Quote:
Originally Posted by timalkin
Congress has the authority and responsibility to limit the negative impact that drug abuse has on the United States. Marijuana's status as a naturally occuring plant is irrelevant.
|
This argument was made pre-prohibition, yet it took an actual constitutional amendment to make it legal. So why does it only take the commerce clause now?
Quote:
Originally Posted by timalkin
Marijuana is commerce. Billions of dollars are spent on it every year. When people grow their own marijuana, this impacts the supply and demand in a significant way, especially when you consider the aggregate and not just the myopic view of the individual grower.
|
This, ladies and gentlemen, is almost word for word the exact position of the government and the USSC in cases called Wickard v. Filburn and Gonzalez v. Raich. This is also the foundation that can allow the US congress to determine whether you can grow corn or tomatoes in a garden, petunias or daisies in your front yard. Now, It might just be me, but I'm pretty damned sure that the framers of the constitution did not believe they were giving that authority and power to the federal government. Do any of YOU here believe that's what the framers wrote when they made the commerce clause?
Quote:
Originally Posted by timalkin
Congress has the power to regulate marijuana based on the first two clauses cited. Therefore, they also have the power to make all necessary and proper laws to carry out their responsibility.
I'm assuming that we're talking about what the law is and not what the law should be. The current law allows Congress to regulate marijuana.
|
timalkin, didn't someone here earlier say that you were a libertarian?