Damn I almost won...

[Dominick]

Originally Posted by toyodafenninro [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

States rights is really a two way street,

Actually its a constitutional right. The first blow to states rights was well before the civil war, before you pop off, it was over the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.

Southern States forced a bill through congress that required all states, including Northern ones, to return slaves. Many states burned down jails to free slaves, created new structures to get them to Canada, or took up arms to free slaves.

Before anyone thinks States Rights is code for Slavery, they should check the record. Its not a two way street, the constitution spells it out that states rights are superior to federal rights. It also says the citizens rights are superior to state rights.

The issue of slavery and the cause of the civil war is the same. The South seceded not because of state rights but because they feared all slaves would be freed. The south had backed removing the right of a state to free ex-slaves who were in a free state. The revisionist theory of the confederacy fighting for states rights only came out after reconstruction, well after the war.

Nobody really thought about states rights or limits on personal government when the depression hit and Roosevelt usurped powers such as gold ownership or the federal government making direct payments to individuals for welfare.

Today the Federals are superior to both states and personal rights.

Originally Posted by toyodafenninro [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This issue isn't going to be resolved until a state legalizes it, a clash with the federal law occurs, and a case is escalated to the supreme court. Then, it's going to depend only on the court's makeup at the time...and how much each member wants to ally with their political party.

I think the issue is going to be very clear to the court, but I doubt anything changes without a amendment to the Constitution, and good luck there with demo-publicans. This has to start with a fundamental shift in our politics.

There is a glimmer of hope now, with people actually questioning the basis for the huge criminal enterprise we call a federal bureaucracy. That basis is the FDA.

The issue I object to is a misuse of "interstate commerce" that allowed the Federal government to usurp State regulation of Food and Drugs. The application of interstate commerce is about 100years old, but it can still be overturned.

Growth in government was sold with a nasty little book called the Jungle that detail the unsanitary practices of food processors. It was a work of fiction that ended in a socialist rally.

As a result, state regulations were shoved aside in favor of Federal ones.

With Federal food regulation started it wasn't long before pot was proscribed by Federal Law. Frankly, if Californians smoke pot, I don't care in my state. If a sausage in New York has fingers, its easily remedied with lawsuits up the wazoo. If they transport it across state lines then I would see how the Federals could become involved.

Until then, its a unconstitutional encroachment of our rights as citizens.

[Henini]

Originally Posted by toyodafenninro [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Not to sound overly pessimistic, but marijuana may have a popularity among a sizeable minority across the board in the USA...but it is going to have a rediculously difficult time getting through congress or the judicial branch.

Why? I can totally see the judges of the supreme court going "hey dudes lets legalize pot, it will be bitchin!"

people who are trying to legalize pot... seriously, in a society that is doing all it can to crush smoking of Mr tobacco, you think you will go and get it's lil sister Mary legalized?

[baub]

I can only hope this is on the ballot again in 2 years, considering that the number of people voting in 2012 will be double that of 2010

[Lucrio40]

Don't worry, Liberals will get this overturned due to a "Human Rights Issue" like they did (doing?) with prop 8.

[Blazed420]

Epic step for the marijuana movement, even if it was a fail. The fact that it was so close just goes to show you. You'd be surprised at the amount of people that voted no on prop 19 that smoke weed.