do not believe that I have ever considered whether the power to regulate commerce was related to that issue before. However, I can see where that argument would be a viable constitutional argument if Congress acted in that area.
Please note that ares attacked me and I am responding. I see no reason that I should turn the other cheek.
damn straight i did. and unlike you, i don't need to go off running to mommy, and announce it in 24 point type, when someone else attacks me.
I wanted it clear that I was attacked first because I am always accused of being irrationaland closed minded and unable to argue without name calling.
The Roe v. Wade case was not a question of Congressional power. It was a question of court legislating power on grounds not in the constitution.
when i made that post i was talking about your stance on slavery, not abortion.
I wanted it clear that I was attacked first because I am always accused of being irrationaland closed minded and unable to argue without name calling.
that's because you're not capable of arguing without name calling.
oh, and don't get me started on how your defence of federal drug laws contradicts your stance on how slavery was handled 150 years ago. I don't see a contradiction whatsoever. The federal government never passed a law to ban the slave trade within this country prior to the Civil War. There was a ban on international importation. Now if you are trying to say that somehow the federal government could regulate slavery through the commerce maybe they could. That doesn't change the fact that there was no constitutional prohibition for seceding.same principle. same constitution. same commerce clause. Maybe you should give it more thought after accumulating the facts.oh. but i forgot. its ok for the federal government to usurp power from the states if you agree with what its usurping that power to accomplish. That is the liberal mantra. I say if one side can play that game the other side can, too. However, I hope you can see the difference between drug laws based on the commerce clause and abortion laws based on application of the 14th amendment to the states that enforced some phantom privacy clause somewhere in the first ten amendments.
The Roe v. Wade case was not a question of Congressional power. It was a question of court legislating power on grounds not in the constitution.
when i made that post i was talking about your stance on slavery, not abortion.
What Congressional act prior to April of 1861 banned slavery? I am not sure what you are referring to here. Could Congress regulate slave trade between states. Yes they could have. They had the power. In fact there were Fugitive slave laws. But Congressional power over slavery is separate from the power to secede.
I wanted it clear that I was attacked first because I am always accused of being irrational and closed minded and unable to argue without name calling.
that's because you're not capable of arguing without name calling.
It appears that you are just as incapable.
Something called the commerce clause. Maybe you have heard about it.
interstate?
Article I Section 8 Clause 3 says nothing about interstate.
hell, one can grow and consume it and it doesn't even have to leave your house, much less the state.
See above
I don't see a contradiction whatsoever. The federal government never passed a law to ban the slave trade within this country prior to the Civil War. There was a ban on international importation. Now if you are trying to say that somehow the federal government could regulate slavery through the commerce maybe they could. That doesn't change the fact that there was no constitutional prohibition for seceding.
then open your eyes. you and i agree that the reason the states seceded was because of a perceived threat by the south that the federal government was going to take away their sovereignty in regard to slavery. i never said there were such laws, but they were likely to come. so it comes down to this. which is more important to you: states rights, or keeping drugs illegal and making abortion illegal? because you can't have it both ways. regardless of how you answer, you give up the right to bitch about something. which is it that i'm never going to read another post about from you again?
Article I Section 8 Clause 3 says nothing about interstate.
interstate is implied by the word among.
which is more important to you: states rights, or keeping drugs illegal and making abortion illegal? because you can't have it both ways. Yes you can. If Roe v. Wade was overturned and there was no congressional action on the subject a strong argument can be made that the states can regulate or ban abortion. On the other hand congress has acted on drugs on the basis of the commerce clause.regardless of how you answer, you give up the right to bitch about something. which is it that i'm never going to read another post about from you again? Think, damn it. You need to make some fundamental distinctions between the powers congress has and has used and the powers congress has not used. you need to understand the distinct legal basis for the drug laws (commerce clause)and the roe v. wade decision (some unknown privacy clause).
interstate is implied by the word among.
you can imply interstate which is not there or you can accept the word that is there. It is quite clear that commerce in one state may well affect another state. But be that as the case may be the basis for drug laws and the basis for abortion on demand are based on different legal bases.
Think, damn it.
i'll make you a deal. i'll start thinking as soon as i see you starting to think. given what i've read from you in the last year i highly doubt i'll have to worry about living up to my end of this deal anytime in the near future.
i'll make you a deal. i'll start thinking as soon as i see you starting to think. given what i've read from you in the last year i highly doubt i'll have to worry about living up to my end of this deal anytime in the near future.
If there is one thing that I have demonstrated here is that I am thinking. You do not like the conclusions that I reach, so be it. But you are badly mistaken if you actually believe that I have not given much thought to these issues.
ares, you apparently want simple answers to complex questions. sorry the world doesn't work that way.
It is quite clear that commerce in one state may well affect another state.
wow. imagine that. hypothetical scenario here, since i neither remember the details, nor the plaintiff and defendant names in the case you've mentioned about this. a farmer here in minnesota has his own cow, from which he and his family get their milk. as a result he doesn't need to go to the grocery store every week and buy 6 gallons of it from the farmer across the river in wisconsin. yet the federal government can regulate this activity under the commerce clause? it would seem so with what you've provided for us in the past.
what's my point? that its stupid to think that the writers of the constitution intended for that (lack of a) transaction to be regulated by the federal government, and as a result, the courts that have ruled on it, have done little more than legislating something there that isn't.
ares, you apparently want simple answers to complex questions. sorry the world doesn't work that way.
no shit, sherlock. so what pray tell is the complex question i apparently want a simple answer to?
no shit, sherlock. so what pray tell is the complex questions i apparently want a simple answer to?
You want the results of the law to be consistent. Which would be fine except that when different statutes or constitutional provisions apply you get different results. While it may appear that the results should be similar the different provisions dictate different results.
you mean like..."it should be against the law because it's against the law"?
that kind of simple answer?
and here's a simple question...if I grow and consume something and it never leaves my house, where is the "commerce" (much less interstate commerce) in that?
Ah come on fold. Don't scare me like that. I'll be your buddy.
Love is in the air
Everywhere I look around
Love is in the air
Every sight and every sound
So, does everyone agree here, so there's no more discussion?
I thought we were just going to shoot drug offenders?
bodine still wants to tell people what they can and cannot put in their own bodies.
so it's not a complete consensus
Damn dopin' dopers.
I used to think drug legalization should be on the table. Then I started listening to the proponents and it totally turned me off. I suppose the proponents would say I stopped listening to them. But somone should tell them to stop calling C-Span early in morning and babbling about the virtures of drug legalizaiton.
When someone says "wants to tell people what they can and cannot put in their own bodies" my eyes glaze,
That's freedom to them. LOL!
That's not freedom, That's scary.
so...you think it's okay to have the government tell you what you cannot do with your own body?
to me, that is what is scary.
Think of it like this. No one in their right mind would want to kill themselves. Therefore, when there's an attempted suicide, the government will step in and hospitalize the person that attempted suicde.
Well, no one in their right mind would want to inject heroin into their body...
and yet a lot of people do...and are in their right minds when they do. If I want to try heroin, who are you to tell me I can't?
Wanna tell Freud that he's not in his right mind?
where do you draw the line...
I mean no one in their right mind would eat bacon?
no one in their right mind would smoke tobacco?
no one in their right mind would sky dive?
no one in their right mind would have unprotected sex?
no one in their right mind would drink tequila?
I think that what I do with myself is no one's business but mine.
Wanna tell Freud that he's not in his right mind?
LOL
Great example.
Freud was a fucking freak.
Anyway, I don't want to get into this debate again.
Have a good one, Crabby.
Boy, JT, you have a two-dimensional view of historical figurres.
Ghandi - Pedophile
Kennedy = Pig
Freud = Freak
These are actually human beings we're talking about here. Are they just characters in a book to you?
so are all the people in jail for drugs.
real live human beings not allowed their liberty because you don't want them to be able to decide for themselves what they can or cannot do with their own bodies.
(This message not displayed because crabgrass is on your Discussion Area Ignore List. To change your ignore lists go to Preferences.)
that would make Rick the monkey in the middle or the monkey on the left?