State Pot Laws Usurping the Fed Means Abortion Is Next...

Discussion in 'Legal Philosophy' started by RoshawnMarkwees, Jan 11, 2018.

  1. Skylar
    Offline

    Skylar Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2014
    Messages:
    33,073
    Thanks Received:
    4,470
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +13,231
    I'm discussing the topic of the thread: the slippery slope pertaining to pot laws and abortion or marriage. There is none. As they have completely different bases.

    Just because you ignored the topic of the thread doesn't mean we're obligated to do the same.
     
  2. jon_berzerk
    Offline

    jon_berzerk Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2013
    Messages:
    31,228
    Thanks Received:
    7,231
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +20,519

    yeah there are a lot of federal laws a state could write off the books

    that being one

    federal taxes being another
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. EverCurious
    Offline

    EverCurious Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2014
    Messages:
    11,062
    Thanks Received:
    1,816
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Alaska
    Ratings:
    +7,231
    Ravin vs State was in 1975 dude... And there was /more/ before that ruling.

    The first Alaska Supreme Court decision interpreting the privacy clause of the Alaska Constitution, added by voter initiative in 1972, upheld the constitutional right of individuals to use marijuana in their homes. Justice Rabinowitz, writing for the court, stated that residents of Alaska "have a basic right to privacy in their homes under Alaska’s Constitution” and that "would encompass the possession and ingestion of substances such as marijuana in a purely personal, non-commercial
    context..."

    Then we had Ravin in 1975: “[W]e conclude that citizens of the State of Alaska have a basic right to privacy in their homes under Alaska’s constitution,” the Court ruled in Ravin. “This right to privacy would encompass the possession and ingestion of substances such as marijuana in a purely personal, non-commercial context in the home unless the state can meet its substantial burden and show that proscription of possession of marijuana in the home is supportable by achievement of a legitimate state interest.”

    Then we had a "revisit" of a sort; Noy vs State in 2003, where the court of appeals ruled yet again in favor of personal possession, ruling:

    "To make AS 11.71.060(a)(1) consistent with article I, section 22 of the Alaska Constitution as interpreted in Ravin, we must limit the scope of the statute.   As currently written, the statute prohibits possession of any amount of marijuana.   But with regard to possession of marijuana by adults in their home for personal use, AS 11.71.060(a)(1) must be interpreted to prohibit only the possession of four ounces or more of marijuana."

    And of course in 2014 we immediately decriminalized, by vote.

    You seem to be under the impression that the Feds making it criminal is a magical wand or something... It ain't. It has /always/ been legal to have and smoke pot in our homes up here, from time immemorial, and the Feds be fucking damned... Folks up here never stopped smoking weed even after the feds made us criminalize in 1992. Sure, the /feds/ came up here occasionally to "enforce" their bullshit, but Alaska police only arrested sellers and growers, gang members, and that kind of stuff. Folks smoking a little pot in their houses were left alone even when found, unless there was another crime committed (then they might tack that on just to get the criminals off the streets longer.) NO ONE in Alaska has /ever/ been convicted of possession of small amounts of pot inside their own home - because that's legal up here, always has been, always will be.

    Do you know who the pot smokers in Alaska are? A lot of them are older vets who use it to get over their pain and trauma. That's a big part of why we voted to decriminalize, not because of liberal ideals of stopping systemic racism, or because we're a bunch of pot heads, but because our soldiers wanted it. We owe them our lives... the whole fucking world does. They want to get stoned off a natural product, who the fuck are we to say no to them? To tell them /we/ know better what /they/ find helps them? They've served in Nazi Germany, in Japan, and the Middle East, they've faced guns, tanks, and bombs, and yet we think we're "protecting them" by criminalizing their pot? Give me a fucking break...

    Life isn't so black and white as many folks like to think. This is why I say that folks outside the city/state are clueless and shouldn't be using Fed law to enforce their bullshit. I've lived here my entire life so I have a hell of a lot better idea what's good for my state than some yahoo in DC (or any other state) who's never set foot up here. I know better for my state than some idiot who's "visited" and went on a tour to Denali... Cities and states should be deciding on this kind of "rights", not distant Feds, not career politicians in Washington looking for votes, not even the crazy ass 9th circuit (though they'd likely defend pot, they could fuck up a wet dream on damn near everything else.)


    Bonus Fact for everyone: Do you actually know the history of why the Feds made pot illegal? I almost hate to say it with the way liberals have behaved this past couple years, but they're actually right this time, it's a legit racist law that's stayed on the books somehow all these years. It was created to demonize and stem the flow of Mexican immigrants, no joke.
     
  4. BuckToothMoron
    Offline

    BuckToothMoron Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2016
    Messages:
    7,053
    Thanks Received:
    1,280
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +7,148
    News flash- the legalization, or decriminalization of pot crosses party lines.
    Poll: Growing number of Americans support marijuana legalization, including Republicans
    A record high number of respondents to a Gallup poll released Wednesday said they support the legalization of marijuana, including more than half of Republicans polled.
     
  5. EverCurious
    Offline

    EverCurious Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2014
    Messages:
    11,062
    Thanks Received:
    1,816
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Alaska
    Ratings:
    +7,231
    I'd actually argue that the Japanese internment during WWII would qualify as your "improbable" rescinding of Constitutional rights. That was a Fed move.

    Hmmm there was a case up here in line with this general topic... wish I could remember the case name and/or year. Basically Alaska courts ruled, and I expect it was upheld since it's still the law, that Alaska could indeed require minors to get permission from their parents for an abortion. In that case Alaska protected parental rights that the Feds were trying to constrict. I think there's a number of other cases where Alaska has "expanded" rights, pot is one of them as it's "expanded" off privacy vs the feds war on drugs. Property rights... Hell yea, I guarantee you that there's a shit ton of Alaska vs EPA/BLM cases up here, though you'd have to research individual cases as I've not personally read up on any.

    Honestly, the only two instances of Feds "expanding" rights I can even think of were/are SSM and abortion. Every other thing I can think of they were taking away legal/perceived rights...

    I think the "slippery slope" is quite real, maybe you just don't feel it because it's generally gone "your way"? I mean, lets be intellectually honest here, the Feds basically legalized murder in the eyes of half the nation, that's fucking insane when you think about it. I'm not at all surprised to have allies in the "fuck the fed overreach" debate.
     
  6. jon_berzerk
    Offline

    jon_berzerk Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2013
    Messages:
    31,228
    Thanks Received:
    7,231
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +20,519

    then the remedy is to change the federal law
     
  7. Skylar
    Offline

    Skylar Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2014
    Messages:
    33,073
    Thanks Received:
    4,470
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +13,231
    Then you have to go back almost 70 years for an example and even that was temporary. And that was in the middle of a massive war. Demonstrating my point of how rare it is to occur....and how extreme the conditions must be for it to happen.

    We have nothing remotely as extreme regarding abortion or marriage here. Pot laws certainly don't qualify.
     
  8. EverCurious
    Offline

    EverCurious Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2014
    Messages:
    11,062
    Thanks Received:
    1,816
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Alaska
    Ratings:
    +7,231
    "Here" as in your state? Which is? Again, maybe you don't notice it because the Feds tend to rule "your way" - they constrict our rights [Alaska,] both individual and "state," all the damn time... I think Alaska has been in battle with the Feds pretty much since the beginning, since we became a state, and really even before then - we were in contention with the feds over shit like forcing all of our imports and exports to go through [a US port] San Fran and Seattle - costing us around twice as much for everything.

    Maybe it's just how we, you and I, were raised; were you raised believing the Feds had your best interest in mind, or that they knew best? I was raised the opposite, both by my mother, and my friends up here, that the Feds were constantly causing us problems. ~shrug~
     
  9. RoshawnMarkwees
    Offline

    RoshawnMarkwees Assimilationist

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2009
    Messages:
    16,196
    Thanks Received:
    2,038
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Middle class, suburban ghetto.
    Ratings:
    +10,397
    Did I say anything about this being about democrat conservatives only?
     
  10. RoshawnMarkwees
    Offline

    RoshawnMarkwees Assimilationist

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2009
    Messages:
    16,196
    Thanks Received:
    2,038
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Middle class, suburban ghetto.
    Ratings:
    +10,397
    Which is exactly what the anti-abortion people want.
     

Share This Page