Ind. state senator wants study on legalizing pot

[Kutnupe14]

This thread went full derp several pages ago with the new theory that re-legalizing cannabis will somehow make cartels stronger.

You're free to explain your stance.

 

[IndyGunner]

No way, if you legalize drugs, people will be high all the time, driving their cars, and killing each other. Just like when they legalized booze. It was the end of civilization.

LOL win.

 

[kingnereli]

no way,,,thats mob rule...

Not with constitutional restrains in place. I wasn't referring to some free for all. Within the bounds of the constitution our elected officials are supposed to represent the will of their constituents rather than their own agenda.

i apologize,,,i dont get it,,,please say this another way,,,im sorry....

The concept you presented was that the government still doesn't need to get involved even if there are no rights in play. My question is if that still applies if there are injured parties involved or even if there is a high likelihood that there will be injured parties. Do you think it should be illegal to drink and drive or just to slam into someone's car because I'm drunk. A drunk driver who hasn't hit anybody hasn't hurt anyone but himself and obviously doesn't have a fundamental right to operate his vehicle while intoxicated. So, should the government stay out of it or does the great potential for harm justify the regulation?

In the same way drug use has large potential to harm people other than the users. It may be any situation from a scenario similar to drunk driving down to being the sole catalyst to being a dead beat dad.

The concept here is that we are not a democracy, where the majority can get anything it wants, even if that means invading people's rights. What if the majority wants to confiscate guns? Create massive welfare programs? Socialize medicine? Get the drift? We are a republic that is supposed to be protective of individual rights, no matter what outrageous tyranny that the majority demands.

Ben Franklin said "Democracy is nothing more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner."

That's why people's feelings don't really matter on this subject. The government has no authority to invade people's lives like this. People also have the right to property -- even if its a scary plant that 51% of the people want to "ban" from growing.

Again, I understand that we are a constitutional republic. Is banning pot unconstitutional? If not, (you know it's not, right?) then there is no real argument or legal standard to say that there is actually anything wrong or that any rights are being violated by it being banned.

No, you didn't say it, I said it. Any time someone dares to question government authority, we get the same old you post this stuff too much, you can move to another country, yada, yada, yada.

Libertarian tactics confuse me. You guys are always trying to hit home runs when you're still have trouble bunting your issues onto first base. You guys should start small and build some credibility. That's why there isn't any traction for these big issues.

This simplest definition of liberty is the right to property. Property isn't limited to the square of dirt that has my name in the plat book. My property is my land, my house, my car, my body, my thoughts, etc. You are free to do with your property whatever you please as long as it doesn't affect my ability to use my property. You can swing your fist wildly anywhere you please. Once your fist contacts my nose, you've violated my property. Smoking a plant in the privacy of your home in no way affects my ability to use my property. If you hit my car while driving high as a kite, you've violated my right to my property and thus are required to make me whole again.

Alright, I like that definition. However, that's a rather simplistic view of what smoking a plant in your home can do.

So the rights laid out in the constitution the only rights that our founders granted us? Were they supposed to spell out every single right that we citizens have? The constitution was a limit on government. In another thread on here, it was mentioned that Patrick Henry hated the constitution. From the reading I've done on Henry, he hated it all for the wrong reasons and he knew it would lead to exactly the type of government we have. He knew it was powerless to prevent the federal government from taking our liberties. He was totally against a central government.

No, the ninth amendment explains that there are unenumerated rights. A reasonable expectation of privacy would be one of them. "Gay rights" is an example of a make believe right that is neither enumerated nor unemumerated.

I don't do a lot of things like drugs, drink in excess, so my oats to every willing field, etc because of my moral beliefs. But where do I get the right to tell you what your beliefs should be? A government and population that tells you that you can't marry Bill today can tell you that you can't marry Sue tomorrow. Many in this thread are calling for "new legislation" to legalize pot. Why do we need more laws? Repeal the ones criminalizing pot and call it done. It's the same as gay marriage. The answer isn't legalizing it, the answer is getting the state out of the marriage business. The state needs to recognize they have no power to regulate "illegal drugs". By creating "new legislation", they are not relinquishing that power.

In both of your examples I feel the potential for societal harm, a moral imperative and the rights that actually are in play are reason enough to keep both illegal. I don't have the right to marry Bill. I do have the right to marry Sue. (Don't tell my wife.) There is not a right at play in the pot issue.

As far as the cartels, how have our current laws served to eliminate them?

The current laws obviously haven't done anything to eliminate them. I just find it interesting that one of the arguments presented earlier for the legalization of pot was the it would eliminate the cartels. Nobody seems to be willing to back that up. There is so much speculation about what would happen if the law was changed. We don't really know. I just find it very unlikely that all the problems drug use causes will greatly decrease if they were to become legal.

 

[rambone]

Again, I understand that we are a constitutional republic. Is banning pot unconstitutional? If not, (you know it's not, right?) then there is no real argument or legal standard to say that there is actually anything wrong or that any rights are being violated by it being banned.

I absolutely feel that the current drug laws are unconstitutional.

• For one thing, it infringes the citizens' right to property. Hands down.

• The constitution doesn't enumerate the power to the Federal government that it can ban arbitrary items, let alone weeds that grow in the ground. That's why they needed a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol. (Back when they paid lip service to obeying the constitution.) The Feds must prove where they derive the authority to do what they do. They simply don't have the authority to create a national ban on drugs.

• States should have the right to regulate themselves. Make up their own law on the subject. The 10th Amendment is clear. Sweeping legislation that covers all states blatantly violates this amendment. The same applies with Federal gun control laws, Federal abortion laws, Federal health mandates, et cetera.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I absolutely feel that the current drug laws are unconstitutional.

• For one thing, it infringes the citizens' right to property. Hands down.

• The constitution doesn't enumerate the power to the Federal government that it can ban arbitrary items, let alone weeds that grow in the ground. That's why they needed a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol. (Back when they paid lip service to obeying the constitution.) The Feds must prove where they derive the authority to do what they do. They simply don't have the authority to create a national ban on drugs.

• States should have the right to regulate themselves. Make up their own law on the subject. The 10th Amendment is clear. Sweeping legislation that covers all states blatantly violates this amendment. The same applies with Federal gun control laws, Federal abortion laws, Federal health mandates, et cetera.

Your right. The Federal Govt should have no hand in declaring drugs, any drug, as illegal. That's an implied power. Drugs an be criminalized, but it;s wholly dependant on the individual states to do so.

 

[rambone]

Your right. The Federal Govt should have no hand in declaring drugs, any drug, as illegal. That's an implied power. Drugs an be criminalized, but it;s wholly dependant on the individual states to do so.

It's plainly unconstitutional. I don't know why more "conservatives" can't seem to grasp that. These Federal drug laws are just as unconstitutional as Obamacare. Either you want small government or you don't. I'd rather have states making up their own minds about drugs -- then choose to live in a state where I don't have to pay for prisons that are 50% full with drug offenders. I'd rather keep my tax dollars than wrap myself in this expensive security blanket.

 

[kingnereli]

I absolutely feel that the current drug laws are unconstitutional.

• For one thing, it infringes the citizens' right to property. Hands down.

• The constitution doesn't enumerate the power to the Federal government that it can ban arbitrary items, let alone weeds that grow in the ground. That's why they needed a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol. (Back when they paid lip service to obeying the constitution.) The Feds must prove where they derive the authority to do what they do. They simply don't have the authority to create a national ban on drugs.

• States should have the right to regulate themselves. Make up their own law on the subject. The 10th Amendment is clear. Sweeping legislation that covers all states blatantly violates this amendment. The same applies with Federal gun control laws, Federal abortion laws, Federal health mandates, et cetera.

How far does this right to property go? Let me think of an extreme example. Should I be allowed to keep anthrax or enriched uranium in my pantry? Should the federal government tell me if I should or shouldn't or should my state?

Also, Why doesn't the commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause give this power to the federal government on such an important issue? Also, I also think the nations moral imperative is applicable here.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Ah yes, the "moral imperative". Good stuff to have in a pinch.

Don't forget about the general welfare clause. That's a good one too.

Do you find it ironic, that you're looking for ways to expand government in a document explicitely written to limit government?

 

[printcraft]

In completely unrelated news Willie Nelson is looking for some property in Indiana.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

The point that's being missed is that while there is room for debate whether the federal government should be in the business of restricting drug possession and use (it's not "unconstitutional" as claimed - only SCOTUS has the ability to declare a law such, and is has consistently ruled otherwise), there is no question it is within the purview and power of the state government to do so.

Like it or not, that's the reality.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Unless it violates the State Constitution.

 

[machete]

The point that's being missed is that while there is room for debate whether the federal government should be in the business of restricting drug possession and use (it's not "unconstitutional" as claimed - only SCOTUS has the ability to declare a law such, and is has consistently ruled otherwise), there is no question it is within the purview and power of the state government to do so.

dont get me wrong,,,im glad hes got me on ignore,,,but its like someone who comes in at the end credits and says --- so what happened???

hes off in his own discussion world where he only hears what he wants... not that bad but,,,it does drag down a thread...

 

[whocares]

Yeah

I agree, legalize it. Tax it and use the police for something usefull for a change. I dont use marijuana myself, but know that it is far less dangerous than alcohol as far as its ability to impair rational decision making. The gateway drug propaganda is just that propaganda. Alcohol is just as bad or worse. When have you ever heard of a teenage girl ending up in the hospital from marijuana poisining. People who get high are going to get high anyway, but only criminals profit. Why not legalize it and use the money saved on law enforcement and the taxes collected from its sale and fund some more BS gov. projects like paying illegals higher wellfare or making sure that all illegal immagrants have frre healthcare all while cutting budgets for education and park system.

 

[lashicoN]

How far does this right to property go? Let me think of an extreme example. Should I be allowed to keep anthrax or enriched uranium in my pantry? Should the federal government tell me if I should or shouldn't or should my state?

Also, Why doesn't the commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause give this power to the federal government on such an important issue? Also, I also think the nations moral imperative is applicable here.

Yes, anything the government creates and keeps, the people too, should be able to keep.

I never dropped atomic bombs on anyone, so I'm twice as qualified and trustworthy as the United States Federal Empire to own them. What makes them more capable than I?

 

[acase20]

well it could bring in a new revenue stream for the state witch could go to schools or something...and just because its legal dosnt mean im going to use it

 

[ThrottleJockey]

I don't care if it's legal or not, just decriminalize it. Marion County did this a number of years ago for amounts less than 30 grams because they had no jail space. It has had no ill effects. The reason they claim to want this is to save money in an already stressed economy, I say good, it makes sense. It won't matter to most of us though as drug testing is part of our employment and THAT won't change. What do they plan on doing about the K2 though? They just passed a ban on it and it isn't even scheduled by the feds.....No doubt it will be sched 1 once they get around to pretending to have studied it, but still....

 

[Mokkie]

I have been away for a while. But here are some thoughts on this thread.

I must say Sen. Karen Tallian is taking a step in the right direction. Now if we can get a committee to look at industrial hemp for fuel, food, and construction materials. Hemp has more mass of any other planted crop per acre and much more oil in its seed than soybeans per acre. It needs no pesticides, herbicides, or ferterlizers to grow it. Which means less trips across the field for farmers. You can use the fibers in clothing, in builing materials, it makes concrete stronger than fiberglass and cement, Also use in OSB board and glue lam beams. It would help take some pressure off of the logging industry and allow for the better management of our forest.
Our elected officials can get this right if they put in the effort. They can help the sick, the farmers, the economy, And the planet all at the same time. If this country dosen't change things we will continue to use more oil for fuel, more coal for energy, more trees for paper, and building materials. I believe hemp may solve some of these problems we now have. You tell me?

 

[Kutnupe14]

I have been away for a while. But here are some thoughts on this thread.

I must say Sen. Karen Tallian is taking a step in the right direction. Now if we can get a committee to look at industrial hemp for fuel, food, and construction materials. Hemp has more mass of any other planted crop per acre and much more oil in its seed than soybeans per acre. It needs no pesticides, herbicides, or ferterlizers to grow it. Which means less trips across the field for farmers. You can use the fibers in clothing, in builing materials, it makes concrete stronger than fiberglass and cement, Also use in OSB board and glue lam beams. It would help take some pressure off of the logging industry and allow for the better management of our forest.
Our elected officials can get this right if they put in the effort. They can help the sick, the farmers, the economy, And the planet all at the same time. If this country dosen't change things we will continue to use more oil for fuel, more coal for energy, more trees for paper, and building materials. I believe hemp may solve some of these problems we now have. You tell me?

Given that Hemp isnt marijuana, it should have never even been included in the whole "wacky tobaccky" discussion.

 

[mrjarrell]

Given that Hemp isnt marijuana, it should have never even been included in the whole "wacky tobaccky" discussion.

Actually, it should be included in any discussion on the matter. The opponents of hemp are the always crying about not being able to distinguish the two as their main reason for opposition. It should be part of the discussion.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Yes, anything the government creates and keeps, the people too, should be able to keep.

I never dropped atomic bombs on anyone, so I'm twice as qualified and trustworthy as the United States Federal Empire to own them. What makes them more capable than I?

They know how to build it, and you don't?