Just posted a new OP on the subject since this one was closed .

Obama may look the other way, but I would still close the curtains before I fired up! I mean he has other things more important than tokers like republicans that think they can still obstruct.

Hello again,

Although they haven't decided, the word is the feds will SUE to STOP my state from implementing the new pot law. Eventually, it will be decided by the Supreme Court. How do you think they'll rule? It looks like a classic case of state vs federal rights.

excon

I thought this thread was closed.

How do YOU think they'll rule?

Hello again, Steve:

Quote:

---

I thought this thread was closed.

---

It was, but I have power. And what good is power if you don't use it? Therefore, this thread is liable to be closed and opened several more times.

Let me see. If Scalia wears his Constitutional hat, he'll rule for the state... But, if he wears his religious hat, he'll rule for the feds.

I BELIEVE his moral outrage and indignation will outweigh any "small government" notion that he THINKS he harbors... BIG government will WIN.

You?

Excon

I think as long as the feds have it classified as they do you lose. Of course there's always that shot that Obama's DOJ stops defending federal law.

Hello again, Steve:

The question was whether the Supreme Court would OVERTURN the feds classification, not lay down for it. You DO understand that they have the POWER to do that?

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:

The question was whether the Supreme Court would OVERTURN the feds classification, not lay down for it. You DO understand that they have the POWER to do that?

excon

---

They can not overturn the classification of a drug. That is not within the courts decision making powers. They may only rule on law and necessity. The tradition is that federal law has always superceded state law. That had been proven many times.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/06/sc...cal.marijuana/

Yep.

Hello again, dad:

Quote:

---

They can not overturn the classification of a drug.

---

Exactly. But, it wouldn't BE the classification that would be challenged. It would be the LAW itself. If they found even a small part of the drug law to be unconstitutional, they can overturn the ENTIRE law.

I suggest you're looking at it through your drug warrior eyes instead of your states rights eyes... Now, I agree about what's been traditional.. But, a state VOTING to legalize marijuana is ANYTHING but traditional, and states DO have rights. That's different that pot smokers having rights.

I don't think ANYONE has considered the long ranging effects of what these states did. I believe they ENDED the drug war. Yes, it may take another 10 years to finally end, but I think our long nightmare is OVER..

Excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, dad:

Exactly. But, it wouldn't BE the classification that would be challenged. It would be the LAW itself. If they found even a small part of the drug law to be unconstitutional, they can overturn the ENTIRE law.

I suggest you're looking at it through your drug warrior eyes instead of your states rights eyes... Now, I agree about what's been traditional.. But, a state VOTING to legalize marijuana is ANYTHING but traditional, and states DO have rights. That's different that pot smokers having rights.

I don't think ANYONE has considered the long ranging effects of what these states did. I believe they ENDED the drug war. Yes, it may take another 10 years to finally end, but I think our long nightmare is OVER..

excon

---

For one thing your reading too much into it if you think I have drug warrior eyes. I think all drugs should be legal. Lets end the war completely. Tax what is left and put it into education and rehab programs. But that is just me. I can dream.

The idea of a supreme court of the land is to keep consistency and to protect the constitution. I agree if a law is found unconstitutional it should be striken. But then again my mindset is finely tuned when it comes to the law and my opinion as to how it is applied without respect as to my likeing of it or not. I still attempt to respect the law.

Hello again, dad:

That's all well and good. My state VOTED to legalize marijuana, and my state has the RIGHT to do that. The feds will either STOP my state, or the drug war is over.

I STILL don't know how you think they'd rule. Want to share?

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, dad:

That's all well and good. My state VOTED to legalize marijuana, and my state has the RIGHT to do that. The feds will either STOP my state, or the drug war is over.

I STILL don't know how you think they'd rule. Wanna share?

excon

---

They will rule with the Feds if it comes to it. Without reading the full text of the law I believe they will follow the example set and not disrupt federal law on prohibition. Just like they have done in California.

As always follow the money. Right now the economy stinks and the feds need an income. Look how much on local, State and federal monies come from the war on drugs.

Hello again, dad:

I STILL think you miss the magnitude of what my state did. I would agree with you if the law resulted from legislation... This resulted from a vote of the public..

Maybe there IS no difference. I think there is. Can you show me where the Supreme Court EVER overturned the VOTERS in a state? Look. There might be lots. I don't know.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, dad:

. Can you show me where the Supreme Court EVER overturned the VOTERS in a state?? Look. There might be lots. I don't know.

excon

---

Sure I will post this link again. Its from CNN and talks of the SCOTUS decision.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/06/sc...cal.marijuana/


(added after post)

In a 6-3 vote, the justices ruled the Bush administration can block the backyard cultivation of pot for personal use, because such use has broader social and financial implications.

"Congress' power to regulate purely activities that are part of an economic 'class of activities' that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce is firmly established," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority.

Hello again,

I'm traveling after the law goes into effect.. Can I take an ounce or less THROUGH the TSA screening and get on an airplane with it?

Would it matter that I'm going to Colorado, or not?

excon

Let us know how it works out.