Bipartisan Drug Bill

And Lincoln was a proto-socialist, parties change their identity. Republicans freed the slaves but blacks now vote 95% for Democrats.

I know Alaska had decriminalized MJ back in the day, but don't remember if they took a lot of flak from the Feds on it.

I was listening to KOA's overnight show and they had on a drug expert who notes that most of the anti-drug laws started after Prohibition ended. Seems that Elliot Ness and other Prohibition agents needed to find new careers.

I can't begin to imagine why someone in 2011 would continue to try to live in the 18th/19th centuries...but some do.

Decriminalization is not the same thing as legalization. Obama may have instructed his justice department to not pursue charges on the sale/possession/use of MMJ, but that is a decision not to enforce a law, not a prohibition on the ability of the federal government to make such a law. I want their authority to address the matter at all taken away from them. The states are not subject to the benevolence, or lack thereof, of the federal government regarding the domestic concerns of the citizens of their states outside of a constitutional amendment like prohibition was. If they can get 75% of the states to grant them the authority to declare marijuana illegal, fine. Outside of that happening, they have no authority in the matter granted to them by the Constitution to engage in making it illegal to begin with and they evidently need the Supreme Court to inform them of this. The only way that has a chance of happening is for the matter to be brought before the court to decide. And the only way that is going to happen is for a state to directly challenge their usurpation of the state's powers.

We know you can't argue a theoretical instance before the court, there has to actually be a conflict that exists before the court can settle it. This piece of legislation is an attempt by the federal government to avoid such a conflict so that the limits of their perceived power isn't firmly decided. They don't have, and were never granted, the actual authority to legislate the matter at all and that has to become a matter of settled case law before their continued usurpation of power ceases. I want the precedent set and cemented into stare decisis so that their other usurpations can be challenged and stopped as well. It would be the first course correction leading us back to the tack that Jefferson set during his presidency.

As usual, you ignore years of settled law, and statutes and fall back on Jeffersonian logic (which didn't know what "controlled substances" were; radio/TV; railroads; aircraft; ad nauseum)....

The Drug Enforcement Administration was created by President Richard Nixon through an Executive Order in July 1973.

http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/21C13.txt


And, as usual, I don't give a flying flip if you think that Nixon did or did not have the power to create it... It was created; it's been upheld by the Courts, and I wish you well in your usual tilt at the windmills.....

The Federal Bureau of Narcotics was formed in 1930 LJ. The first laws regulating cannabis originated in Washington DC in 1906. We all know, because we're all familiar with the Constitution, who exercises "exclusive legislation in all cases" over the District of Columbia, right?

And you wouldn't be surprised to find out that Nixon was but one of a series of presidents who sought to consolidate the power of all governance into the general government, would you? Consolidationists come in all stripes. Those who believe in governing by republican principles oppose all of them and think they should all be wearing stripes and living in small rooms with bars forming one wall as their efforts are in direct conflict with their oath to "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution.

Thank you for the lesson... :Snooze

No worries LJ, the more history you know, the less likely you are to support regressive ideology. lol

...and use leeches for health care... We mustn't let the 21st century intrude into that 18th century time-warp you live in....

Logic and reason that are sound are as timeless as the universe LJ. The principle of limited government to prevent tyranny and despotism is sound regardless of advances in technology. I don't find it surprising that our current crop of national officials are more and more frequently caught in compromising behavior as their tenure in office approaches a lifetime position, do you? Didn't we also see this type of behavior entrenched in past eras when one entity or one person held the entire power of governance in its hands?

No my friend, the more history you know, the less likely you are to support a government with no practical limits. History has passed judgement, repeatedly, on the results of such governance. Some, like Jefferson, are wise enough to listen to that judgement - others not so much.

The more I know about conservatives and Republicans, the more I like my dog...

No matter how you try to bury it in bullsh*t, your "Party of Selfish" is nothing I will ever vote for. Good luck with that neo-fascism stuff....