Your pot or your gun

[mcjhr]

Just another pitfall to keep the youth complacent as we get turned into food or coppertops. I have nothing against pot, but it is illegal at the federal level therefor it is a no-go. Guns over pot.

[rockhound]

BO says pot is no worse than a beer so this pit fall will go away soon

[Teufelhund]

Maybe my tinfoil is a little tight, but for a long while I've had the feeling that the Fed (or at least the people pulling the strings) would like pot to be readily available because it keeps us docile. Unfortunately the best way to make us want something is to tell us we can't have it. This, of course, overlooking the fact that Congress does not have the authority to regulate any substance (ref. Enumerated Powers). And no, the Commerce Clause does not grant Congress unlimited power like they want us to think it does. Why would the framers write our founding document with a central theme of explicitly limiting the power granted to the Federal Government, and then include a clause which grants unlimited power? The answer is that they didn't.

[Skip]

Maybe my tinfoil is a little tight, but for a long while I've had the feeling that the Fed (or at least the people pulling the strings) would like pot to be readily available because it keeps us docile. Unfortunately the best way to make us want something is to tell us we can't have it. This, of course, overlooking the fact that Congress does not have the authority to regulate any substance (ref. Enumerated Powers). And no, the Commerce Clause does not grant Congress unlimited power like they want us to think it does. Why would the framers write our founding document with a central theme of explicitly limiting the power granted to the Federal Government, and then include a clause which grants unlimited power? The answer is that they didn't.

I ask this all the time. Was the Constitution just an academic exercise? Of course not.... But John Roberts disagrees.
The gov has all the power it wants because it reserves for itself the power. And we allow it. No matter what the government, the power comes from the People. Until enough people realize life will not be "normal" and stand up, it will continue.

Yes, I too think this government wants people to turn on, tune in, drop out. Many historical parallels.

[nynco]

Pot can be medicine and one more safe than the poison from some of the pharmaceutical companies. The laws regarding patents in medicine make it so there is no incentive at all, in fact there is disincentive and animosity to natural found in nature cures. They could have the cure for cancer right now in natural form and they won't tell anyone or release it. Because they have no figured out how to make it artificially to patent it.

Sorry I do not trust big government in collusion and owned by the drug companies. My default is to let the individual chose and not the gov nanny state.

[Ronin13]

Prohibition of alcohol ended a while back, illegality of marijuana on the federal level hasn't.

I'm not suggesting that one is bad and one isn't, but those are the rules as they stand and I'm not going to be a test case to see if I can push that boundary.

This was my thought exactly. It's still federally illegal, so until they change the law (whether people take an active role in pressuring their representatives or not), there is that obligation to follow it. Kind of like Aspen... 2lbs of THC laden edibles found in a passenger's luggage- the TSA forwards the case to Pitkin County, they say no violation of state law and refuse to prosecute. Just another case of the Feds not enforcing their own laws, I guess?

[68Charger]

This was my thought exactly. It's still federally illegal, so until they change the law (whether people take an active role in pressuring their representatives or not), there is that obligation to follow it. Kind of like Aspen... 2lbs of THC laden edibles found in a passenger's luggage- the TSA forwards the case to Pitkin County, they say no violation of state law and refuse to prosecute. Just another case of the Feds not enforcing their own laws, I guess?

Just to up the Ante- I'll throw this out there- look up "Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs"... you'll see the US entered into an International treaty that agreed to ban Cannabis (among many other drugs) in 1961.

so technically, we're in violation of an International treaty by not enforcing the laws on a federal level

I have yet to find a MJ activist that was even AWARE of this.... they either deny it's true, or deny it's important.

Discuss...

[68Charger]

Pot can be medicine and one more safe than the poison from some of the pharmaceutical companies. The laws regarding patents in medicine make it so there is no incentive at all, in fact there is disincentive and animosity to natural found in nature cures. They could have the cure for cancer right now in natural form and they won't tell anyone or release it. Because they have no figured out how to make it artificially to patent it.

Sorry I do not trust big government in collusion and owned by the drug companies. My default is to let the individual chose and not the gov nanny state.

This certainly doesn't end with MMJ or other natural remedies... as an example, the Feds have given big Pharma immunity from any liability on vaccines... basically, any Pharma company could knowingly send out vaccines with ACTUAL poison or LIVE VIRUS in them, and they would have ZERO liability (look it up, this has actually happened- Bayer even sent vaccines out with live HIV at one time)
In theory, the Gov't is supposed to settle those types of cases- but in practice, it really doesn't work very well.

[Ronin13]

Just to up the Ante- I'll throw this out there- look up "Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs"... you'll see the US entered into an International treaty that agreed to ban Cannabis (among many other drugs) in 1961.

so technically, we're in violation of an International treaty by not enforcing the laws on a federal level

I have yet to find a MJ activist that was even AWARE of this.... they either deny it's true, or deny it's important.

Discuss...

Interesting... but reading that, it's enforced and managed by the UN. They have no cause or justification to enforce UN laws/mandates inside the US. I don't see anyone going after us for "violating" international treaty on drugs.

[68Charger]

Interesting... but reading that, it's enforced and managed by the UN. They have no cause or justification to enforce UN laws/mandates inside the US. I don't see anyone going after us for "violating" international treaty on drugs.

It's not about going after individuals- they didn't enter into the treaty, the US gov't did..
here's an example of a country that decriminalized MJ:
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/...un-agency-says

which also refers to ANOTHER treaty:
United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (1988, Reagan era)

but the short is, UN won't go after individuals- they didn't sign the treaty- but if the Feds change Federal law, they'll violate at least 2 international treaties...