453ffdae   
   XPost: alt.drugs.pot, alt.drugs.hard, rec.sport.pro-wrestling   
   From: agent1@section31.org   
      
   On 11/22/2011 9:45 PM, BudBurner wrote:   
      
   >              I am glad this was crossposted to ADP, I wholeheartedly   
   > agree that this is a state's rights issue. What happens inside a   
   > soverign state is truly the realm of the state and specifically   
   > exempted of federal authoritarianism. This protection is clearly   
   > provided for in the constitution. As more and more states provide for   
   > medical marijuana the federal hogwash should be gradually eroded to   
   > the point that there are more states with mmj laws than those without,   
   > and as such representatives and senators of those states must vote in   
   > the US congress in support of those states' goals and therefore the   
   > laws of prohibition must be lifted. It may take a while yet but we   
   > have come further in the last 20 years toward legalization than we   
   > have since cannabis prohibition began. I do believe (and truly hope)   
   > that time is in our favor now.   
   >              BudBurner   
      
   It all sounds good except once the prohibition/ban is ended, we still   
   won't be outta the woods.  A whole new slew of Federal regulations   
   will likely come into play as the BATF becomes the BAT(M)F, and finds   
   ways to heavily regulate it under it's flagrant abuse of the commerce   
   clause.   
      
   I'm not a pot smoker, so I don't really share quite the same horse as   
   those seeking to see weed legalized, BUT I do agree that it should be   
   a states right issue, and out of the hands of Federal authorities for   
   home-growers/personal use.  Transporting a crop yield across state   
   lines OTOH, that should remain in the Feds hands, but no more.   
      
   But it should be up to the individual states to deal with this within   
   state borders, NOT the Fed's hands.  Of course, it goes without saying   
   that those who want to see the ban ended should also be >all in< favor   
   of the SCOTUS striking down Obamacare, since logically, a SCOTUS   
   supported individual mandate would just about *kill* any chance of a   
   pot ban being lifted anytime soon.  Think about it for second - if the   
   SCOTUS empowers the Feds to invoke an individual mandate by playing   
   fast and loose with the commerce clause, Fed power over control of pot   
   would also be drastically bolstered.  >Neither< party would be in   
   favor of lifting the ban.  Democrats wouldn't allow it because they'd   
   be in favor of it as a heavily taxed commodity disributed by Federally   
   administrated health agencies, and strong arm tactics in doling out   
   subsidies to the states that comply with the Fed's wishes. The   
   Republicans would likely resist it on grounds of party principles   
   first, but ultimately cave in to lobbyists who would use it to extract   
   more revenue (like health insurance rates going up after they insist   
   on mandatory piss testing for pot users, and a whole slew of other   
   personal liberties flouted.  Wanna job?  You have to pay for a piss   
   test too.  Have a car accident?  They will require an automatic piss   
   test for that too...   
      
      
      
   --   
   MFB   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)