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

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Silhouette, Oct 26, 2017.

?

Should California's overproduction of pot for assumed-export be tolerated?

  1. No. We have federal eradication money going to Mexico to stem the tide at those borders too.

  2. Yes. Weed is inevitable. Other states will just have to live with California's influences.

Results are only viewable after voting.
  1. Silhouette
    Offline

    Silhouette Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    20,738
    Thanks Received:
    1,417
    Trophy Points:
    265
    Ratings:
    +6,491
    OK, let's parse it out.
    Commerce Clause
    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.
    I just did. If the fed can and should regulate commerce with respect to mind-altering substances being sold between states and within their borders, then obvious in that implication is the power to prohibit sale of this or that good that might act to destabilize the Union. If you believe the fed should have powers to regulate commerce in order to preserve the Union. And that, I believe, is why they ratified that power: to preserve the Union. It can be argued that the founding fathers granted very little unilateral power to the fed and only then when necessary to clip the wings of overweening states that might threaten the others.

    I'd say California selling drugs to New York where in both states they are illegal (federally regulated as prohibited commerce), is one state overweening to the detriment of the Union. And this is the case I would frame in general for NY against CA with respect to CA producing an illegal substance in quantities that cannot possibly be consumed by her populace, to the detriment of others states as a whole in the Union. NY being one of those states with proof that said illegal substance made its way from CA across their borders.

    If the Commerce Clause doesn't cover that, it doesn't cover anything between states. It's a free for all.
     
  2. danielpalos
    Offline

    danielpalos Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2015
    Messages:
    24,624
    Thanks Received:
    652
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Location:
    Alta California, federalist.
    Ratings:
    +2,988
    To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

    Can you cite Any power to Prohibit in our Constitution?
     
  3. Silhouette
    Offline

    Silhouette Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    20,738
    Thanks Received:
    1,417
    Trophy Points:
    265
    Ratings:
    +6,491
    I can cite an argument to prohibit. You're being a willful idiot here. It's like you're saying "yes water exists, but can you prove that it's wet?". The power to regulate commerce OBVIOUSLY comes with the power to either allow or prohibit it. What else would "regulate" mean to you? Mere suggestion? Or the rights to set hard rules and enforce them, including prohibition?

    Stop being so willfully abstruse. :cranky:
     
  4. Tipsycatlover
    Offline

    Tipsycatlover Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2016
    Messages:
    14,555
    Thanks Received:
    2,483
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +17,092
    Not exactly safe

    Is Marijuana Safe?
     
  5. hazlnut
    Offline

    hazlnut Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2012
    Messages:
    11,142
    Thanks Received:
    1,757
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Chicago
    Ratings:
    +5,209

    NY should just make pot legal.

    You guy buy hash cookies in Walgreens in Vegas.

    WFT - pot is less harmful than booze…
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. hazlnut
    Offline

    hazlnut Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2012
    Messages:
    11,142
    Thanks Received:
    1,757
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Chicago
    Ratings:
    +5,209
    Safer than booze or cigs.

    The real stepping stone drugs are booze and cigs… both are more likely to trigger craving for harder drugs than pot.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. danielpalos
    Offline

    danielpalos Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2015
    Messages:
    24,624
    Thanks Received:
    652
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Location:
    Alta California, federalist.
    Ratings:
    +2,988
    No, you can't. The historical, legal and political precedent of nothing but Repeal of that lousy "management"; is all that should have been necessary.

    To regulate Commerce is not any form of power to Prohibit commerce since Prohibition includes no regulation.
     
  8. Silhouette
    Offline

    Silhouette Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    20,738
    Thanks Received:
    1,417
    Trophy Points:
    265
    Ratings:
    +6,491
    I can cite an argument to prohibit. You're being a willful idiot here. It's like you're saying "yes water exists, but can you prove that it's wet?". The power to regulate commerce OBVIOUSLY comes with the power to either allow or prohibit it. What else would "regulate" mean to you? Mere suggestion? Or the rights to set hard rules and enforce them, including prohibition?

    Stop being so willfully abstruse. :cranky:
    You're sidestepping the word "regulate" here. Either "regulation" includes the right to set hard rules in which prohibition is implied as a consequence or it isn't. You clearly don't have a grip on the meaning of the word "regulate". It includes the right to allow or deny something.

    The Commerce Clause gives the power to the fed to REGULATE commerce between states and each other and between states and foreign powers. Prohibition is the natural consequence of the fed being able to allow or prohibit trade between states and each other or states and a foreign country. If a law exists to regulate property uses, and that law says "no property owner may spill raw sewage into a stream", then the law PROHIBITS spilling sewage into a stream.

    I know you understand this relationship between "regulate" and "prohibit". Yet you're pretending not to understand it to forward your argument as if the two words were wholly unrelated.
     
  9. danielpalos
    Offline

    danielpalos Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2015
    Messages:
    24,624
    Thanks Received:
    652
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Location:
    Alta California, federalist.
    Ratings:
    +2,988
    How much Regulation under Prohibition?

    Only the right wing, never gets it.
     
  10. Silhouette
    Offline

    Silhouette Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2013
    Messages:
    20,738
    Thanks Received:
    1,417
    Trophy Points:
    265
    Ratings:
    +6,491
    No, you are purposefully not getting it
     

Share This Page