State Politics & The War On Drugs: USSC A Solution?

[Silhouette]

Should New York sue California in the USSC for this?

Read here first: 10 busts in massive California-New York pot ring

If the State of New York could prove that California is over-producing pot, demonstrating an intent to export, it might have legal action against CA in the USSC. Pot is federally illegal for a reason. Just like heroin is. And as I recall they're both on the same schedule. Let's assume that say Oklahoma wanted to make heroin legal in order to boost their economy since "hey everyone is doing it anyway, legalization is inevitable" (same rationale in CA used to defy federal statutes). So would we be OK with Oklahoma overproducing heroin for presumed export to other states so their state could get rich on the blood and demise of children (and adults) in other states?

I'd think we'd have a problem with Oklahoma doing that. So California would have to canvass its population to demonstrate the need for internal consumption for pot vs the production within its borders. If the production far exceeds its own consumption, a legal assumption can be made that it intends to export; which is a violation of several severe federal statutes.

NY suing CA would force an end to CA's overweening influence on the rest of the nation. A thing she readily takes for granted and even celebrates. The CA debauchery lifestyle has bled over into assumption-by-force into other states via other USSC cases induced by clever legal posturing and appeals within the CA borders on up. So how about it? You want to stop massive drugs coming across the border with Mexico. Meanwhile the DEA sits idly while CA exports massive drugs across the nation to its collective demise.

Do other states have to be forced to assume or bear the impact of CA's values by virtue of her own (illegal) internal policies and statutes? By the way, the "legal weed" laws in CA were not even allowed to be on the ballot there because in order to get things on the ballot there, they can't be proposals that violate federal laws. There's another point of contention at the USSC level. The state legislators had a mandate to disallow those proposals on their ballot. So I think you can find defendants if forced to pick individuals to sue for CA illegal controlled substance/drug export program.

CA Constitution Article II, Section 8: Codes Display Text

(a) The initiative is the power of the electors to propose statutes and amendments to the Constitution and to adopt or reject them.

(b) An initiative measure may be proposed by presenting to the Secretary of State a petition that sets forth the text of the proposed statute or amendment to the Constitution and is certified to have been signed by electors equal in number to 5 percent in the case of a statute, and 8 percent in the case of an amendment to the Constitution, of the votes for all candidates for Governor at the last gubernatorial election.

(c) The Secretary of State shall then submit the measure at the next general election held at least 131 days after it qualifies or at any special statewide election held prior to that general election. The Governor may call a special statewide election for the measure.

And Section 10:

(a) An initiative statute or referendum approved by a majority of votes thereon takes effect the day after the election unless the measure provides otherwise. If a referendum petition is filed against a part of a statute the remainder shall not be delayed from going into effect.

(b) If provisions of 2 or more measures approved at the same election conflict, those of the measure receiving the highest affirmative vote shall prevail.

(c) The Legislature may amend or repeal referendum statutes. It may amend or repeal an initiative statute by another statute that becomes effective only when approved by the electors unless the initiative statute permits amendment or repeal without their approval.

I'd say on the whole, defiance of federal law would render a statute revokable without voters' permission in CA. Is this the United States of America? Or the unilateral Republik of Kalifornia? Sue them New York. Clip the wings of that social dragon for once.

And I don't want to hear any whining from Californians saying "but pot tax base is going to save our budget woes!" #1, other states are already flooding California's chances at that. Prices nationwide are plummeting where it will cost the same as a pack of smokes. BigTobacco is going to flood the market anyway, do their subtle advertising to children; and when they run out of marketing in the states where they can grow legally, guess what they're going to lobby Congress to relax federal statutes on? Yep, the kids in YOUR state. and #2. You don't balance a state's budget woes by the blood of children and #3. Setting this precedent for a simple herb one can grow in one's backyard, that is Schedule 1 narcotic, busts open the door for opium poppy cultivation which is already starting to take off and become normalized just like pot was in the 1960s. And if you don't think that's a train wreck coming hard, just take a look around your own community.

 

[BlindBoo]

The Feds should be able to tax recreational drugs at a reasonable rate, like they tax alcohol, tobacco and coffee.

The war on American Citizens who use non-government approved recreational drugs has failed and is drawing us closer to a police state than ever before. It should end.

 

[Harry Dresden]

By the way, the "legal weed" laws in CA were not even allowed to be on the ballot there because in order to get things on the ballot there, they can't be proposals that violate federal laws.
you do realize that a few other states made pot legal before california right?.....

 

[Silhouette]

The Feds should be able to tax recreational drugs at a reasonable rate, like they tax alcohol, tobacco and coffee.

The war on American Citizens who use non-government approved recreational drugs has failed and is drawing us closer to a police state than ever before. It should end.

Define "recreational drugs". As I understand it, they are drugs used by many people to get high or alter their state of mind, that people lobbied given states to "legalize" (while they remain Schedule I federally prohibited and controlled). Both pot and heroin therefore are "recreational drugs" because as we know, the use of opium or heroin proper now fits that definition.

This thread is more about the recreational use of heroin, using pot as a precedent. That and how irresponsible outlaw states can affect the entire nation. And yes, I realize California isn't the first state to "legalize" for recreational use. I zeroed in on it because of the recent bust coming from California that happened in New York; and New York's potential legal action against California to put this absurd legal dichotomy between federal and state laws to bed at the USSC level.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Today Trump spoke out about the opioid epidemic. Marijuana is a completely safe alternative to the legal opioids that kill thousands of people a year by overdose.

 

[Silhouette]

Today Trump spoke out about the opioid epidemic. Marijuana is a completely safe alternative to the legal opioids that kill thousands of people a year by overdose.

That's your opinion. Meanwhile the opinions of New York parents concerned about California importing all those pounds stands in stark contrast to your opinion. Mind-altering is mind-altering. Marijuana/heroin. PotAto/Potaato.

I've seen people trip hard (not in a good way) on pot; particularly the edible kind. Smoking is never good for you. So you're wrong about "marijuana being completely safe". It isn't.

The problem you're evading here is the legal precedent. If one Schedule I mind-altering substance can be "outlegislated" at the state level because it's popular and can be grown/produced easily, you can't pick and choose. One day Oklahoma will want to legalize opium poppy production for sale to outside states. What think you then?

 

[TheOldSchool]

I've seen people trip hard (not in a good way) on pot; particularly the edible kind. Smoking is never good for you. So you're wrong about "marijuana being completely safe". It isn't.

You just said it. You can eat it, you can drink it, you can take it in pill form, etc, perfectly safely. But you know what you can’t do on it? Overdose. If only the thousands that die every year had been using Marijuana instead of dangerous, organ destroying opioids.

 

[debbiedowner]

I've seen people trip hard (not in a good way) on pot; particularly the edible kind. Smoking is never good for you. So you're wrong about "marijuana being completely safe". It isn't.

Then they ate too much or it was altered. Most people do not trip on marijuana. Just did some edible the other night for pain and have been pain free over 48 hours. And I'm not a kid. Didn't trip either.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

I've seen people trip hard (not in a good way) on pot; particularly the edible kind. Smoking is never good for you. So you're wrong about "marijuana being completely safe". It isn't.

Then they ate too much or it was altered. Most people do not trip on marijuana. Just did some edible the other night for pain and have been pain free over 48 hours. And I'm not a kid. Didn't trip either.

Smoke six or seven doobs all day long, you have a problem.
Knock back a case of beer or a quart of bourbon all day long, you have a problem.

Smoke a bowl or two after work, not a problem.
Have a beer or two after work, not a problem.

I've never seen anyone "trip" from pot. Maybe fall asleep.

 

[Harry Dresden]

I've seen people trip hard (not in a good way) on pot; particularly the edible kind. Smoking is never good for you. So you're wrong about "marijuana being completely safe". It isn't.

Then they ate too much or it was altered. Most people do not trip on marijuana. Just did some edible the other night for pain and have been pain free over 48 hours. And I'm not a kid. Didn't trip either.

Smoke six or seven doobs all day long, you have a problem.
Knock back a case of beer or a quart of bourbon all day long, you have a problem.

Smoke a bowl or two after work, not a problem.
Have a beer or two after work, not a problem.

I've never seen anyone "trip" from pot. Maybe fall asleep.

thats what happens when someone with no experience with the stuff comments....lots of "overdoses" are happening because of synthetic pot,something that should be made illegal right now,its dangerous stuff....

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

I've seen people trip hard (not in a good way) on pot; particularly the edible kind. Smoking is never good for you. So you're wrong about "marijuana being completely safe". It isn't.

Then they ate too much or it was altered. Most people do not trip on marijuana. Just did some edible the other night for pain and have been pain free over 48 hours. And I'm not a kid. Didn't trip either.

Smoke six or seven doobs all day long, you have a problem.
Knock back a case of beer or a quart of bourbon all day long, you have a problem.

Smoke a bowl or two after work, not a problem.
Have a beer or two after work, not a problem.

I've never seen anyone "trip" from pot. Maybe fall asleep.

thats what happens when someone with no experience with the stuff comments....lots of "overdoses" are happening because of synthetic pot,something that should be made illegal right now,its dangerous stuff....

So don't smoke synthetic pot. Sheesh ...

I grew up in the 60s. I have plenty of experience.

 

[BlindBoo]

The Feds should be able to tax recreational drugs at a reasonable rate, like they tax alcohol, tobacco and coffee.

The war on American Citizens who use non-government approved recreational drugs has failed and is drawing us closer to a police state than ever before. It should end.

Define "recreational drugs". As I understand it, they are drugs used by many people to get high or alter their state of mind, that people lobbied given states to "legalize" (while they remain Schedule I federally prohibited and controlled). Both pot and heroin therefore are "recreational drugs" because as we know, the use of opium or heroin proper now fits that definition.

This thread is more about the recreational use of heroin, using pot as a precedent. That and how irresponsible outlaw states can affect the entire nation. And yes, I realize California isn't the first state to "legalize" for recreational use. I zeroed in on it because of the recent bust coming from California that happened in New York; and New York's potential legal action against California to put this absurd legal dichotomy between federal and state laws to bed at the USSC level.

I'll settle for marijuana.

 

[BlindBoo]

I've seen people trip hard (not in a good way) on pot; particularly the edible kind. Smoking is never good for you. So you're wrong about "marijuana being completely safe". It isn't.

Then they ate too much or it was altered. Most people do not trip on marijuana. Just did some edible the other night for pain and have been pain free over 48 hours. And I'm not a kid. Didn't trip either.

Smoke six or seven doobs all day long, you have a problem.
Knock back a case of beer or a quart of bourbon all day long, you have a problem.

Smoke a bowl or two after work, not a problem.
Have a beer or two after work, not a problem.

I've never seen anyone "trip" from pot. Maybe fall asleep.

thats what happens when someone with no experience with the stuff comments....lots of "overdoses" are happening because of synthetic pot,something that should be made illegal right now,its dangerous stuff....

I don't know about synthetic pot, but the main reason for the opioid hysteria is Fentanyl, heroins synthetic cousin.

Why fentanyl is deadlier than heroin, in a single photo

 

[Harry Dresden]

I've seen people trip hard (not in a good way) on pot; particularly the edible kind. Smoking is never good for you. So you're wrong about "marijuana being completely safe". It isn't.

Then they ate too much or it was altered. Most people do not trip on marijuana. Just did some edible the other night for pain and have been pain free over 48 hours. And I'm not a kid. Didn't trip either.

Smoke six or seven doobs all day long, you have a problem.
Knock back a case of beer or a quart of bourbon all day long, you have a problem.

Smoke a bowl or two after work, not a problem.
Have a beer or two after work, not a problem.

I've never seen anyone "trip" from pot. Maybe fall asleep.

thats what happens when someone with no experience with the stuff comments....lots of "overdoses" are happening because of synthetic pot,something that should be made illegal right now,its dangerous stuff....

So don't smoke synthetic pot. Sheesh ...

I grew up in the 60s. I have plenty of experience.

not talking about you billy....sheesh....

 

[Silhouette]

I'll settle for marijuana.

That's nice, but it's not what the thread is about. It's about whether it is legal for a state in our Union to "legalize" then overproduce a federally-illegal substance with the realistic anticipation that it will export to sister states where the drug isn't wanted. It applies to pot, meth, heroin, LSD, Molly, etc. etc. It's about relaxed social standards in one state NOT trumping federal law protecting other states from those relaxed standards they do not want the relaxing thereof.

We dump billions $$ into suppressing drug production in Mexico and other Latin countries to the South because we anticipate they'll import their overproduced product to the US to our collective demise. Why then does the same federal body doing this allow California to get away scot-free doing the exact same thing we're dumping billions into Mexico trying to suppress?

 

[BlindBoo]

I'll settle for marijuana.

That's nice, but it's not what the thread is about. It's about whether it is legal for a state in our Union to "legalize" then overproduce a federally-illegal substance with the realistic anticipation that it will export to sister states where the drug isn't wanted. It applies to pot, meth, heroin, LSD, Molly, etc. etc. It's about relaxed social standards in one state NOT trumping federal law protecting other states from those relaxed standards they do not want the relaxing thereof.

We dump billions $$ into suppressing drug production in Mexico and other Latin countries to the South because we anticipate they'll import their overproduced product to the US to our collective demise. Why then does the same federal body doing this allow California to get away scot-free doing the exact same thing we're dumping billions into Mexico trying to suppress?

The state of California doesn't allow for export of the any of the drugs they allow their citizens to use for recreation. That is still a criminal offense. The feds have no business or constitution authority to criminalize recreational drugs that any state allows. Congress granted themselves that authority after the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 was declared unconstitutional.

When we outlawed alcohol via Constitution Amendment we didn't invade other countries and halt operation of their distilleries did we? No of course not. Stopping the war on Americans would also save the money we spend on the international interdiction effort.

 

[Silhouette]

The state of California doesn't allow for export of the any of the drugs they allow their citizens to use for recreation. That is still a criminal offense. The feds have no business or constitution authority to criminalize recreational drugs that any state allows. Congress granted themselves that authority after the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 was declared unconstitutional.

When we outlawed alcohol via Constitution Amendment we didn't invade other countries and halt operation of their distilleries did we? No of course not. Stopping the war on Americans would also save the money we spend on the international interdiction effort.

Well the amount of production per canvassed use per year is exceeded already. So while they profess to not allow exports, their practices in fact anticipate/encourage exportation. That's how if I was an attorney representing New York State, I would frame my argument. A state doesn't get rich selling itself stuff. It gets rich selling other states stuff.

 

[Borillar]

I'll settle for marijuana.

That's nice, but it's not what the thread is about. It's about whether it is legal for a state in our Union to "legalize" then overproduce a federally-illegal substance with the realistic anticipation that it will export to sister states where the drug isn't wanted. It applies to pot, meth, heroin, LSD, Molly, etc. etc. It's about relaxed social standards in one state NOT trumping federal law protecting other states from those relaxed standards they do not want the relaxing thereof.

We dump billions $$ into suppressing drug production in Mexico and other Latin countries to the South because we anticipate they'll import their overproduced product to the US to our collective demise. Why then does the same federal body doing this allow California to get away scot-free doing the exact same thing we're dumping billions into Mexico trying to suppress?

So, build a wall around New York and make California pay for it. Maybe the feds should get off their high horse and legalize it already. They should also stop spending money abroad to prevent production.

 

[Silhouette]

So, build a wall around New York and make California pay for it. Maybe the feds should get off their high horse and legalize it already. They should also stop spending money abroad to prevent production.

And of opium poppies as well? If they're popular and people want to get high off them, why not?

 

[BlindBoo]

So, build a wall around New York and make California pay for it. Maybe the feds should get off their high horse and legalize it already. They should also stop spending money abroad to prevent production.

And of opium poppies as well? If they're popular and people want to get high off them, why not?

Papaver Somniferum are completely legal to grow. They are one of the worlds most beautiful flowers. Where do you think Poppy Bread Seed comes from? Of course it's not legal to scar the seedpods and scrap off the resin and let it dry, and put it in your pipe and smoke it ...... LOL.

I think you can buy the seeds through wal-mart online too.