1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Federal drug laws--Constitutional?

Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by fromtheright, Sep 28, 2005.

Top Posters
  1. fromtheright

    fromtheright <img src =/2844.JPG>

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2002
    Messages:
    2,772
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wow. I'm in the middle of reading an interesting article in The Weekly Standard by William Watkins I think (who has a book out on the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions that I'm looking forward to reading) arguing that the Supreme Court was wrong in its striking down a 9th Circuit decision which said that the Federal Controlled Substances Act was unconstitutional in superseding the California law allowing marijuana for medicinal use. I am against illegal drugs. Period. I think that adults who sell them should be executed. Children who sell them should be kept in jail until they reach adulthood and then executed (just kidding, I'm not that extreme). But--should the Federal government have any control? Watkins does an excellent job demonstrating that the interstate commerce clause does not apply, at least in the situation of the case, which involved growing marijuana inside the state of California.

    I definitely need to read the full opinion of the Court and concurring/dissenting opinions. I am especially curious of Scalia's and Thomas's position and arguments.

    Any thoughts? I am especially curious if anyone can present an argument to "keep me in the fold" of supporting such federal laws.
     
    #1 fromtheright, Sep 28, 2005
  2. TexasSky

    TexasSky Guest

    I'm very much against the use of drugs, and I'm definately not a lawyer, but from what I read, the Justices ruled that there was precedence supporting the view that federal law applied over state law in economic areas.

    Stevens wrote for the majority (if I read it right) that congress clearly had the right to enact laws in regards to any ecnomic issue because all economics have an interstate affect on commerce. O'Connor, Rehnquist and Thomas dissented.

    I'm not surprised. We've had federal laws overshadow state laws for decades. Federal speed limits, the family leave act, issues like gay marriage. Still, this reduces the power of the State Governments even more.
     
    #2 TexasSky, Sep 28, 2005
  3. Daisy

    Daisy New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    Is this an economic issue? I was under the impression that possession was also prohibited under the Fed Law.
     
    #3 Daisy, Sep 28, 2005
  4. fromtheright

    fromtheright <img src =/2844.JPG>

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2002
    Messages:
    2,772
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks, TS. I pulled it up in Acrobat but it prints slowly here, will print it and read it after I get home this evening or tomorrow. I see that Scalia concurred in part. Looking forward too to reading the dissents by O'Connor (joined by Rehnquist and Thomas) and Thomas's separate dissent. That "all economics have an interstate effect on commerce" argument sounds like horse pooey to me. From the syllabus it looks like the court heavily relied on Wickard v. Filburn which justified Roosevelt's agricultural socialism.

    Daisy, I think you're right, and you raise a very good point. How in the world would possession constitute anything to do with interstate commerce? This is really shaking my policy views up, but I also believe strongly in following the Constitution. There are some areas where I'm willing to follow a more expansive view of the Constitution but this doesn't even seem to come close.
     
    #4 fromtheright, Sep 28, 2005
  5. billwald

    billwald New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    2
    Most police officers support the legalization of The naturally grown stuff. Let the dopers kill themselves as long as they leave the rest of us alone.

    Bring up your kids correctly and don't worry about them. Trust God.
     
    #5 billwald, Sep 28, 2005
  6. Daisy

    Daisy New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    How many people died of marijuana overdoses in the last ten years? Any? It may be a tremendous de-motivator, but it's not particularly toxic.
     
    #6 Daisy, Sep 29, 2005
  7. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis <img src =/curtis.gif>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    22,016
    Likes Received:
    487
    Faith:
    Baptist
    You would have to smoke high-grade marijuana constantly for over a month straight to get enough THC to stop your heart. Most folks I know would fall asleep long before that was accomplished.

    Marijuana abuse is very dangerous, especially to school age folks, it taps their motivation & ambition, & leads to depression. But it is impossible to overdose.
     
    #7 Bro. Curtis, Sep 29, 2005
  8. billwald

    billwald New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    2
    The govt will never let you grow something in your living room which will put the ciggybutt companies out of business.

    I suspect the push against meth is because it is cutting into heroin profits. The people who own us will start to push commercially produced meth.
     
    #8 billwald, Sep 30, 2005
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Loading...