What personal freedom is next?

[Chesspiece_face]

"The closely watched case was an appeal by the Bush administration in a case that it lost in late 2003."


Just another case of: "we believe in small federal government and states rights, but only when it fits our needs and the laws go our way."

*Cough*schiavo*cough* "States Rights!!! States Rights!!! What we're losing? Federal Gov!!! Federal Gov!!!"

[t0a5t]

It has always seemed interesting to me that we needed a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol at the time. Yet, we no longer need such trivialities to ban substances any longer. It was the surest sign of the erosion of our freedoms and due process. Equally interesting that this is rarely, if ever, brought up.

[Occhidiangela]

It has always seemed interesting to me that we needed a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol at the time. Yet, we no longer need such trivialities to ban substances any longer. It was the surest sign of the erosion of our freedoms and due process. Equally interesting that this is rarely, if ever, brought up.
[right][snapback]79920[/snapback][/right]

"What have we learned, Dorothy?"

Nothing.

Prohibition was repealed for a very good reason: it was beyond counterproductive. You'd think someone would draw a few lessons from that episode.

Nope. Too busy trying to regulate everything.

Occhi

[Munkay]

It has always seemed interesting to me that we needed a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol at the time. Yet, we no longer need such trivialities to ban substances any longer. It was the surest sign of the erosion of our freedoms and due process. Equally interesting that this is rarely, if ever, brought up.
[right][snapback]79920[/snapback][/right]

[Hijack] Welcome back T0a5t. Good to see you! In the case that you never left, and were mearly lurking... congrats on being a good lurker. [/Hijack]

Cheers,

Munk

[eppie]

Americans in my opinion always had this "strange" realtion (defenition) of freedom.
In the US I guess you see yourself as the most free country (or the first true democracy or whatever), but if you finally look at what is legal and illegal, it looks like there has been made some random (moralist) choice of what is allowed or not.

I mean everybody knows that legalizing softdrugs is a good thing, it reduces criminality, it makes sure users only get good healthy stuff and the government can control the use much better.
As you know in Holland softdrugs are legal, but I'm sure in the US a higher percentage of teenagers use softdrugs than over here. (the old, if it is not allowed it must be knows theme). (I guess by know you can guess my opinion on the medical use).
And especially, why finds the government it appropriate to interfere in peoples life on this occasion?
It is clear that guns kill a lot more people than weed....so why this double moral?

[Walkiry]

What active agent besides the THC is it that is in Marijuana that supresses that variety of symptoms for that variety of ailments?  THC is not the only compound in the weed. 

How well established are the synergistic effects of the various compounds?  From the comments, it seems that THC itself is not the only chemical acting to alleviate various symptoms for a patient.

Occhi

"The accumulated data indicate a potential therapeutic value for cannabinoid drugs, particularly for symptoms such as pain relief, control of nausea and vomiting, and appetite stimulation."

And not other drugs can do this?  Or is it that no single drug can do all of these things at once?

We don't know. We won't know until we do more research. We may never know because this is a polarizing issue where both sides fling poo at each other and use half-assed limited test results as an argument to hit each other on the head, having either monetary or "ethical" stakes in the discussion, and are not interested in honest research.

[ShadowHM]

  While I'm sure there are some people using it legitimately, when the news brings a camera into one of these shops the sickest among the customers looks like they might be treating a mild cold. I voted for the proposition, but I was a naive 18 year old and didn't see it for the sideways legalization it was. While I would still say it's fine to use if you really have a use for it to relieve symptoms; it is very obvious that, in California at least, many people are using it simply to recreate.

[right][snapback]79905[/snapback][/right]

I am intrigued by your snap diagnosis. What medical school did you attend, that you learned to be able to discern ailments from viewing a person on camera?

Further, it is a bit absurd, IMO, to suggest that, because a right is being abused by some, it should be denied altogether. The impression I got from reading the links supplied by Mithrandir was that the 'need' of the two users in question was not in doubt.

So what was 'naive' about your attitude as an 18-year-old that you have reconsidered now? Was it the intent of the proposition, or was it that the devil was in the details, and they were not formatted properly?

[Guest]

Actually its an erosion of states rights in this case.

[Guest]

You may all resent it if "states rights" ever comes back into vogue.

Endangered species act - gone
Federal cival rights laws - gone
Federal pollution laws - gone


I dont think most of you understand that the real battle here isnt over pot, its over state vs federal.

[Occhidiangela]

Americans in my opinion always had this "strange" realtion (defenition) of freedom.
In the US I guess you see yourself as the most free country (or the first true democracy or whatever), but if you finally look at what is legal and illegal, it looks like there has been made some random (moralist) choice of what is allowed or not.

I mean everybody knows that legalizing softdrugs is a good thing, it reduces criminality, it makes sure users only get good healthy stuff and the government can control the use much better.
As you know in Holland softdrugs are legal, but I'm sure in the US a higher percentage of teenagers use softdrugs than over here. (the old, if it is not allowed it must be knows theme). (I guess by know you can guess my opinion on the medical use).
And especially, why finds the government it appropriate to interfere in peoples life on this occasion?
It is clear that guns kill a lot more people than weed....so why this double moral?
[right][snapback]79925[/snapback][/right]

eppie, you just posted a disjointed, shallow, fallacy laden troll. If you can't do better than that crap, don't post. Think, then post.

"American definition of freedom" and "always" : were you an expert on American political science, or if you offered elements of freedom that showed the American view and the view of other valid and free societies, your point might have been supported. Instead, you made a useless generalization based on hot air.

"Random moralist" choices and "analysis of legal and illegal." Where is your supporting evidence? Nowhere. I find it ironic that any citizen of the EU would find their comment credible on excoriating Americans about regulations. Pot, meet kettle, black like us.

"I mean everybody knows" is an appeal to a "conventional wisdom" that is anything but wise. There are pros and cons to drug regulations, but you ignore the balance. Support your assertion or put a sock in it.

"but I'm sure in the US a higher percentage of teenagers use softdrugs than over here. (the old, if it is not allowed it must be knows theme)."

First, put down the crack pipe, that was incoherent. Second, back that up with some survey results or excerpts from a study of however dubious a quality. As to the old, complete hot air and an incomplete thought.

"It is clear that guns kill more people than weed."

Double standard? Either learn to use terms, or don't use them.

The entire line of thought is a non sequitur and irrelevant. Cars kill more people than guns. So what, in the context of this discussion?

This is one of the lamest, most disorganized piece of tripe I have ever seen you post. If that's the best you can come up with, better to have never hit the "post" button.

Trolling like you just did is beneath contempt. I'll ask you to knock it off.

Occhi

[Guest]

Double wrong.

"I mean everybody knows that legalizing softdrugs is a good thing, it reduces criminality, it makes sure users only get good healthy stuff and the government can control the use much better."

1 - everyone doesnt "know" this. YOU BELIEVE this.
Also many cultures simply act different which encourages different regulations. Alchohol is legal in both countries but I suspect that Americans have a higher per capita rate of alcholism.

2 You seems to be confused in your word choise. Where you meant to say "less unhealthy" you used the word "healthy".




Personally Im torn on the issue, part of me is all for letting idiots poison themselves part of me is for trying to protect idiots from themselves. But your point wasnt valid.

[Tal]

I mean everybody knows that legalizing softdrugs is a good thing, it reduces criminality, it makes sure users only get good healthy stuff and the government can control the use much better.[right][snapback]79925[/snapback][/right]

I think the very issue at hand is whether or not legalizing is a good thing. As to claims that legalization will reduce crime, make sure that users only get "good healthy stuff" and that the government would be able to have any control over the use of a drug that is as easy to grow in your back yard as kentucky blue grass, well that is pie-in-the-sky idealism.

As you know in Holland softdrugs are legal, but I'm sure in the US a higher percentage of teenagers use softdrugs than over here. (the old, if it is not allowed it must be knows theme). (I guess by know you can guess my opinion on the medical use).[right][snapback]79925[/snapback][/right]

You're sure of this? Care to provide a representative study, free from bias to back up this claim? You may also wish to use population percentages since the United States has a much larger population than Holland.

It is clear that guns kill a lot more people than weed....so why this double moral?
[right][snapback]79925[/snapback][/right]

Apples and oranges.

[eppie]

"but I'm sure in the US a higher percentage of teenagers use softdrugs than over here. (the old, if it is not allowed it must be knows theme)."

First, put down the crack pipe, that was incoherent.  Second, back that up with some survey results or excerpts from a study of however dubious a quality.  As to the old, complete hot air and an incomplete thought.


where I said "knows" it should have read cool. (i should have checked it better)
and at least in europe it is like this in my opinion (and no I don't know where to find the numbers)


Trolling like you just did is beneath contempt.  I'll ask you to knock it off.

Occhi
[right][snapback]79938[/snapback][/right]

So the reason that you didnot respond with some facts on why you think I was wrong, is because my piece was written so bad?.

What I wanted to say with my post is that you use double standards.

Why would people want to disallow poor people with very bad desease to smoke some pot, while at the same time any remark made slightly in the direction of "maybe the right to bare arms might not always be good" can give you a violent reply of millions of people.

I don't want to debate which of the two is worse, but I do want to know why one of the two is banned so easily and the other not.
And I can give you more examples (from the lurker lounge archives). Why do people in the US mind so much that gay people get married (as I said, I don't want to get into a discussion about this fact), isnt't the US about "as long as you don't hurt somebody else with it just go ahead"?

So if you care to reply on this. What is the coherency here? Why are you not allowed to decide about using one thing, and you are about using the other thing.

It is by the way also a thing in Holland. The right wing political parties (liberals the call themselves here) are for less interference of the government, but when it comes to drugs, they are for tough measures......

[eppie]

I think the very issue at hand is whether or not legalizing is a good thing. As to claims that legalization will reduce crime, make sure that users only get "good healthy stuff" and that the government would be able to have any control over the use of a drug that is as easy to grow in your back yard as kentucky blue grass, well that is pie-in-the-sky idealism.

----well no it is not. That is the way it goes here in Holland. It means that if you want to use some softdrugs, you are not obliged to deal with criminal people. If you want to get some beer you go to the shop, where the nice gentleman give you a few beers for a few dollars. Same with softdrugs. Then again, if it is not allowed, you have to go to Al capone and his friend to get your beer. :D
But as you and others always want to have numbers (and I don't know where to find anything on internet..) let's state it like this. Has ever in history of mankind something that was illegal not been used anymore? Your bootlegging, for example.


You're sure of this? Care to provide a representative study, free from bias to back up this claim? You may also wish to use population percentages since the United States has a much larger population than Holland.

---the percentage I mentioned was supposed to be a population percentage. ANyway, why don't you tell me an aasumption. (percentage of kids that have used softdrugs in highschool) And while we're at it percentage of kids that dnnak alcohol before their 18th birthday.


Apples and oranges.
[right][snapback]79942[/snapback][/right]

--yes but my main question was, what makes the one an apple and the other one an orange?

[russ]

It is clear that guns kill a lot more people than weed....so why this double moral?

It is also clear that a lot more people protect their lives with guns that with medical marijuana, otherwise 50-60% of the American population would currently be stoned off their ass, and close to 15% would have to have a condition treatable by medical marijuana. There is also constitutional protection of the right to bear arms, while the right to do drugs is a currently penumbral at best.

It has always seemed interesting to me that we needed a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol at the time. Yet, we no longer need such trivialities to ban substances any longer.

Actually, the constitutional amendment was largely there as a publicity stunt. The Volstead Act alone could have easily done the job. And the purpose of the Prohibition was mostly to serve as a publicity act, and to make more grain available for recovery after the war.

Prohibition was repealed for a very good reason: it was beyond counterproductive. You'd think someone would draw a few lessons from that episode.

Prohibition kept the nervous grannies happy for a while, assisted the recovery of western Europe, and It also served to reduce the consumption of alcoholic beverages by Americans by 50 percent, cirrhosis of the liver by 63 percent, mental hospital admissions for alcohol psychosis by 60 percent and arrests for drunk and disorderly behavior by 50 percent. As the intent of the law was not to reduce crime, that leaves it as moderately sucessful.
That still doesn't make it a good thing, but far from completely conterproductive.

To the OP:

Just look up the current interpretation of the Commerce Clause on wikipedia whenever that resource shows back up.

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.

So far, this has be taken to justify regulation of interstate travel, of local commerce that "had an important effect on the 'current of commerce'", a local business that served mostly interstate travelers, and even local businesses that served mostly local clients as long as their ingredients came from another state.

The result of this court case really isn't a surprise to anyone that's a fan of federalism.

Quote taken from "blueeyes", a rather strange person on a site I visit:

The truth is that the government has and does regularly take away freedoms assured by the Bill of Rights and Constitution.

We have the right to say what we want and meet where we want, but just say the wrong thing and you can lose your freedom 'til certain people feel better about you. Don't trust me? Go in the middle of your closest street and howl to the sky. I just warn you that the food at a mental asylum does indeed taste like crap.

The people may not have their arms taken away from them, but bring a handgun into D.C., or a long knife into MA, or an old rifle from one state to another, and you're facing the full penalty of the law.

No soldier may force you to let him or her into your home, but give the government enough time, and they can force you to sell your house for a tenth of the normal price and then nearly give it away to certain folks.

The right to property? If you own land in two different parts of Washington, 65% just got taken, no matter how long you owned it and no matter how much you pay in property taxes, to become a wild-life refuge. Many other states show hundreds of undesirable's land being rezoned from residential housing to habitat the very day the land was bought. If a police officer wants something you own, they can legally grab it and put it up for auction, and to get it back, you have to prove it was never used in a crime. Of course, if you decide not to spend thousands in court fees, the police get to auction it and keep the money.

The unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are all taken away from undesirables on a daily basis by a black robe.

The U.S. Bill of Rights is well on its way to following England's version, simply being ignored and rewritten by people who can't decide what 'the people' means, used only as an intellectual attempt at seeing what could be allowed.

The slow erosion of civil rights is a constant in any culture, assured by a government of not the true or the just but by the popular, chosen by a population easily swayed.

[eppie]

edited..double post

[t0a5t]

"What have we learned, Dorothy?"

Nothing.

Prohibition was repealed for a very good reason: it was beyond counterproductive.  You'd think someone would draw a few lessons from that episode.

Nope.  Too busy trying to regulate everything.

Occhi
[right][snapback]79921[/snapback][/right]

As I get older with more history behind me, the more I appreciate Shaw's comment that "Hegel was right when he said that we learn from history that man can never learn anything from history" despite it's inherent fallacy.

In hindsight, the abundance of regulation seems more of an unintended consequence (among many others), of our critters trying to placate the masses to stay in power rather than a rational and premeditated urge to regulate. Such reactionary measures tend to be rife with potential for further unintended consequences™. It's a vicious cycle.

[t0a5t]

[Hijack] Welcome back T0a5t.  Good to see you!  In the case that you never left, and were mearly lurking...  congrats on being a good lurker. [/Hijack]

Cheers,

Munk
[right][snapback]79923[/snapback][/right]

Heya Munk! It was the latter rather than the former, although I would blame it on being innundated with work rather than my proclivity for lurking :)

[Rinnhart]

You may all resent it if "states rights" ever comes back into vogue.

Endangered species act - gone
Federal cival rights laws - gone
Federal pollution laws - gone
I dont think most of you understand that the real battle here isnt over pot, its over state vs federal.
[right][snapback]79937[/snapback][/right]

Liar.

In all seriousness, I don't think you're fully appreciating all that's been said in this discussion.

[kandrathe]

You may all resent it if "states rights" ever comes back into vogue.

Endangered species act - gone
Federal cival rights laws - gone
Federal pollution laws - gone
I dont think most of you understand that the real battle here isnt over pot, its over state vs federal.
[right][snapback]79937[/snapback][/right]

And I think this was a win for Federalism. If I read the opinion correctly, the SC is saying that the Federal Goverment can regulate the production of a commodity, even at an individual level in order to preserve the integrity of the Interstate Commerce Act.

I don't agree with the opinion, and in fact I agree with the O'Connor dissent. The idea that personal production of marijuana will disrupt Interstate Commerce, or the commodity market is absurd, in that the government refuses to treat marijuana as a commodity and seeks to keep its production to zero.

Sandra Day O'Connor regarding CSA and Interstate Commerce;

What is the relevant conduct subject to Commerce Clause analysis in this case? The Court takes its cues from Congress, applying the above considerations to the activity regulated by the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) in general. The Court's decision rests on two facts about the CSA: (1) Congress chose to enact a single statute providing a comprehensive prohibition on the production, distribution, and possession of all controlled substances, and (2) Congress did not distinguish between various forms of intrastate noncommercial cultivation, possession, and use of marijuana. See 21 U. S. C. §§841(a)(1), 844(a). Today's decision suggests that the federal regulation of local activity is immune to Commerce Clause challenge because Congress chose to act with an ambitious, all-encompassing statute, rather than piecemeal. In my view, allowing Congress to set the terms of the constitutional debate in this way, i.e., by packaging regulation of local activity in broader schemes, is tantamount to removing meaningful limits on the Commerce Clause.

... and regarding Federalism, I find this one poignant;

We would do well to recall how James Madison, the father of the Constitution, described our system of joint sovereignty to the people of New York: "The powers delegated by the proposed constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite... . The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State." The Federalist No. 45, pp. 292-293 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961).

Relying on Congress' abstract assertions, the Court has endorsed making it a federal crime to grow small amounts of marijuana in one's own home for one's own medicinal use. This overreaching stifles an express choice by some States, concerned for the lives and liberties of their people, to regulate medical marijuana differently. If I were a California citizen, I would not have voted for the medical marijuana ballot initiative; if I were a California legislator I would not have supported the Compassionate Use Act. But whatever the wisdom of California's experiment with medical marijuana, the federalism principles that have driven our Commerce Clause cases require that room for experiment be protected in this case. For these reasons I dissent.

There have been other prohibitions that failed, and I think this one will too. What hope does Alberto Gonzales have in stopping Californians (or other states) marijuana production now, when the State and Local Officials are not on their side? Now one merely needs to have an "affliction" in which marijuana would relieve suffering, and then if busted, throw yourself upon the mercy of the jury.