|
Install Windows posted:That is using it actively. If you smoked up in your house and went outside still high you wouldn't be.
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2013 20:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 10:50 |
|
|
twodot posted:You're beyond hope, but for anyone playing along: if we had a constitutional amendment protecting the right to be in an altered state of mind, any laws prohibiting the mechanism required to achieve that state of mind would be plainly unconstitutional. It's the sort of thing that wouldn't even get to the Supreme Court because it would get smacked down immediately. The legal system isn't composed of dumb robots, or Something Awful forums users unable to acknowledge when they are wrong. No, a constitutional amendment "protecting" a "right to be in an altered state of mind" would in no way mean that prohibiting certain ways to achieve it was unconstitutional. For one thing, I doubt very much such thing would be written while allowing children and teens to freely buy and use them. Stop trying to defend that guy's stupid proposal which doesn't even make sense.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2013 21:24
|
|
|
A weed amendment, or an altered consciousness amendment, or whatever is a pretty stupid idea. This isn't Prohibition where an amendment was passed in the first place and needs another to undo it. Practically speaking if you wanted to force states to decriminalize the way you'd do it would be to tie some federal funding to it. And no politician wants to deal with attack ads about how they're forcing weed over the objection of the states. The Federal government descheduling marijuana would be a huge step in itself. As it stands the "states' rights" argument is for decriminalization, the Federal government forcing it on states would probably fracture the coalition, apart from it being a total pipe dream for other reasons. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 21:58 on Oct 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2013 21:56
|
|
|
Actually, why would any action involved in achieving an altered state of consciousness be unconstitutional? Just because the state achieved is perfectly protected, does not mean the actual process is. It doesn't make sense, but arguably, being in that state doesn't imply willful entrance into that state. Similarly, engaging in the process to try and achieve an altered state of consciousness may not actually achieve it. So as one doesn't necessarily imply the other, making one legal and the other illegal is perfectly doable.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2013 22:44
|
|
|
KingEup posted:Medicos are only just realising this: Look up "sovereign immunity".
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 04:28
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:It would be unconstitutional for the Federal government to pass a law that barred states from passing a law of their own.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 04:50
|
|
|
TenementFunster posted:Not much to say here other than that you are entirely incorrect, as the supremacy clause and federal preemption are Constitution Law 101. In fairness that hasn't stopped Alito so who knows what would actually happen.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 09:48
|
|
|
Tim Selaty Jr posted:The bad news: The new law was about legalizing for recreational use, not setting artificial limits on the recreational side that would necessitate the destruction of the medical MJ industry.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 14:00
|
|
|
TenementFunster posted:Not much to say here other than that you are entirely incorrect, as the supremacy clause and federal preemption are Constitution Law 101. Absolutely, the Federal government can certainly pass laws, and those laws preempt state law. In many cases states and the Federal government have similar interests and can regulate similar things. Due to the general Federal nature of the system and specifically the 10th, it is, however, unconstitutional for the Federal government to pass a law saying "states can't write laws about X" except in fairly narrow, enumerated circumstances (f.ex interstate commerce). Drug law is not one of these places where the Federal government holds sole legislative power. You can test this claim easily by looking at the passing of state-level drug laws for spice, which would be illegal if that were a federally reserved power. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 17:34 on Oct 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 16:26
|
|
|
I was kinda hoping that the retail stores here in WA would be open by Election Day this year, but by most estimates I could find it won't be available until at least late spring/summer. A shame as I'd rather not go the illegal route.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 17:29
|
|
|
Mrit posted:I was kinda hoping that the retail stores here in WA would be open by Election Day this year, but by most estimates I could find it won't be available until at least late spring/summer. Don't get your hopes up! They went and set limitations to the commercial sector now the only way it can compete with the medical sector is to shut down the medical sector and are driving the narrative that the legal MMJ needs to be "reined in".
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 17:42
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:Look up "sovereign immunity". Even in the most wild "legalize everything" discussions I never even hear anyone mention punishing the government. Everyone realizes that would make legalization impossible and are willing to drop it because of that. The way I see it working is the law is the law. If they change the law to make something formally illegal legal that does not change the fact that the previous criminals where violating a law that was in place. Someone busted for selling drugs was exploiting the black market status a Federal ban created. It does however make sense to look into releasing a large number of inmates just for the reduction in cost alone. Many prisons are already overcrowded and it would seem natural for it to become precedent to just release all non-violent offenders. The release would not remove their previous crime or entitle them to litigation it would just be a reduction of sentence. The war on drugs has destroyed millions of lives on both sides. The government has been wasting
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 17:45
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Absolutely, the Federal government can certainly pass laws, and those laws preempt state law. In many cases states and the Federal government have similar interests and can regulate similar things. twodot posted:You're beyond hope, but for anyone playing along: if we had a constitutional amendment protecting the right to be in an altered state of mind, any laws prohibiting the mechanism required to achieve that state of mind would be plainly unconstitutional.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 17:51
|
|
|
Mrit posted:I was kinda hoping that the retail stores here in WA would be open by Election Day this year, but by most estimates I could find it won't be available until at least late spring/summer.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 17:53
|
|
|
Fiend posted:Don't get your hopes up! They went and set limitations to the commercial sector now the only way it can compete with the medical sector is to shut down the medical sector and are driving the narrative that the legal MMJ needs to be "reined in". I don't care about any of the medical vs. non-medical argument. I just want to try (legal) pot. And I like that less people will pointlessly go to jail and that the state will have a bit extra cash for its finances. NathanScottPhillips posted:Grow your own! I just harvested my first Amendment 64 crop that I've been growing outside in my backyard in full view of my neighbors. Tasty poo poo too!
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 17:53
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:Grow your own! I just harvested my first Amendment 64 crop that I've been growing outside in my backyard in full view of my neighbors. Tasty poo poo too! hope you don't end up in prison!
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 18:02
|
|
|
TenementFunster posted:again, this is incorrect. when congress expressly or implicitly preempts state law or regulation, congress has broad constitutional authority under the supremacy clause. I don't see congress ever passing a law that says "state laws against weed are now exempted by federal law," but preemption is still A Thing, in spite of your minority view on the 10th Amendment You're missing the point. Federal supremacy only applies if Congress has the authority to pass the law in the first place. I don't think "states cannot pass X law" is one of those powers, but if you have a case that shows otherwise, I'd be interested in reading about it. hepatizon fucked around with this message at 18:16 on Oct 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 18:12
|
|
|
TenementFunster posted:again, this is incorrect. when congress expressly or implicitly preempts state law or regulation, congress has broad constitutional authority under the supremacy clause. I don't see congress ever passing a law that says "state laws against weed are now exempted by federal law," but preemption is still A Thing, in spite of your minority view on the 10th Amendment Yes, but Congress doesn't have the authority to pass a law that says "States cannot regulate this" except where explicitly enumerated (Commerce clauses, immigration, etc). This isn't a minority view of law, states absolutely have the ability to be more restrictive than the Federal government and the Federal government cannot stop them unless the state tramples an incorporated constitutional protection or a Federally reserved power. Feel free to provide some counterexamples if you disagree, or pop into the Supreme Court thread and see what the legal eagles say. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 18:23 on Oct 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 18:17
|
|
|
I'd recommend you both perform an internet search for "federal preemption" and start reading associated cases.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 18:18
|
|
|
hepatizon posted:You're missing the point. Federal supremacy only applies if Congress has the authority to pass the law in the first place. I don't think "states cannot pass X law" is one of those powers, but if you have a case that shows otherwise, I'd be interested in reading about it. Edgar v. MITE Corp is probably the most important case, as well as Gonzales v. Raich. There's zero chance that Congress would actually do such a thing though, seeing as how they're fine with letting states place additional regulations on alcohol and tobacco.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 18:21
|
|
|
TenementFunster posted:no, they absolutely wouldn't. what is it with this thread and radically ignorant views on the basics of constitutional law?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 18:26
|
|
|
Can I think of an amendment that doesn't confer an absolute right in every practical application? All of them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 18:29
|
|
|
TenementFunster posted:Can I think of an amendment that doesn't confer an absolute right in every practical application? All of them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 18:33
|
|
|
TenementFunster posted:FYI this is a violation of Colorado law. cultivation can only occur "in an enclosed, locked space" that is not conducted "openly or publicly." In my opinion, my backyard is fenced, surrounded by trees and bushes, has a locked gate, and is not visible from any public areas. To me that is an enclosed, locked space that is not open to the public view. My biggest concern was my neighbors complaining about the smell, but so far they haven't even mentioned it to me when I talk with them. Now my biggest issue it keeping the dog hair out of the buds 
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 18:35
|
|
|
twodot posted:Can you cite a case where we have an amendment that protects the right to have X, but not the means of getting X? I've tried to think of an example, but the concept is so insane that I doubt one exists. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 18:41
|
|
|
Mrit posted:I don't care about any of the medical vs. non-medical argument. I just want to try (legal) pot. And I like that less people will pointlessly go to jail and that the state will have a bit extra cash for its finances. People will pointlessly go to jail if the pull the rug out from under the medical community. The recreational community cannot meet the demands of the medical community let alone their own projected base and have suggested the medical community be hamstrung to "protect" tax revenue.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 18:46
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:There are quite a few interpretations of that, along with some other parts of A64 like public consumption that will be enforced as differently as there are police departments in this state. How is it that you literally went from "I grow in full view of the neighbors! You should too!" To "my backyard grow area is a fortress surrounded by 8 foot high trees and walls so no one can see" in 1 post?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 18:48
|
|
|
You also state that "in your opinion" your backyard is enclosed by a fence etc. Are you magic? In my opinion my house has 4 walls, but others may see it differently, its all a matter of perspective you see.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 18:49
|
|
|
TACD posted:The Consitution confers a right to the 'pursuit of happiness'
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 18:50
|
|
|
Limastock posted:How is it that you literally went from "I grow in full view of the neighbors! You should too!" To "well I guess that's acceptable but I'm going to give you crap about the details I'm imagining," in 2 posts?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 18:50
|
|
|
Limastock posted:You also state that "in your opinion" your backyard is enclosed by a fence etc.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 18:51
|
|
|
I blame that devil weed marihuana for this semblantic derail.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 18:54
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:How'd you go from "that's totally and utterly illegal I hope you don't go to prison." NathanScottPhillips posted:Grow your own! I just harvested my first Amendment 64 crop that I've been growing outside in my backyard in full view of my neighbors. Tasty poo poo too! NathanScottPhillips posted:In my opinion, my backyard is fenced, surrounded by trees and bushes, has a locked gate, and is not visible from any public areas. To me that is an enclosed, locked space that is not open to the public view. 
a creepy colon fucked around with this message at 19:02 on Oct 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 18:56
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:There are quite a few interpretations of that, along with some other parts of A64 like public consumption that will be enforced as differently as there are police departments in this state. of your neighbors, i.e. the public. anything less than an actual greenhouse probably wouldn't satisfy the "enclosed" requirement either for personal cultivation. If your neighbors complained to the cops or your HOA or landlord or etc, you'll be in a world of hurt. take your next grow inside and stop giving out dangerously bad advice.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 19:03
|
|
|
Yeah you're right, I got the homoerotic avatars and low-content posting mixed up. I'm sorry.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 19:03
|
|
|
TenementFunster posted:dog, you said it was in clear view
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 19:07
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:Yeah you're right, I got the homoerotic avatars and low-content posting mixed up. I'm sorry. It is much easier to back-pedal when you just admit you goofed instead of acting like a brat and lashing out against posters for no real reason whatsoever. Just some postin' advice from Limastock (the one with the homoerotic avatar)
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 19:08
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:They could have added "within a structure" to the end of the sentence and it would mean what you want it to mean but they didn't, did they? My bathroom window is also visible from my neighbors yard but I wouldn't say it's open to the public and neither would a judge. Yeah you are totally right. If you put a large pot plant directly in your visible bathroom window the judge would definitely be cool with it. Anyone looking for grow advice should hit up NathanScottPhillips marijuana grow blog. Updates coming to you soon from a federal prison library computer. a creepy colon fucked around with this message at 19:11 on Oct 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 19:09
|
|
|
Limastock posted:Yeah you are totally right. If you put a large pot plant directly in your visible bathroom window the judge would definitely be cool with it. Secondly, the Boulder, CO police decided that smoking on your front porch is considered a private place and is allowed so maybe it's not as clear-cut as you want it to be?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 19:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 10:50 |
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:They could have added "within a structure" to the end of the sentence and it would mean what you want it to mean but they didn't, did they? My bathroom window is also visible from my neighbors yard but I wouldn't say it's open to the public and neither would a judge. keep growing outside against the advice of a dude who has read every state and most local Amendment 64 related law and regulation at your own risk. it's a terrible idea and you should not be recommending it to others. NathanScottPhillips posted:Yeah you're right, I got the homoerotic avatars and low-content posting mixed up. I'm sorry.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 19:23
|
|