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

[BlindBoo]

And just how often do people actually DIE from smoking pot? Never. How often do people die from junk? Constantly. The drug problem is unsolvable because humans always have and always will intoxicate themselves. You can't rid the world of drugs any more than you can divide a number by zero.

So you're in favor of removing pot from Schedule I, but leaving heroin? And if heroin becomes more popular, then legalize it? I mean there are risks associated with the use of pot and of heroin. Alcohol kills more than heroin does. I'm confused...

We assume the feds have their reasons for Schedule I placement. California doesn't have the unilateral authority to remove pot from Schedule I and export it for sale to New York where it remains state and federally illegal.

Nobody OD's from pot. The greatest risk from smoking pot is and always has been, getting busted. California still does not export pot to New York.

 

[Silhouette]

California still does not export pot to New York.

Yes it does. Follow the link in the OP.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

There is no implied power to Prohibit under our Constitutional form of government.

 

[Silhouette]

There is no implied power to Prohibit under our Constitutional form of government.

Then all the heroin dealers sitting in jail or prison right now can celebrate that you've discovered there no longer is a reason to hold them or punish them in any way. Let them all go out to the schoolyards to entice new customers.

There is an implied power to prohibit when the actions of one state affect the well being of another; especially if those actions threaten to destabilize the Union. Drugs being paraded as "normal and fine" destabilizes the Union by affecting her future citizens and their ability to function productively: it hampers their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Undue influence at a tender age is an imposition from without. Legalizing recreational use of drugs is exactly that external influence imposed. It directly affects the liberty, life and happiness of those who have fallen under its spell. I've seen it. You've seen it. We've all seen it. I've known several people who have died from the notion that "using drugs recreationaly is OK". And every f-ing one of them started as an impressionable kid being lured by an older person telling them "try it, it's OK!"...

Recreational drug use getting a social approval is the final unraveling of our social structure. And, it's a national security issue too. Don't think Russia and China aren't sitting around drooling at the prospect of a nation full of dumb and dumbers lazing atop such a gem of natural resources they'd LOVE to get at while the guard is asleep at the wheel.

 

[danielpalos]

There is no implied power to Prohibit under our Constitutional form of government.

Then all the heroin dealers sitting in jail or prison right now can celebrate that you've discovered there no longer is a reason to hold them or punish them in any way. Let them all go out to the schoolyards to entice new customers.

There is an implied power to prohibit when the actions of one state affect the well being of another; especially if those actions threaten to destabilize the Union. Drugs being paraded as "normal and fine" destabilizes the Union by affecting her future citizens and their ability to function productively: it hampers their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Undue influence at a tender age is an imposition from without. Legalizing recreational use of drugs is exactly that external influence imposed. It directly affects the liberty, life and happiness of those who have fallen under its spell.

Prescription drugs must be prescribed by someone with a doctorate in medicine, for a reason.

Our legislators are simply slacking, and blaming the poor for being slackers.

 

[Silhouette]

Prescription drugs must be prescribed by someone with a doctorate in medicine, for a reason.

Our legislators are simply slacking, and blaming the poor for being slackers.

Oh right, I forgot you're the poster who obfuscates to build a strawman.

 

[BlindBoo]

California still does not export pot to New York.

Yes it does. Follow the link in the OP.

I did. It starts out with If.......

It is a complete fabrication. Nonsense only a Drug Warrior Nanny statist would believe.

 

[Silhouette]

California still does not export pot to New York.

Yes it does. Follow the link in the OP.

I did. It starts out with If.......

It is a complete fabrication. Nonsense only a Drug Warrior Nanny statist would believe.

You're saying that they didn't bust people importing pot from CA to NY? That like the tin foil hat "faked moon landing", it "never happened"? It did. And NY has a case against CA in the USSC. Particularly if NY can demonstrate that CA is overproducing (anticipating export to other states)

 

[danielpalos]

Prescription drugs must be prescribed by someone with a doctorate in medicine, for a reason.

Our legislators are simply slacking, and blaming the poor for being slackers.

Oh right, I forgot you're the poster who obfuscates to build a strawman.

Projecting much, right winger?

We have a Commerce Clause. We do not have any form of drug war clause.

Prohibition has the Distinction of being, nothing but Repealed, Because it was a Bad idea in those then, modern times.

 

[danielpalos]

California still does not export pot to New York.

Yes it does. Follow the link in the OP.

I did. It starts out with If.......

It is a complete fabrication. Nonsense only a Drug Warrior Nanny statist would believe.

You're saying that they didn't bust people importing pot from CA to NY? That like the tin foil hat "faked moon landing", it "never happened"? It did. And NY has a case against CA in the USSC. Particularly if NY can demonstrate that CA is overproducing (anticipating export to other states)

I am saying, what happened to natural rights and Individual Liberty, right wingers? not about guns, just drugs and sex.

 

[Silhouette]

In the commerce clause does it talk about states exporting federally-controlled substances to other states where they are not wanted?

 

[BlindBoo]

California still does not export pot to New York.

Yes it does. Follow the link in the OP.

I did. It starts out with If.......

It is a complete fabrication. Nonsense only a Drug Warrior Nanny statist would believe.

You're saying that they didn't bust people importing pot from CA to NY? That like the tin foil hat "faked moon landing", it "never happened"? It did. And NY has a case against CA in the USSC. Particularly if NY can demonstrate that CA is overproducing (anticipating export to other states)

BS. NY has a case against individuals from CA not a case against CA.

It is but a fascist dream that has nothing to do with landing a man on the moon or the CT that we didn't.

 

[Silhouette]

BS. NY has a case against individuals from CA not a case against CA.

Well if I was an individual in CA being sued by NY for exporting to their state, I guess a defense could be that California is allowing such overproduction that in order to stay viable I had to export to other states? Ultimately it's going to come down to CA regulations and whether or not they encourage their growers to go to other states to remain financially viable.

And, whether or not a federally-restricted substance can be sold at all anywhere for recreational use. If one drug disapproved is allowed to be sold for recreation, then they all must be.

 

[danielpalos]

In the commerce clause does it talk about states exporting federally-controlled substances to other states where they are not wanted?

Can you cite the power to Prohibit, in our Constitution?

 

[BlindBoo]

BS. NY has a case against individuals from CA not a case against CA.

Well if I was an individual in CA being sued by NY for exporting to their state, I guess a defense could be that California is allowing such overproduction that in order to stay viable I had to export to other states? Ultimately it's going to come down to CA regulations and whether or not they encourage their growers to go to other states to remain financially viable.

And, whether or not a federally-restricted substance can be sold at all anywhere for recreational use. If one drug disapproved is allowed to be sold for recreation, then they all must be.

A dry county can't sue another country because some one imported (illegally) some liquor from another county that sells it legally.

 

[Silhouette]

A dry county can't sue another country because some one imported (illegally) some liquor from another county that sells it legally.

Says who? If there's an overproduction of "legal moonshine" (which isn't legal) in one county with the obvious stated intent of said county not only to allow it, but to tax it at 45% and join the fun with provable anticipation of export to dry counties surrounding it (overproduction where its residents cannot possibly consume the amounts produced), then the dry counties could pitch their case in court. Sure, why not?

 

[danielpalos]

There is no power to Prohibit. All States have a Commerce Clause, implied or explicit.

Any laws based on Religious morals must be declared null and void from Inception.

 

[Silhouette]

In the commerce clause does it talk about states exporting federally-controlled substances to other states where they are not wanted?

Can you cite the power to Prohibit, in our Constitution?

OK, let's parse it out.
Commerce Clause

The Commerce Clause refers to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.”.....The Constitution enumerates certain powers for the federal government. The Tenth Amendment provides that any powers that are not delegated to Congress by the Constitution are reserved for the states. Congress has often used the Commerce Clause to justify exercising legislative power over the activities of states and their citizens, leading to significant and ongoing controversy regarding the balance of power between the federal government and the states........The Commerce Clause has historically been viewed as both a grant of congressional authority and as a restriction on the regulatory authority of the States. The “dormant” Commerce Clause refers to the prohibition, implicit in the Commerce Clause, against states passing legislation that discriminates against or excessively burdens interstate commerce.

Long story short, the Commerce Clause acts with the 10th Amendment in a push and pull of debate on what constitutes states' rights and federal dominance to regulate commerce.

So as with any debate, one has to go back to the intent of the authors of said clauses to parse out what the law means today. I suspect and would argue that the original authors of the commerce clause wanted to regulate commerce as a form of perserving the delicate balance of the Union. In fact it could be said that the founding fathers wisely wrote limited federal powers to only address such situations where overweening states must be curbed in order to protect and preserve the stability and longevity of the Union as a whole.

Allowing one state to overproduce an intoxicating substance that always finds its way into the hands of children of other states would be a direct and provable threat to such stability. Therefore, the FDA is a viable and dominant unit over states when it comes to controlled intoxicating substances. An intoxicated Union is a vulnerable Union. The 10th Amendment would not provide a weighty enough argument for California's illegal drug trade it's currently involved with.

 

[Jarlaxle]

BS. NY has a case against individuals from CA not a case against CA.

Well if I was an individual in CA being sued by NY for exporting to their state, I guess a defense could be that California is allowing such overproduction that in order to stay viable I had to export to other states? Ultimately it's going to come down to CA regulations and whether or not they encourage their growers to go to other states to remain financially viable.

And, whether or not a federally-restricted substance can be sold at all anywhere for recreational use. If one drug disapproved is allowed to be sold for recreation, then they all must be.

A dry county can't sue another country because some one imported (illegally) some liquor from another county that sells it legally.

Don't bother. Silly knows what she knows, and will not be swayed by anything as trivial as FACTS!

 

[danielpalos]

In the commerce clause does it talk about states exporting federally-controlled substances to other states where they are not wanted?

Can you cite the power to Prohibit, in our Constitution?

OK, let's parse it out.
Commerce Clause

The Commerce Clause refers to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.”.....The Constitution enumerates certain powers for the federal government. The Tenth Amendment provides that any powers that are not delegated to Congress by the Constitution are reserved for the states. Congress has often used the Commerce Clause to justify exercising legislative power over the activities of states and their citizens, leading to significant and ongoing controversy regarding the balance of power between the federal government and the states........The Commerce Clause has historically been viewed as both a grant of congressional authority and as a restriction on the regulatory authority of the States. The “dormant” Commerce Clause refers to the prohibition, implicit in the Commerce Clause, against states passing legislation that discriminates against or excessively burdens interstate commerce.

Long story short, the Commerce Clause acts with the 10th Amendment in a push and pull of debate on what constitutes states' rights and federal dominance to regulate commerce.

So as with any debate, one has to go back to the intent of the authors of said clauses to parse out what the law means today. I suspect and would argue that the original authors of the commerce clause wanted to regulate commerce as a form of perserving the delicate balance of the Union. In fact it could be said that the founding fathers wisely wrote limited federal powers to only address such situations where overweening states must be curbed in order to protect and preserve the stability and longevity of the Union as a whole.

Allowing one state to overproduce an intoxicating substance that always finds its way into the hands of children of other states would be a direct and provable threat to such stability. Therefore, the FDA is a viable and dominant unit over states when it comes to controlled intoxicating substances. An intoxicated Union is a vulnerable Union. The 10th Amendment would not provide a weighty enough argument for California's illegal drug trade it's currently involved with.

Can you cite the power to Prohibit, in our Constitution?