Feds to close California Pot dispensaries

[Bassics]

...Though I know people who smoke, I dont trust them while high...especially driving.

That's always been my thought, it will never be legal until they invent a breathalyzer type device for it.

[stevo]

You must be a stupid motherfucker if you think anyone is advocating stoned driving.

And lmao at 'front mouth'

In his next discussion of proof, he will refer to all the people he personally knows that microwaved their babies while on pot, and were 100% at fault.

Stevo

[Venix]

You don't sound like a dumbass on the topic, you've proven you are one!

name calling makes people feel smarter.

[Venix]

That's always been my thought, it will never be legal until they invent a breathalyzer type device for it.

I was thinking the exact same thing last night. If they could prove how "high" you were, then maybe it would work.

[Cooter]

That's always been my thought, it will never be legal until they invent a breathalyzer type device for it.

field sobriety test. if you pass, you're good to go

[stevo]

field sobriety test. if you pass, you're good to go

That is too easy, they would rather have some Star Trek tricorder gadget that cost 100 million dollars to develop, instead of measuring actually ability impairment.

Stevo

[Venix]

I would not be against treating it similar to opium. The government does not allow people to just use it freely, but we do have synthesized medicines derived from it. While I may not agree with them, the masses do, so there is no way to really win that battle. Treating pot in a similar fashion may be a great compromise. Make artificial drugs for prescription usage for cancer patients who currently use the medical pot.

Sure it does not stop the argument of "what about hemp clothes and all of that stuff," but it would deal with the medical side of the coin, stop people from suffering needlessly, and possibly have with fewer people abusing it just to get high.

[Snatch Napkin]

Any medication that has become synthesized from it's natural components have become more potent, more addictive, and carry more harmful side effects.

Even willow bark got bastardized to a point that it had to come with a warning label.

[Captain Crawfish]

so this is why the hippies are in the streets. they finally realized that they arent gonna get legalization of pot. it all makes sense now.

[Snatch Napkin]

Those damn hippies represent all kinds of issues in the wrong light.

[racrguy]

name calling makes people feel smarter.

If the shoe fits.

[46Tbird]

Prove me wrong. Show me in the Constitution where it gives the federal government the right and power to legislate drugs.

Really?

Are you trying to make the case that there can be NO federal law because the Constitution doesn't explicitly state what the federal government actually has jurisdiction over?


Anyway, here's my retort.

"The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer there of."

- Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18

AKA the Necessary and Proper Clause, the foundation for all federal laws in this country. Some of the founding fathers thought it was too broad and would give limitless power to the federal government and you apparently agree.

But it's there.

[46Tbird]

you sound like a winner!

I am! Thanks for noticing. It would be nice if you would have an actual reply though, because I still don't see where anyone wants to see a country of stoned drivers. We're talking about legalizing private use... you know, the same as alcohol or any number of legal, controlled substances.

[Forever_frost]

Really?

Are you trying to make the case that there can be NO federal law because the Constitution doesn't explicitly state what the federal government actually has jurisdiction over?


Anyway, here's my retort.

"The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer there of."

- Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18

AKA the Necessary and Proper Clause, the foundation for all federal laws in this country. Some of the founding fathers thought it was too broad and would give limitless power to the federal government and you apparently agree.

But it's there.

Actually, that's exactly what I'm saying. The necessary and proper clause is there to allow congress to pass laws that pertain to the 18 enumerated powers. Otherwise, using that clause, the federal government has no restrictions (something out Founders found repulsive as they had just fought against an all powerful government). Tell me, if N&P clause covers anything, where is the limit?


Although often commonly referred to as the “sweeping clause” or the “elastic clause,” the “necessary and proper” clause is not in fact as expansive as its nicknames suggests. After listing the 17 specific powers delegated to Congress, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution concludes by specifying that Congress has the power to pass any law both necessary and proper to implement the powers already delegated to it. This lawmaking power is limited and defined by the ends for which it is delegated: “for carrying into execution the foregoing powers.” All the clause does is to make explicit a power already implied in the grants of powers in Section 8 and elsewhere. The “necessary and proper” clause is thus a means for Congress to achieve its constitutionally mandated ends. As James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 44 to explain the meaning of the clause: “No axiom is more clearly established in law, or reason, than that wherever the end is required, the means are authorized.” This essay is adapted from The Heritage Guide to the Constitution for a new series providing constitutional guidance for lawmakers.

“The Congress shall have Power To…make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”

— Article I, Section 8, Clause 18

[Forever_frost]

At the Constitutional Convention, the Committee of Detail took the Convention’s resolutions on national legislative authority and particularized them into a series of enumerated powers. This originated the principle of enumerated powers, under which federal law can govern only as to matters within the terms of some power-granting clause of the Constitution. By including the Necessary and Proper Clause, the Framers set the criterion for laws that, even if they are not within the terms of other grants, serve to make other federal powers effective.

In McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), Chief Justice John Marshall noted that other grants of power by themselves “according to the dictates of reason” would “imply” a “means of execution.” He went on, however, to declare that the Constitution “has not left the right of Congress to employ the necessary means for the execution of the powers conferred on the Government to general reasoning.” For the Chief Justice, the Necessary and Proper Clause makes express a power that otherwise would only have been implied and thus might have been subject to cavil. By implanting the clause among the powers of Congress, the Framers confirmed that Congress may act to make the constitutional plan effective. In his parsing of the words of the clause, he concluded that the Necessary and Proper Clause authorizes laws enacted as means “really calculated to effect any of the objects intrusted to the government.” Arguments for laws that lack this crucial means-to-end characteristic find no support in Marshall’s opinion or in the Necessary and Proper Clause.

The Framers crafted the Necessary and Proper Clause to serve two great purposes. The first was to facilitate organization of the government, such as empowering Congress to organize the judicial branch (see Article I, Section 8, Clause 9). The second was to help effectuate the other enumerated powers of Congress. As to the first, the Constitution could not prescribe all points of government organization, so Detail Committee member Edmund Randolph proposed empowering Congress to “organize the government.” James Wilson proposed the “necessary and proper” clause as a substitute, authorizing laws “for carrying into Execution” the other federal powers. The committee, and then the Convention, approved. The organizational function of this clause was recognized from the outset. Among Congress’s first acts were establishing executive departments and staffs, determining the number of Justices of the Supreme Court, and allocating the judicial power among federal courts. The Supreme Court acknowledged this clause as the source of Congress’s power to legislate about judicial process and procedure. Without this clause (or some equivalent), statutes organizing the other branches not only would have violated the principle of enumerated powers, but also would have offended the principle of separation of powers.

As to the second and more significant purpose, the clause also supports laws for carrying into execution “the foregoing Powers,” that is, those specified for the legislature itself in Article I, Section 8. It thus enhances the other powers given to Congress. During the ratification debates, opponents dubbed it the “sweeping clause” and the “general clause,” arguing that it subverted the principle of enumerated powers by sweeping general legislative competence to Congress. The critic Brutus, for example, said it “leaves the national legislature at liberty, to do every thing, which in their judgment is best.” In The Federalist No. 33, Alexander Hamilton replied that the clause is tautological but harmless, meaning nothing more than that Congress may exercise its legislative powers by making laws. Hamilton soon abandoned that simplistic view, however.