CDZ Will 37 States Change Federal Law?

[DarkFury]

Right now it's at 23 but soon very soon 'Med Pot" could be legal in 37 states. And according to what laws I have read when and if the 37 state mark is hit the feds are FORCED to change federal law.

That was the approach and tactic used by the ERA years ago but failed even with extensions. But at this point "Med Pot" is looking stronger day by day. NOT that the government truly cares how you feel OR what may help you. THEIR interest has been and always will be the money.

They only need 14 states at this point. DC does NOT count as it is NOT a state. There are at least four states with "Med Pot" laws written and ready to go now. I myself think it would be very easy to see this change in the next two years. Thoughts?

Texas lawmakers introduce bills to legalize medical marijuana - Yahoo News

 

[S.J.]

I think by 2020 it will be as legal as alcohol is now. Maybe sooner.

 

[Boss]

I have read when and if the 37 state mark is hit the feds are FORCED to change federal law.

This is not true. It sounds like someone has confused the criteria for ratification of constitutional amendments. (ERA was an amendment attempt) At this time, there is no med-pot amendment being considered.

Now, that said, with the number of states growing where marijuana is legal, it opens the door for challenges to federal law under the "equal protection" clause. SCOTUS could rule federal marijuana laws unconstitutional, leaving it a matter to be determined by the states.

It is for this reason I believe federal marijuana laws will be reformed and pot will become decriminalized, probably within the next decade.

 

[DarkFury]

I have read when and if the 37 state mark is hit the feds are FORCED to change federal law.

This is not true. It sounds like someone has confused the criteria for ratification of constitutional amendments. (ERA was an amendment attempt) At this time, there is no med-pot amendment being considered.

Now, that said, with the number of states growing where marijuana is legal, it opens the door for challenges to federal law under the "equal protection" clause. SCOTUS could rule federal marijuana laws unconstitutional, leaving it a matter to be determined by the states.

It is for this reason I believe federal marijuana laws will be reformed and pot will become decriminalized, probably within the next decade.

Okay I stand corrected. As I read it and I should re-find that link once 37 states adopt it the feds are forced to deal with it on a national level.

But as stated I will re-check.

 

[DarkFury]

I think by 2020 it will be as legal as alcohol is now. Maybe sooner.

I think 2020 is a solid target. Money wise the side market of some kind of roadside test for DUI could be worth millions over the long haul just like radar guns were.

 

[Boss]

Okay I stand corrected. As I read it and I should re-find that link once 37 states adopt it the feds are forced to deal with it on a national level.

But as stated I will re-check.

Again, they could be assuming this based on the criteria for amendment ratification. There is no law which says the Feds have to deal with anything. What generally happens is, Congress takes action because they see the writing on the wall when it gets to 37 states. Theoretically, those 37 states could hold Article V conventions and amend the Constitution without Congress. I don't think that would ever happen with marijuana. Term limits or repealing income tax? Far more likely.

I am an advocate for medical marijuana because I have seen remarkable results. Recreational usage, I believe, is far less dangerous health and safety wise than alcohol or tobacco. However, there are significant drawbacks to complete and unfettered legalization and those will have to be addressed. There are people who can't handle pot, they just can't function high. All it will take is for a school bus full of kids to be killed and the driver found to be stoned on pot and in the court of public opinion, this undermines everything positive you can say for legalization.

 

[JoeMoma]

Okay I stand corrected. As I read it and I should re-find that link once 37 states adopt it the feds are forced to deal with it on a national level.

But as stated I will re-check.

Again, they could be assuming this based on the criteria for amendment ratification. There is no law which says the Feds have to deal with anything. What generally happens is, Congress takes action because they see the writing on the wall when it gets to 37 states. Theoretically, those 37 states could hold Article V conventions and amend the Constitution without Congress. I don't think that would ever happen with marijuana. Term limits or repealing income tax? Far more likely.

I am an advocate for medical marijuana because I have seen remarkable results. Recreational usage, I believe, is far less dangerous health and safety wise than alcohol or tobacco. However, there are significant drawbacks to complete and unfettered legalization and those will have to be addressed. There are people who can't handle pot, they just can't function high. All it will take is for a school bus full of kids to be killed and the driver found to be stoned on pot and in the court of public opinion, this undermines everything positive you can say for legalization.

A constitutional convention is not needed to legalize pot on a federal level as it is not prohibited by the constitution. a bill passed by congress and signed by the president will do the trick.

 

[DarkFury]

Okay I stand corrected. As I read it and I should re-find that link once 37 states adopt it the feds are forced to deal with it on a national level.

But as stated I will re-check.

Again, they could be assuming this based on the criteria for amendment ratification. There is no law which says the Feds have to deal with anything. What generally happens is, Congress takes action because they see the writing on the wall when it gets to 37 states. Theoretically, those 37 states could hold Article V conventions and amend the Constitution without Congress. I don't think that would ever happen with marijuana. Term limits or repealing income tax? Far more likely.

I am an advocate for medical marijuana because I have seen remarkable results. Recreational usage, I believe, is far less dangerous health and safety wise than alcohol or tobacco. However, there are significant drawbacks to complete and unfettered legalization and those will have to be addressed. There are people who can't handle pot, they just can't function high. All it will take is for a school bus full of kids to be killed and the driver found to be stoned on pot and in the court of public opinion, this undermines everything positive you can say for legalization.

You know you maybe on to something. A convention is not held to one issue. There are three or four issues out there truly could use the convention venue.

Re-enforcing gun rights AND immigration come to mind. And I would also submit it would be a good time to re-visit the status of Islam and maybe change that status from "religion" to a political hate group much like the Nazis were re-listed from a political party to a hate group.

 

[Boss]

Okay I stand corrected. As I read it and I should re-find that link once 37 states adopt it the feds are forced to deal with it on a national level.

But as stated I will re-check.

Again, they could be assuming this based on the criteria for amendment ratification. There is no law which says the Feds have to deal with anything. What generally happens is, Congress takes action because they see the writing on the wall when it gets to 37 states. Theoretically, those 37 states could hold Article V conventions and amend the Constitution without Congress. I don't think that would ever happen with marijuana. Term limits or repealing income tax? Far more likely.

I am an advocate for medical marijuana because I have seen remarkable results. Recreational usage, I believe, is far less dangerous health and safety wise than alcohol or tobacco. However, there are significant drawbacks to complete and unfettered legalization and those will have to be addressed. There are people who can't handle pot, they just can't function high. All it will take is for a school bus full of kids to be killed and the driver found to be stoned on pot and in the court of public opinion, this undermines everything positive you can say for legalization.

You know you maybe on to something. A convention is not held to one issue. There are three or four issues out there truly could use the convention venue.

Re-enforcing gun rights AND immigration come to mind. And I would also submit it would be a good time to re-visit the status of Islam and maybe change that status from "religion" to a political hate group much like the Nazis were re-listed from a political party to a hate group.

The problem is, an Article V convention doesn't negate the requirement for ratification. Whatever you come up with has to garner an enormous amount of public support or it fails.

With pot, it's like JoMama said, it doesn't need a constitutional amendment, it simply needs to be enacted into law by congress. It could probably be effectively decriminalized through DEA by executive order.

I've felt like for a while, this is the best way to go about it, kill the federal drug classification and decriminalize it. With all the states now having pot statutes on the books and up and running, I expect to see a case come before SCOTUS soon. You simply cannot prosecute me for a felony in Alabama when my action is perfectly legal in Colorado. This is what "equal protection under the law" is all about. Sooner or later, someone will bring the case and the SCOTUS could rule federal marijuana laws unconstitutional.

 

[Montrovant]

Okay I stand corrected. As I read it and I should re-find that link once 37 states adopt it the feds are forced to deal with it on a national level.

But as stated I will re-check.

Again, they could be assuming this based on the criteria for amendment ratification. There is no law which says the Feds have to deal with anything. What generally happens is, Congress takes action because they see the writing on the wall when it gets to 37 states. Theoretically, those 37 states could hold Article V conventions and amend the Constitution without Congress. I don't think that would ever happen with marijuana. Term limits or repealing income tax? Far more likely.

I am an advocate for medical marijuana because I have seen remarkable results. Recreational usage, I believe, is far less dangerous health and safety wise than alcohol or tobacco. However, there are significant drawbacks to complete and unfettered legalization and those will have to be addressed. There are people who can't handle pot, they just can't function high. All it will take is for a school bus full of kids to be killed and the driver found to be stoned on pot and in the court of public opinion, this undermines everything positive you can say for legalization.

You know you maybe on to something. A convention is not held to one issue. There are three or four issues out there truly could use the convention venue.

Re-enforcing gun rights AND immigration come to mind. And I would also submit it would be a good time to re-visit the status of Islam and maybe change that status from "religion" to a political hate group much like the Nazis were re-listed from a political party to a hate group.

The problem is, an Article V convention doesn't negate the requirement for ratification. Whatever you come up with has to garner an enormous amount of public support or it fails.

With pot, it's like JoMama said, it doesn't need a constitutional amendment, it simply needs to be enacted into law by congress. It could probably be effectively decriminalized through DEA by executive order.

I've felt like for a while, this is the best way to go about it, kill the federal drug classification and decriminalize it. With all the states now having pot statutes on the books and up and running, I expect to see a case come before SCOTUS soon. You simply cannot prosecute me for a felony in Alabama when my action is perfectly legal in Colorado. This is what "equal protection under the law" is all about. Sooner or later, someone will bring the case and the SCOTUS could rule federal marijuana laws unconstitutional.

I think you are wrong about this Boss. Equal protection is not about laws being the same in each state but rather about people being treated the same and not having laws apply differently based on a particular characteristic of a person. Even then there are exceptions, as not all characteristics are protected; a felon may be arrested for owning a firearm, for example, where a non felon is not.

There are certainly laws which apply only in certain states and not others. Age of consent laws differ from state to state as an example. It may be perfectly legal to have sexual relations in one state that would lead to criminal charges in another.

Now, if medical marijuana laws only applied to, say, people of Iranian descent, that would fall under equal protection.

 

[Boss]

Okay I stand corrected. As I read it and I should re-find that link once 37 states adopt it the feds are forced to deal with it on a national level.

But as stated I will re-check.

Again, they could be assuming this based on the criteria for amendment ratification. There is no law which says the Feds have to deal with anything. What generally happens is, Congress takes action because they see the writing on the wall when it gets to 37 states. Theoretically, those 37 states could hold Article V conventions and amend the Constitution without Congress. I don't think that would ever happen with marijuana. Term limits or repealing income tax? Far more likely.

I am an advocate for medical marijuana because I have seen remarkable results. Recreational usage, I believe, is far less dangerous health and safety wise than alcohol or tobacco. However, there are significant drawbacks to complete and unfettered legalization and those will have to be addressed. There are people who can't handle pot, they just can't function high. All it will take is for a school bus full of kids to be killed and the driver found to be stoned on pot and in the court of public opinion, this undermines everything positive you can say for legalization.

You know you maybe on to something. A convention is not held to one issue. There are three or four issues out there truly could use the convention venue.

Re-enforcing gun rights AND immigration come to mind. And I would also submit it would be a good time to re-visit the status of Islam and maybe change that status from "religion" to a political hate group much like the Nazis were re-listed from a political party to a hate group.

The problem is, an Article V convention doesn't negate the requirement for ratification. Whatever you come up with has to garner an enormous amount of public support or it fails.

With pot, it's like JoMama said, it doesn't need a constitutional amendment, it simply needs to be enacted into law by congress. It could probably be effectively decriminalized through DEA by executive order.

I've felt like for a while, this is the best way to go about it, kill the federal drug classification and decriminalize it. With all the states now having pot statutes on the books and up and running, I expect to see a case come before SCOTUS soon. You simply cannot prosecute me for a felony in Alabama when my action is perfectly legal in Colorado. This is what "equal protection under the law" is all about. Sooner or later, someone will bring the case and the SCOTUS could rule federal marijuana laws unconstitutional.

I think you are wrong about this Boss. Equal protection is not about laws being the same in each state but rather about people being treated the same and not having laws apply differently based on a particular characteristic of a person. Even then there are exceptions, as not all characteristics are protected; a felon may be arrested for owning a firearm, for example, where a non felon is not.

There are certainly laws which apply only in certain states and not others. Age of consent laws differ from state to state as an example. It may be perfectly legal to have sexual relations in one state that would lead to criminal charges in another.

Now, if medical marijuana laws only applied to, say, people of Iranian descent, that would fall under equal protection.

State to state, you can have differences in the law. The issue here is federal statute. You can't apply a federal statute to members of one state while excusing members of another state. What you are presenting with the Iranian is basic discrimination based on national origin.

So again to clarify, "equal protection" isn't to make laws the same in all states, it is to ensure uniform application of federal law across the several states.

 

[HenryBHough]

When marijuana is made legal it will be taxed at every stage of growth and distribution. Licenses will be required and fees will be charged.

And they'll call that freedom.

 

[DarkFury]

Okay I stand corrected. As I read it and I should re-find that link once 37 states adopt it the feds are forced to deal with it on a national level.

But as stated I will re-check.

Again, they could be assuming this based on the criteria for amendment ratification. There is no law which says the Feds have to deal with anything. What generally happens is, Congress takes action because they see the writing on the wall when it gets to 37 states. Theoretically, those 37 states could hold Article V conventions and amend the Constitution without Congress. I don't think that would ever happen with marijuana. Term limits or repealing income tax? Far more likely.

I am an advocate for medical marijuana because I have seen remarkable results. Recreational usage, I believe, is far less dangerous health and safety wise than alcohol or tobacco. However, there are significant drawbacks to complete and unfettered legalization and those will have to be addressed. There are people who can't handle pot, they just can't function high. All it will take is for a school bus full of kids to be killed and the driver found to be stoned on pot and in the court of public opinion, this undermines everything positive you can say for legalization.

You know you maybe on to something. A convention is not held to one issue. There are three or four issues out there truly could use the convention venue.

Re-enforcing gun rights AND immigration come to mind. And I would also submit it would be a good time to re-visit the status of Islam and maybe change that status from "religion" to a political hate group much like the Nazis were re-listed from a political party to a hate group.

The problem is, an Article V convention doesn't negate the requirement for ratification. Whatever you come up with has to garner an enormous amount of public support or it fails.

With pot, it's like JoMama said, it doesn't need a constitutional amendment, it simply needs to be enacted into law by congress. It could probably be effectively decriminalized through DEA by executive order.

I've felt like for a while, this is the best way to go about it, kill the federal drug classification and decriminalize it. With all the states now having pot statutes on the books and up and running, I expect to see a case come before SCOTUS soon. You simply cannot prosecute me for a felony in Alabama when my action is perfectly legal in Colorado. This is what "equal protection under the law" is all about. Sooner or later, someone will bring the case and the SCOTUS could rule federal marijuana laws unconstitutional.

I think you are wrong about this Boss. Equal protection is not about laws being the same in each state but rather about people being treated the same and not having laws apply differently based on a particular characteristic of a person. Even then there are exceptions, as not all characteristics are protected; a felon may be arrested for owning a firearm, for example, where a non felon is not.

There are certainly laws which apply only in certain states and not others. Age of consent laws differ from state to state as an example. It may be perfectly legal to have sexual relations in one state that would lead to criminal charges in another.

Now, if medical marijuana laws only applied to, say, people of Iranian descent, that would fall under equal protection.

State to state, you can have differences in the law. The issue here is federal statute. You can't apply a federal statute to members of one state while excusing members of another state. What you are presenting with the Iranian is basic discrimination based on national origin.

So again to clarify, "equal protection" isn't to make laws the same in all states, it is to ensure uniform application of federal law across the several states.

Federal law does allow states to be more restrictive in some cases. A convicted felon who has served his time may not vote in Arizona but in Nevada he can. Certain states depending on the conviction even allow limited gun rights to return. {hunting}

 

[Montrovant]

Okay I stand corrected. As I read it and I should re-find that link once 37 states adopt it the feds are forced to deal with it on a national level.

But as stated I will re-check.

Again, they could be assuming this based on the criteria for amendment ratification. There is no law which says the Feds have to deal with anything. What generally happens is, Congress takes action because they see the writing on the wall when it gets to 37 states. Theoretically, those 37 states could hold Article V conventions and amend the Constitution without Congress. I don't think that would ever happen with marijuana. Term limits or repealing income tax? Far more likely.

I am an advocate for medical marijuana because I have seen remarkable results. Recreational usage, I believe, is far less dangerous health and safety wise than alcohol or tobacco. However, there are significant drawbacks to complete and unfettered legalization and those will have to be addressed. There are people who can't handle pot, they just can't function high. All it will take is for a school bus full of kids to be killed and the driver found to be stoned on pot and in the court of public opinion, this undermines everything positive you can say for legalization.

You know you maybe on to something. A convention is not held to one issue. There are three or four issues out there truly could use the convention venue.

Re-enforcing gun rights AND immigration come to mind. And I would also submit it would be a good time to re-visit the status of Islam and maybe change that status from "religion" to a political hate group much like the Nazis were re-listed from a political party to a hate group.

The problem is, an Article V convention doesn't negate the requirement for ratification. Whatever you come up with has to garner an enormous amount of public support or it fails.

With pot, it's like JoMama said, it doesn't need a constitutional amendment, it simply needs to be enacted into law by congress. It could probably be effectively decriminalized through DEA by executive order.

I've felt like for a while, this is the best way to go about it, kill the federal drug classification and decriminalize it. With all the states now having pot statutes on the books and up and running, I expect to see a case come before SCOTUS soon. You simply cannot prosecute me for a felony in Alabama when my action is perfectly legal in Colorado. This is what "equal protection under the law" is all about. Sooner or later, someone will bring the case and the SCOTUS could rule federal marijuana laws unconstitutional.

I think you are wrong about this Boss. Equal protection is not about laws being the same in each state but rather about people being treated the same and not having laws apply differently based on a particular characteristic of a person. Even then there are exceptions, as not all characteristics are protected; a felon may be arrested for owning a firearm, for example, where a non felon is not.

There are certainly laws which apply only in certain states and not others. Age of consent laws differ from state to state as an example. It may be perfectly legal to have sexual relations in one state that would lead to criminal charges in another.

Now, if medical marijuana laws only applied to, say, people of Iranian descent, that would fall under equal protection.

State to state, you can have differences in the law. The issue here is federal statute. You can't apply a federal statute to members of one state while excusing members of another state. What you are presenting with the Iranian is basic discrimination based on national origin.

So again to clarify, "equal protection" isn't to make laws the same in all states, it is to ensure uniform application of federal law across the several states.

Ah, I think I see what you were saying. If the federal government prosecutes someone in Alabama for marijuana but not in Colorado, that won't pass muster. It sounded like you were talking state laws rather than federal, sorry.

 

[FA_Q2]

Okay I stand corrected. As I read it and I should re-find that link once 37 states adopt it the feds are forced to deal with it on a national level.

But as stated I will re-check.

Again, they could be assuming this based on the criteria for amendment ratification. There is no law which says the Feds have to deal with anything. What generally happens is, Congress takes action because they see the writing on the wall when it gets to 37 states. Theoretically, those 37 states could hold Article V conventions and amend the Constitution without Congress. I don't think that would ever happen with marijuana. Term limits or repealing income tax? Far more likely.

I am an advocate for medical marijuana because I have seen remarkable results. Recreational usage, I believe, is far less dangerous health and safety wise than alcohol or tobacco. However, there are significant drawbacks to complete and unfettered legalization and those will have to be addressed. There are people who can't handle pot, they just can't function high. All it will take is for a school bus full of kids to be killed and the driver found to be stoned on pot and in the court of public opinion, this undermines everything positive you can say for legalization.

You know you maybe on to something. A convention is not held to one issue. There are three or four issues out there truly could use the convention venue.

Re-enforcing gun rights AND immigration come to mind. And I would also submit it would be a good time to re-visit the status of Islam and maybe change that status from "religion" to a political hate group much like the Nazis were re-listed from a political party to a hate group.

The problem is, an Article V convention doesn't negate the requirement for ratification. Whatever you come up with has to garner an enormous amount of public support or it fails.

With pot, it's like JoMama said, it doesn't need a constitutional amendment, it simply needs to be enacted into law by congress. It could probably be effectively decriminalized through DEA by executive order.

I've felt like for a while, this is the best way to go about it, kill the federal drug classification and decriminalize it. With all the states now having pot statutes on the books and up and running, I expect to see a case come before SCOTUS soon. You simply cannot prosecute me for a felony in Alabama when my action is perfectly legal in Colorado. This is what "equal protection under the law" is all about. Sooner or later, someone will bring the case and the SCOTUS could rule federal marijuana laws unconstitutional.

I think you are wrong about this Boss. Equal protection is not about laws being the same in each state but rather about people being treated the same and not having laws apply differently based on a particular characteristic of a person. Even then there are exceptions, as not all characteristics are protected; a felon may be arrested for owning a firearm, for example, where a non felon is not.

There are certainly laws which apply only in certain states and not others. Age of consent laws differ from state to state as an example. It may be perfectly legal to have sexual relations in one state that would lead to criminal charges in another.

Now, if medical marijuana laws only applied to, say, people of Iranian descent, that would fall under equal protection.

State to state, you can have differences in the law. The issue here is federal statute. You can't apply a federal statute to members of one state while excusing members of another state. What you are presenting with the Iranian is basic discrimination based on national origin.

So again to clarify, "equal protection" isn't to make laws the same in all states, it is to ensure uniform application of federal law across the several states.

I am willing to bet that there is a federal 'solution' to this before it even gets through the courts. It is high time that they punted this back to the states where it belongs anyway.

 

[Dana7360]

Right now it's at 23 but soon very soon 'Med Pot" could be legal in 37 states. And according to what laws I have read when and if the 37 state mark is hit the feds are FORCED to change federal law.

That was the approach and tactic used by the ERA years ago but failed even with extensions. But at this point "Med Pot" is looking stronger day by day. NOT that the government truly cares how you feel OR what may help you. THEIR interest has been and always will be the money.

They only need 14 states at this point. DC does NOT count as it is NOT a state. There are at least four states with "Med Pot" laws written and ready to go now. I myself think it would be very easy to see this change in the next two years. Thoughts?

Texas lawmakers introduce bills to legalize medical marijuana - Yahoo News

I've had a prescription for medical marijuana for several years.

I had a form of breast cancer that always comes back and kills. So I have to take a cancer drug for the rest of my life.

I'm one of the unlucky ones. It makes just about everything I put in my stomach not stay there long.

The only thing that keeps food in me is marijuana. Even with that I have lost so much weight that I have to wear a belt to keep a size 1 pants on me.

I will never go to state that doesn't have legal medical marijuana. I am not a criminal for trying not to die.

I have to disagree with you on the ERA and 37 states legalizing it or any amount of states legalizing it and forcing the feds to legalize it.

The ERA was an amendment to the constitution. Three quarters of the states had to ratify it for it to become an amendment to the constitution. phyllis schlafly made a pitch against it in enough states so that it didn't reach the three quarters of the states to ratify it to become an amendment and it failed.

 

[DarkFury]

Right now it's at 23 but soon very soon 'Med Pot" could be legal in 37 states. And according to what laws I have read when and if the 37 state mark is hit the feds are FORCED to change federal law.

That was the approach and tactic used by the ERA years ago but failed even with extensions. But at this point "Med Pot" is looking stronger day by day. NOT that the government truly cares how you feel OR what may help you. THEIR interest has been and always will be the money.

They only need 14 states at this point. DC does NOT count as it is NOT a state. There are at least four states with "Med Pot" laws written and ready to go now. I myself think it would be very easy to see this change in the next two years. Thoughts?

Texas lawmakers introduce bills to legalize medical marijuana - Yahoo News

I've had a prescription for medical marijuana for several years.

I had a form of breast cancer that always comes back and kills. So I have to take a cancer drug for the rest of my life.

I'm one of the unlucky ones. It makes just about everything I put in my stomach not stay there long.

The only thing that keeps food in me is marijuana. Even with that I have lost so much weight that I have to wear a belt to keep a size 1 pants on me.

I will never go to state that doesn't have legal medical marijuana. I am not a criminal for trying not to die.

I have to disagree with you on the ERA and 37 states legalizing it or any amount of states legalizing it and forcing the feds to legalize it.

The ERA was an amendment to the constitution. Three quarters of the states had to ratify it for it to become an amendment to the constitution. phyllis schlafly made a pitch against it in enough states so that it didn't reach the three quarters of the states to ratify it to become an amendment and it failed.

Marinol is the drug. Post throat here. 12 years!!

 

[Liminal]

Okay I stand corrected. As I read it and I should re-find that link once 37 states adopt it the feds are forced to deal with it on a national level.

But as stated I will re-check.

Again, they could be assuming this based on the criteria for amendment ratification. There is no law which says the Feds have to deal with anything. What generally happens is, Congress takes action because they see the writing on the wall when it gets to 37 states. Theoretically, those 37 states could hold Article V conventions and amend the Constitution without Congress. I don't think that would ever happen with marijuana. Term limits or repealing income tax? Far more likely.

I am an advocate for medical marijuana because I have seen remarkable results. Recreational usage, I believe, is far less dangerous health and safety wise than alcohol or tobacco. However, there are significant drawbacks to complete and unfettered legalization and those will have to be addressed. There are people who can't handle pot, they just can't function high. All it will take is for a school bus full of kids to be killed and the driver found to be stoned on pot and in the court of public opinion, this undermines everything positive you can say for legalization.

You know you maybe on to something. A convention is not held to one issue. There are three or four issues out there truly could use the convention venue.

Re-enforcing gun rights AND immigration come to mind. And I would also submit it would be a good time to re-visit the status of Islam and maybe change that status from "religion" to a political hate group much like the Nazis were re-listed from a political party to a hate group.

That's a really stupid idea, as if we can trust politicians to decide how people worship God. A very stupid and unAmerican idea.

 

[Boss]

Again, they could be assuming this based on the criteria for amendment ratification. There is no law which says the Feds have to deal with anything. What generally happens is, Congress takes action because they see the writing on the wall when it gets to 37 states. Theoretically, those 37 states could hold Article V conventions and amend the Constitution without Congress. I don't think that would ever happen with marijuana. Term limits or repealing income tax? Far more likely.

I am an advocate for medical marijuana because I have seen remarkable results. Recreational usage, I believe, is far less dangerous health and safety wise than alcohol or tobacco. However, there are significant drawbacks to complete and unfettered legalization and those will have to be addressed. There are people who can't handle pot, they just can't function high. All it will take is for a school bus full of kids to be killed and the driver found to be stoned on pot and in the court of public opinion, this undermines everything positive you can say for legalization.

You know you maybe on to something. A convention is not held to one issue. There are three or four issues out there truly could use the convention venue.

Re-enforcing gun rights AND immigration come to mind. And I would also submit it would be a good time to re-visit the status of Islam and maybe change that status from "religion" to a political hate group much like the Nazis were re-listed from a political party to a hate group.

The problem is, an Article V convention doesn't negate the requirement for ratification. Whatever you come up with has to garner an enormous amount of public support or it fails.

With pot, it's like JoMama said, it doesn't need a constitutional amendment, it simply needs to be enacted into law by congress. It could probably be effectively decriminalized through DEA by executive order.

I've felt like for a while, this is the best way to go about it, kill the federal drug classification and decriminalize it. With all the states now having pot statutes on the books and up and running, I expect to see a case come before SCOTUS soon. You simply cannot prosecute me for a felony in Alabama when my action is perfectly legal in Colorado. This is what "equal protection under the law" is all about. Sooner or later, someone will bring the case and the SCOTUS could rule federal marijuana laws unconstitutional.

I think you are wrong about this Boss. Equal protection is not about laws being the same in each state but rather about people being treated the same and not having laws apply differently based on a particular characteristic of a person. Even then there are exceptions, as not all characteristics are protected; a felon may be arrested for owning a firearm, for example, where a non felon is not.

There are certainly laws which apply only in certain states and not others. Age of consent laws differ from state to state as an example. It may be perfectly legal to have sexual relations in one state that would lead to criminal charges in another.

Now, if medical marijuana laws only applied to, say, people of Iranian descent, that would fall under equal protection.

State to state, you can have differences in the law. The issue here is federal statute. You can't apply a federal statute to members of one state while excusing members of another state. What you are presenting with the Iranian is basic discrimination based on national origin.

So again to clarify, "equal protection" isn't to make laws the same in all states, it is to ensure uniform application of federal law across the several states.

I am willing to bet that there is a federal 'solution' to this before it even gets through the courts. It is high time that they punted this back to the states where it belongs anyway.

Precisely, and as I said before, with the precedents Obama is setting with regards to executive branch powers and executive orders, the federal decriminalization of pot is simply a matter of signing a document.

 

[FA_Q2]

You know you maybe on to something. A convention is not held to one issue. There are three or four issues out there truly could use the convention venue.

Re-enforcing gun rights AND immigration come to mind. And I would also submit it would be a good time to re-visit the status of Islam and maybe change that status from "religion" to a political hate group much like the Nazis were re-listed from a political party to a hate group.

The problem is, an Article V convention doesn't negate the requirement for ratification. Whatever you come up with has to garner an enormous amount of public support or it fails.

With pot, it's like JoMama said, it doesn't need a constitutional amendment, it simply needs to be enacted into law by congress. It could probably be effectively decriminalized through DEA by executive order.

I've felt like for a while, this is the best way to go about it, kill the federal drug classification and decriminalize it. With all the states now having pot statutes on the books and up and running, I expect to see a case come before SCOTUS soon. You simply cannot prosecute me for a felony in Alabama when my action is perfectly legal in Colorado. This is what "equal protection under the law" is all about. Sooner or later, someone will bring the case and the SCOTUS could rule federal marijuana laws unconstitutional.

I think you are wrong about this Boss. Equal protection is not about laws being the same in each state but rather about people being treated the same and not having laws apply differently based on a particular characteristic of a person. Even then there are exceptions, as not all characteristics are protected; a felon may be arrested for owning a firearm, for example, where a non felon is not.

There are certainly laws which apply only in certain states and not others. Age of consent laws differ from state to state as an example. It may be perfectly legal to have sexual relations in one state that would lead to criminal charges in another.

Now, if medical marijuana laws only applied to, say, people of Iranian descent, that would fall under equal protection.

State to state, you can have differences in the law. The issue here is federal statute. You can't apply a federal statute to members of one state while excusing members of another state. What you are presenting with the Iranian is basic discrimination based on national origin.

So again to clarify, "equal protection" isn't to make laws the same in all states, it is to ensure uniform application of federal law across the several states.

I am willing to bet that there is a federal 'solution' to this before it even gets through the courts. It is high time that they punted this back to the states where it belongs anyway.

Precisely, and as I said before, with the precedents Obama is setting with regards to executive branch powers and executive orders, the federal decriminalization of pot is simply a matter of signing a document.

Those 'precedents' are incorrect though. In order to actually address this there needs to be a law passed the proper way through congress.