Marijuana poll

CinnamonGirl wrote: I wonder if I can get a government job watching video recording of pot grow.

A watched pot never grows. :Whistle Or something like that.

When I was dealing with radiation treatments and non-stop vomiting, a friend suggested that I try MJ. I didn't want to smoke it due to asthma issues but tried it anyway. Didn't help. I researched a lot and decided to try ingesting it via cookies and a brew called "tea". That method saved my life. Once I was finished with radiation and my system began getting back to normal I stopped the MJ. I have no interest in trying it for recreational purposes, carry no judgment for those that do.

I think it should be legalized and handled like alcohol -- DUI, etc.

Yo dude,,, uh, what was the poll about?

Why are there two choices for other? Poll maker's short term memory loss?

As I've often said we DO NOT learn from HISTORY.
"Prohibition", doesn't work...

I start out from the position that the purpose of government isn't to protect you from yourself but to provide for remedies when your self indulgence results in others being harmed. I've known people who never touch the stuff and others who load their bong last thing before shutting out the lights so that they can start their day off right when their feet hit the floor the next morning. Ambivalent perhaps best describes my outlook on the issue. I do believe it is a state's right to decide for itself on the matter though. Falling as it does within the realm of a domestic concern, the federal government shouldn't have a say one way or the other on the matter. That I am passionate about.

Unfortunately the conservatives on the Supreme Court do not agree with your analysis in Gonzales v. Reich, where the majority ruled that Congress can regulate the intrastate use and production of cannabis. Interestingly, Scalia wrote

“Unlike the power to regulate activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce, the power to enact laws enabling effective regulation of interstate commerce can only be exercised in conjunction with congressional regulation of an interstate market, and it extends only to those measures necessary to make the interstate regulation effective. As Lopez itself states, and the Court affirms today, Congress may regulate noneconomic intrastate activities only where the failure to do so “could … undercut” its regulation of interstate commerce. ... This is not a power that threatens to obliterate the line between “what is truly national and what is truly local.”

This comment may portend the decision to be reached in regard to the Affordable Health Care Reform Act, in that the failure to require insurance will undercut the ability to regulate interstate commerce in the form of health care, thus Congress may so require insurance.

Taken with Scalia's views on the distinction between action/inaction (albeit not in the context of the Commerce clause), it would appear likely that Scalia will uphold the health care reform act:

"But to return to the principal point for present purposes: the irrelevance of the action-inaction distinction. "

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/88-1503.ZC2.html

4 of 36 are totally against it. I guess I'm the only "Medical Purposes" user.

There's a reason that FDR threatened, and actually succeeded, in packing the court with people who would decide the limits of federal power based upon his interpretations instead of the Constitution. The whole Gonzales affair rested in the earlier decision from the properly cowed and stuffed court of FDR's that said a man couldn't grow his own wheat because doing so would impact the price other farmers could get for theirs. Lunacy, pure lunacy.

Soulshiner wrote: Why are there two choices for other? Poll maker's short term memory loss?

In case I want to add something later. If you do, sometimes it erases all the results. Now I can just change one and the results will stay. Guess I should add, take it in other form, such as brownies.