Alcohol vs marijuana

[Doofy]

Was that one of those rollers that opened like a wallet and had a leather looking sheet in it. You'd load the paper, load the pot, close it, and the rolled joint would pop out the slot at the end?

Or one of the hand crank rollers?

Mom had a large crank machine that used pre-made tubes, with or without filters. Looked and smoked just like commercial cigs. This was in the 60s.vtg Premier Supermatic cigarette roller making machine w/ instructions + box | eBay

 

[/pine]

Philosophical question-if there is no victim, is there a crime?

That's why I said "offense"...

Scotus does not set penalties for crimes. That's a legislative function. Even the existing sentencing guidelines exist as a creation of Congress.

Aren't legal precedents the basis of said legislation?

What part of the Constitution gives the feds any power to get involved in this?

What part of the constitution gives them the right to get involved with any type of contraband?

 

[sseelhoff]

That's why I said "offense"...


Aren't legal precedents the basis of said legislation?



What part of the constitution gives them the right to get involved with any type of contraband?

Offense versus crime is a semantic difference.

Precedent has nothing to do with sentencing guidelines unless the sentence is challenged as cruel and unusual punishment, which is rarely if ever done on sentence lengths.

As to your third question, I would argue the answer is largely none. I cannot think of an enumerated power that gives the FEDERAL government that power. The tenth amendment reserves that power to the states.

 

[/pine]

Offense versus crime is a semantic difference.

Precedent has nothing to do with sentencing guidelines unless the sentence is challenged as cruel and unusual punishment, which is rarely if ever done on sentence lengths.

As to your third question, I would argue the answer is largely none. I cannot think of an enumerated power that gives the FEDERAL government that power. The tenth amendment reserves that power to the states.

Well...just my opinion but I tend to think that here in the USA...if something is legal in one state can get you life in another...I would deem that at least unusual if not cruel too...
As for the latter I can think of several things the feds control...weaponry, terrorist paraphernalia etc....I don't recall an amendment that allows them to regulate drones or hobby nuclear fusion reactors etc....

 

[sseelhoff]

Well...just my opinion but I tend to think that here in the USA...if something is legal in one state can get you life in another...I would deem that at least unusual if not cruel too...
As for the latter I can think of several things the feds control...weaponry, terrorist paraphernalia etc....I don't recall an amendment that allows them to regulate drones or hobby nuclear fusion reactors etc....

Some states still have dry counties. Nevada allows prostitution. The Constitution was established with states and individuals having control. If you don't like the laws in your state, it is easier to change on a state level, or you can move to a state that has laws in keeping with your preferences. The more we nationalize, the less freedom and control we have.

 

[/pine]

Some states still have dry counties. Nevada allows prostitution. The Constitution was established with states and individuals having control. If you don't like the laws in your state, it is easier to change on a state level, or you can move to a state that has laws in keeping with your preferences. The more we nationalize, the less freedom and control we have.

And in the same respect the more diverse states become the closer we get to having checkpoint charlies at every state line...
FWIW...I think congress should go back to the way it was meant to be...similar to the way your state (TX) runs their legislature...i.e., part time...:thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[MossRoad]

And in the same respect the more diverse states become the closer we get to having checkpoint charlies at every state line...
FWIW...I think congress should go back to the way it was meant to be...similar to the way your state (TX) runs their legislature...i.e., part time...:thumbsup::thumbsup:

Checkpoint charlie.... like the ones at the California borders with other states?

 

[goeduck]

I believe the past administration went laissez-faire on the issue strictly from a cost perspective.

As it should have and as this administration should do. There are WAY MORE IMPORTANT battles for the federal government to fight than pot. Good grief.

You win a war by fighting and winning the right battles, this is not a battle worth fighting.

 

[/pine]

As it should have and as this administration should do. There are WAY MORE IMPORTANT battles for the federal government to fight than pot. Good grief.

Fixing something once and for all and ceding most power to the states is hardly "fighting a battle" good grief!...

It's the sort of thing we have elected leaders for...fixing and improving things they are capable of...getting the pot issue out of the way and not brushing it under the rug removes all the lobbying and allows for a more concentrated focus on other matters...
Kicking the reefer can down the road was the policy of the previous administration...it was as lame as the majority of their other policy failures...

 

[goeduck]

Fixing something once and for all and ceding most power to the states is hardly "fighting a battle" good grief!...

It's the sort of thing we have elected leaders for...fixing and improving things they are capable of...getting the pot issue out of the way and not brushing it under the rug removes all the lobbying and allows for a more concentrated focus on other matters...
Kicking the reefer can down the road was the policy of the previous administration...it was as lame as the majority of their other policy failures...

Fixing a problem that isn’t a problem is a problem. Fighting a losing battle is a problem. Mark my words, the feds fighting pot is a losing battle. Bigger fish to fry.