Users should not be targeted in states that legalized pot: Obama - Polidicks

great, so you can use marijuana but we will still have a black market because the dea will probably still fight against sellers.

[QUOTE=spiritlol;38835187]Well that is one of the reasons we have states in the first place. People who think alike can live in one place and get things accomplished and not have to worry about others disagreeing with them. But if you have a very different view and refuse to leave then all your really doing is slowing down the political process, when you could go somewhere else and help those who agree with you instead of harassing those who disagree with you.[/QUOTE] Mm yes I too enjoy Jim Crow laws People should just respect our differences in opinion

Both Emperor and Jund are partially wrong. The federal government has every constitutional ability to regulate and ban substances of their choosing, as of Gonzales v Raich. The Court declared that Congress's Commerce Clause powers were well within the ability to regulate and prohibit marijuana- specifically in this case state-legal dispensaries and home-grown medical. Essentially, the Court found that because marijuana is grown, traded, etc, it is well within the Court's extremely broad definition of commerce, and is therefore regulatable. Therefore, Congress trumps all states rights on the issue and do not need popular approval. Yet your idea of states rights is also backwards. There's a long running misconception that states rights have everything to do with racism, or the ability of one class to legally crush another. While this definitely was the case during the pre-Civil War, today you'd be hard pressed to find anyone of a legal background arguing that this is the reason. Let me be clear: the majority founders were states' rightists. This has nothing to do with race and everything to do with how the power structure of the nation is divided. The concept is that the states will provide for themselves, have their own police powers, and be able to regulate how they see fit, their own territory, without absolute powers binding them from above. Justice O'Connor was brilliant in defining the boundaries of the federal government compared to states' powers in the Court's opinion in New York v. US. I'm a dedicated leftist, but even I see the appeal of a state-centric government, or at least one wherein states are sovereign. The legal jargon for states' rights is what's called dual federalism, and it argues that there are two governments: the states, and the federal, and that they have separate powers and are supreme in their own sphere. This is how the Constitution was set up, and it wasn't until the Court began lessening the meaning of the 10th Amendment to a "truism" (the Court's word, not mine) that we fully accepted that the states have no sovereignty. There are costs and benefits to sovereigns states, of course. States can make shit laws, but their reach is limited. But they can make great laws, and their reach is equally limited. States are smaller and therefore more accountable than the federal government, and would not a state government be better equipped to deal with its own state, than the federal government equipped to deal with every state? I would argue that states' rights, dual federalism, etc, is closer to a more liberal, libertarian, and minarchist ideal than a single giant state with unchecked power. Not everyone shares this opinion, though. But regardless of whether you do or not, the fact is that states' rights have nothing to do with racism or secession or classism, etc.

Glad to hear that Obama was blunt on the issue :v:

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];38835265']Yet your idea of states rights is also backwards. There's a long running misconception that states rights have everything to do with racism, or the ability of one class to legally crush another. While this definitely was the case during the pre-Civil War, today you'd be hard pressed to find anyone of a legal background arguing that this is the reason.[/quote] You can't be seriously telling me that no one used abused States' rights to limit the liberties of minorities post-Civil War [QUOTE='[Seed Eater];38835265']Let me be clear: the majority founders were states' rightists.[/quote] What does this have to do with anything? I doubt that slave owners are shining examples of moral and political brilliance They were good for what they were good for, but to fall back to them during debates about American politics is nonsensical [QUOTE='[Seed Eater];38835265']There are costs and benefits to sovereigns states, of course. States can make shit laws, but their reach is limited. But they can make great laws, and their reach is equally limited. States are smaller and therefore more accountable than the federal government, and would not a state government be better equipped to deal with its own state, than the federal government equipped to deal with every state? I would argue that states' rights, dual federalism, etc, is closer to a more liberal, libertarian, and minarchist ideal than a single giant state with unchecked power. Not everyone shares this opinion, though.[/QUOTE] I'm a supporter of dual federalism, and I understand and support both levels of government's reasonable exercising of power [QUOTE=Jund;38832592]No, I'm just saying "state rights" usually aren't much better than federal influence[/QUOTE] Is what I've been saying the whole time I'm against the glorification of State rights, not for the abolition of State government

[QUOTE=Jund;38835235]Mm yes I too enjoy Jim Crow laws People should just respect our differences in opinion[/QUOTE] Such laws would be illegal under Federal law since they infringe on the rights of others. Legalization of Cannabis use, cultivation or sale on the other hand does not infringe on anyone's rights, rather it grants more rights.

[QUOTE=Jund;38835435]You can't be seriously telling me that no one used abused States' rights to limit the liberties of minorities post-Civil War [B]I'm not. They definitely were. But not in the area of racism.[/B] What does this have to do with anything? I doubt that slave owners are shining examples of moral and political brilliance They were good for what they were good for, but to fall back to them during debates about American politics is nonsensical [B]True.[/B] I'm a supporter of dual federalism, and I understand and support both levels of government's reasonable exercising of power [B]Dual federalism is states' rights.[/B] Is what I've been saying the whole time I'm against the glorification of State rights, not for the abolition of State government [B]I would argue that they are, because of the limited scope of power of states, greater sovereignty, greater accountability, and policy making closer to the citizenry.[/B][/QUOTE] By no means am I glorifying states' rights, I'm arguing that they have nothing to do with racism other than being part of the rational that allowed the system to occur. This does not make it unjustified as a system. I also argue that as a minarchist, I'd rather see states having sovereign power closer to the original intent of the founders.

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];38835517']By no means am I glorifying states' rights, I'm arguing that they have nothing to do with racism other than being part of the rational that allowed the system to occur. This does not make it unjustified as a system. I also argue that as a minarchist, I'd rather see states having sovereign power closer to the original intent of the founders.[/QUOTE] I am no more accusing you of glorifying State rights than I am advocating against them Just like how I don't hate the founding fathers, but many people seem to blindly love them without having much information on the matter [editline]14th December 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=RR_Raptor65;38835488]Such laws would be illegal under Federal law since they infringe on the rights of others. Legalization of Cannabis use, cultivation or sale on the other hand does not infringe on anyone's rights, rather it grants more rights.[/QUOTE] I never claimed otherwise All I've been saying is "State rights aren't that great" [editline]14th December 2012[/editline] Racism might not be such a prevalent topic today (don't forget that it hasn't even been half a century since the fed finally put it's foot down), but things like same sex marriage are Federal opinion on same sex marriage has been shifting over the years, with Obama declaring his support and DOMA being declared unconstitutional in federal courts States rights on accordance to marriage benefit some, and hurt others You can bet your ass at least one State will go "but mah rights" when told that it ain't gonna fly anymore

[QUOTE=Jund;38835582]I am no more accusing you of glorifying State rights than I am advocating against them Just like how I don't hate the founding fathers, but many people seem to blindly love them without having much information on the matter [editline]14th December 2012[/editline] I never claimed otherwise All I've been saying is "State rights aren't that great"[/QUOTE] You're right, on their own they aren't that great, but under Federal regulation they can be, granted the Fed doesn't turn into an overprotective nanny like they've been for nearly a century now.

[QUOTE=RR_Raptor65;38835766]You're right, on their own they aren't that great, but under Federal regulation they can be, granted the Fed doesn't turn into an overprotective nanny like they've been for nearly a century now.[/QUOTE] There are some areas where I feel they should step up, and others where I feel they should lay off I criticize both sides since it's a government, not a sports team

Posting in a thread where Emperor Scorpious thinks the 10th Amendment means something it doesn't and still hasn't heard about [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCulloch_v._Maryland]McCulloch_v._Maryland[/url]. :v:

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];38835265']Both Emperor and Jund are partially wrong. The federal government has every constitutional ability to regulate and ban substances of their choosing, as of Gonzales v Raich. The Court declared that Congress's Commerce Clause powers were well within the ability to regulate and prohibit marijuana- specifically in this case state-legal dispensaries and home-grown medical. Essentially, the Court found that because marijuana is grown, traded, etc, it is well within the Court's extremely broad definition of commerce, and is therefore regulatable. Therefore, Congress trumps all states rights on the issue and do not need popular approval. Yet your idea of states rights is also backwards. There's a long running misconception that states rights have everything to do with racism, or the ability of one class to legally crush another. While this definitely was the case during the pre-Civil War, today you'd be hard pressed to find anyone of a legal background arguing that this is the reason. Let me be clear: the majority founders were states' rightists. This has nothing to do with race and everything to do with how the power structure of the nation is divided. The concept is that the states will provide for themselves, have their own police powers, and be able to regulate how they see fit, their own territory, without absolute powers binding them from above. Justice O'Connor was brilliant in defining the boundaries of the federal government compared to states' powers in the Court's opinion in New York v. US. I'm a dedicated leftist, but even I see the appeal of a state-centric government, or at least one wherein states are sovereign. The legal jargon for states' rights is what's called dual federalism, and it argues that there are two governments: the states, and the federal, and that they have separate powers and are supreme in their own sphere. This is how the Constitution was set up, and it wasn't until the Court began lessening the meaning of the 10th Amendment to a "truism" (the Court's word, not mine) that we fully accepted that the states have no sovereignty. There are costs and benefits to sovereigns states, of course. States can make shit laws, but their reach is limited. But they can make great laws, and their reach is equally limited. States are smaller and therefore more accountable than the federal government, and would not a state government be better equipped to deal with its own state, than the federal government equipped to deal with every state? I would argue that states' rights, dual federalism, etc, is closer to a more liberal, libertarian, and minarchist ideal than a single giant state with unchecked power. Not everyone shares this opinion, though. But regardless of whether you do or not, the fact is that states' rights have nothing to do with racism or secession or classism, etc.[/QUOTE] The commerce clause only applies to commerce between states. If you were to buy weed, grow weed and smoke weed only in your own state, never once spending, buying or delivering it to anyone outside the state, there is no reason for federal interest into the matter.