Should the DEA shutdown marijuana dispensaries?

[RavenSky]

Gee, if only there were a clause in our Constitution that said what the criterion is for determining which level of government has the authority to determine whether a particular activity is legal. I suppose we could try to add one. How about this?

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

But the amendment process is difficult and an awful lot of people have to agree to it. Do you suppose there's any chance our Constitution will ever say that?

Gee, if only all Canadians knew more about our constitution than ALL U.S. citizens, instead of just most of us

 

[RavenSky]

I would love to see the DEA shutdown all dispensaries. And for pot to become illegal again in all states.

I am of the opinion that we do not need another legal mind-altering drug in this country. Pot makes you stupid. And lazy. And some studies have shown they can lower sperm count in males. And who knows what else they will find out. Maybe in the long run it can foment mild psychosis. I am in the mental health field, have a degree in psychology, and know full well that ANY mind-altering drug ingested on a regular basis has long-term negative consequences. Why would THC be any different?

Umm..because it isn't.

I also don't like people getting rich from selling the stuff. Oh..and pot CAN be a gateway drug. It was for me. And for countless friends of mine back in the day.

I don't want to be just getting ready to go under from the anesthesia during surgery and, right before fading to la-la land, catch that faint whiff of pot wafting from my surgeon.

Just my two cents.

Ban Pot! Drug Dealers should spend life in prison. Drug Dealers to kids, or caught near a school zone should be executed. In a public square. Yeah..that's right.

I think I'll smoke a bowl (It's been weeks) and think about this.

Heck, I think I will join you after reading that furious rant (& I haven't smoked since high school)

 

[skepticalbip]

What's the most addictive drug? Tobacco.

Actually that would be caffeine which isn't even age restricted. Any kid with the price of a soft drink can legally feed their habit.

 

[untermensche]

...Oh..and pot CAN be a gateway drug. It was for me...

The very concept of "gateway" drug is an invention of prohibitionists.

There is no such thing.

There is NO drug that when taken makes taking another drug more likely.

There are only people, like yourself, that seek to alter their consciousness in many ways and will seek out many ways to do it. They are only limited by availability.

And with people like that, marijuana is the safest choice.

 

[bilby]

...Oh..and pot CAN be a gateway drug. It was for me...

The very concept of "gateway" drug is an invention of prohibitionists.

There is no such thing.

There is NO drug that when taken makes taking another drug more likely.

There are only people, like yourself, that seek to alter their consciousness in many ways and will seek out many ways to do it. They are only limited by availability.

And with people like that, marijuana is the safest choice.

Unless it is illegal, because when it is illegal it puts users in the position of dealing with drug dealers, thereby making other drugs available to them.

Nobody ever went to buy cigarettes and got asked by the tobacconist if they fancied trying some vodka. Just this once. Look, I like you; I will give you a free sample.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

insinuating that I am of the opinion that potheads being unable to reproduce is good, is a Straw Man.

Any drug that can lower sperm count..one of our most Evolved, primal forces in our bodies...well, what else is it doing to people?

And if pot were legalized it would be much easier to get than if it were not. You are also not totally correct in saying that illegal stuff is easier to get than age-restricted stuff.

Or do you really believe it's easier for a kid to score a bag of heroin than a six-pack?

Keep Pot and All Drugs Illegal. Period. Dot the i and cross the t.

Thank you for your support. LOL

Heroin, no, but it's easier for that kid to get weed than the 6-pack. The illegality is not a serious barrier to obtaining drugs.

- - - Updated - - -

What's the most addictive drug? Tobacco.

Actually that would be caffeine which isn't even age restricted. Any kid with the price of a soft drink can legally feed their habit.

The statement was "most addictive", not "easiest to obtain" or "most addicts".

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The very concept of "gateway" drug is an invention of prohibitionists.

There is no such thing.

There is NO drug that when taken makes taking another drug more likely.

There are only people, like yourself, that seek to alter their consciousness in many ways and will seek out many ways to do it. They are only limited by availability.

And with people like that, marijuana is the safest choice.

Unless it is illegal, because when it is illegal it puts users in the position of dealing with drug dealers, thereby making other drugs available to them.

Nobody ever went to buy cigarettes and got asked by the tobacconist if they fancied trying some vodka. Just this once. Look, I like you; I will give you a free sample.

Yeah, and I would take this even farther: At a minimum keep all drug marketing separate. I'd even favor restricting the advertizing and isolate them: Ads for drug <x> can only be displayed in a location dedicated to drug <x>. (Note that this doesn't actually have to be a separate business. Drugs'r'us is ok--but they'll have one aisle for tobacco, one for beer/wine, one for hard liquor etc.)

 

[bilby]

Unless it is illegal, because when it is illegal it puts users in the position of dealing with drug dealers, thereby making other drugs available to them.

Nobody ever went to buy cigarettes and got asked by the tobacconist if they fancied trying some vodka. Just this once. Look, I like you; I will give you a free sample.

Yeah, and I would take this even farther: At a minimum keep all drug marketing separate. I'd even favor restricting the advertizing and isolate them: Ads for drug <x> can only be displayed in a location dedicated to drug <x>. (Note that this doesn't actually have to be a separate business. Drugs'r'us is ok--but they'll have one aisle for tobacco, one for beer/wine, one for hard liquor etc.)

Cigarettes are legally available here.

Marketing of cigarettes here is prohibited.

No advertising is allowed. Packs cannot be displayed at point of sale, and are usually concealed by opaque shutters that are opened only to make a sale. Packs themselves may not display logos or be distinctively coloured - all packs are a plain olive/grey colour selected to be off putting, and the only markings other than prominent and graphic health warnings are the brand name written in a standard font and location.

You can tell if a shop sells cigarettes and tobacco products by the prominent sign reading "It is illegal to sell cigarettes or tobacco products to persons under the age of 18".

I don't think cigarettes should be prohibited. But I have no problem with prohibition of advertising or marketing to the public. (Indeed I would like to see advertising and marketing prohibition extended to most retail products).

Prescription drugs may not be marketed to the public here either, by the way.

 

[Bomb#20]

It's just a shame that there isn't some section in the Constitution that innumerates what those powers delegated to the United States are.

Exactly.

I would love to see the DEA shutdown all dispensaries. And for pot to become illegal again in all states. The Feds should enforce the laws still on the books. Screw the Sates' decision to legalize it. I feel the Feds have the right, since legal marijuana use poses a serious threat to our citizens safety and well-being.

Do you feel the Feds have the right to enact unconstitutional laws, and/or the right to enforce them as long as they're still on the books? Schoolchildren with access to guns pose a rather more serious threat to our citizens' safety and well-being. Does that make you feel the Feds have the right to break into any home in the country and search it without a warrant, to check whether there are guns in the house, and if so, whether there are any children living there?

Contrariwise, if you feel federal drug laws are constitutional, can you point out the section in the Constitution in which the power to regulate what plants a person inserts into her body is one of the powers the States enumerated that they were delegating to the Feds when they ratified the Constitution?

 

[Blahface]

Exactly.

I would love to see the DEA shutdown all dispensaries. And for pot to become illegal again in all states. The Feds should enforce the laws still on the books. Screw the Sates' decision to legalize it. I feel the Feds have the right, since legal marijuana use poses a serious threat to our citizens safety and well-being.

Do you feel the Feds have the right to enact unconstitutional laws, and/or the right to enforce them as long as they're still on the books? Schoolchildren with access to guns pose a rather more serious threat to our citizens' safety and well-being. Does that make you feel the Feds have the right to break into any home in the country and search it without a warrant, to check whether there are guns in the house, and if so, whether there are any children living there?

Contrariwise, if you feel federal drug laws are constitutional, can you point out the section in the Constitution in which the power to regulate what plants a person inserts into her body is one of the powers the States enumerated that they were delegating to the Feds when they ratified the Constitution?

I believe the most objective interpretation of the constitution would deem most drug laws unconstitutional, but it is the role of SCOTUS to interpret the constitution. It is the executive's role to faithfully execute the law. So until SCOTUS strikes the law down, the executive has a duty to enforce it ( even though they usually just enforce what they want in practice).

 

[Kharakov]

Keep Pot and All Drugs Illegal.

You've had a little too much kool-aid.

 

[untermensche]

I believe the most objective interpretation of the constitution would deem most drug laws unconstitutional, but it is the role of SCOTUS to interpret the constitution. It is the executive's role to faithfully execute the law. So until SCOTUS strikes the law down, the executive has a duty to enforce it ( even though they usually just enforce what they want in practice).

This would only be true if resources were infinite.

But resources are limited and many crimes, like Wall Street crimes, go ignored because money is being used in the drug war.

It is any so-called executive's job to use available resources best.

 

[Bomb#20]

I believe the most objective interpretation of the constitution would deem most drug laws unconstitutional, but it is the role of SCOTUS to interpret the constitution. It is the executive's role to faithfully execute the law. So until SCOTUS strikes the law down, the executive has a duty to enforce it ( even though they usually just enforce what they want in practice).

Which law is it the executive's role to faithfully execute? When there are two contradictory laws on the books, how should the executive decide which to carry out? Suppose the Feds raid a legal California medical dispensary. Jerry Brown's role is to faithfully execute the law of California; to do that he'll need to have his police forces arrest the federal agents. (Which if you ask me would be highly appropriate, especially if followed up by a prosecution of the federal officers on state charges of attempted murder if any of the dispensary's clients are cancer patients who need marijuana for appetite stimulus.) Of course it's no doubt illegal under federal law to interfere with federal agents faithfully executing federal law. But that just throws us back to the question of what it means to faithfully execute the law when the laws contradict each other. So do you think state police should arrest federal police who raid legal dispensaries?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I believe the most objective interpretation of the constitution would deem most drug laws unconstitutional, but it is the role of SCOTUS to interpret the constitution. It is the executive's role to faithfully execute the law. So until SCOTUS strikes the law down, the executive has a duty to enforce it ( even though they usually just enforce what they want in practice).

Which law is it the executive's role to faithfully execute? When there are two contradictory laws on the books, how should the executive decide which to carry out? Suppose the Feds raid a legal California medical dispensary. Jerry Brown's role is to faithfully execute the law of California; to do that he'll need to have his police forces arrest the federal agents. (Which if you ask me would be highly appropriate, especially if followed up by a prosecution of the federal officers on state charges of attempted murder if any of the dispensary's clients are cancer patients who need marijuana for appetite stimulus.) Of course it's no doubt illegal under federal law to interfere with federal agents faithfully executing federal law. But that just throws us back to the question of what it means to faithfully execute the law when the laws contradict each other. So do you think state police should arrest federal police who raid legal dispensaries?

Gee, if only there were some clause in your Constitution which could determine these criteria.

 

[Bomb#20]

Which law is it the executive's role to faithfully execute? When there are two contradictory laws on the books, how should the executive decide which to carry out? Suppose the Feds raid a legal California medical dispensary. Jerry Brown's role is to faithfully execute the law of California; to do that he'll need to have his police forces arrest the federal agents. (Which if you ask me would be highly appropriate, especially if followed up by a prosecution of the federal officers on state charges of attempted murder if any of the dispensary's clients are cancer patients who need marijuana for appetite stimulus.) Of course it's no doubt illegal under federal law to interfere with federal agents faithfully executing federal law. But that just throws us back to the question of what it means to faithfully execute the law when the laws contradict each other. So do you think state police should arrest federal police who raid legal dispensaries?

Gee, if only there were some clause in your Constitution which could determine these criteria.

I take it from your tone that you're missing the point. Yes, there's a clause in the Constitution that says the feds outrank the states. I presume Blahface knows that; I was inviting him to come up with that as a solution to the Jerry Brown problem. The point was to get him to propose that in the event of a conflict between two laws, the proper course for the executive is to carry out the higher ranking law. Which leads to the follow-up question...

So until SCOTUS strikes the law down, the executive has a duty to enforce it

Why is he arguing as though a plain, vanilla Act of Congress is a higher ranking law than the Constitution?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I believe the most objective interpretation of the constitution would deem most drug laws unconstitutional, but it is the role of SCOTUS to interpret the constitution. It is the executive's role to faithfully execute the law. So until SCOTUS strikes the law down, the executive has a duty to enforce it ( even though they usually just enforce what they want in practice).

Which law is it the executive's role to faithfully execute? When there are two contradictory laws on the books, how should the executive decide which to carry out? Suppose the Feds raid a legal California medical dispensary. Jerry Brown's role is to faithfully execute the law of California; to do that he'll need to have his police forces arrest the federal agents. (Which if you ask me would be highly appropriate, especially if followed up by a prosecution of the federal officers on state charges of attempted murder if any of the dispensary's clients are cancer patients who need marijuana for appetite stimulus.) Of course it's no doubt illegal under federal law to interfere with federal agents faithfully executing federal law. But that just throws us back to the question of what it means to faithfully execute the law when the laws contradict each other. So do you think state police should arrest federal police who raid legal dispensaries?

I'd go farther: In the case of contradictory laws the defendant should get to pick which one applies.

 

[ronburgundy]

The Fed should not decide to not enforce a law just because it is unpopular or in conflict with a State's laws. However, finite resources mean that it should enforce laws where the actual threat and harm done to others is greatest by not enforcing the Fed . That puts pot laws at the very bottom of the list. They should be spending thousands of times more resources than currently on white collar and corporate crime before they ever thing of spending one hour trying to stop people from buying pot from anywhere, let alone a dispensary considered legal within its State.

If the Fed follows this rule, then it will override and enforce against a State's will, whenever the State is allowing (or even requiring) people to be harmed (as in the case of civil rights violations).

 

[arkirk]

I would tend to go along with Bomb on this one except for the fact that the in today's U.S., the Constitution is being ignored by all three of the branches of government on a regular basis. The first amendment of the constitution is regularly violated by police in almost every location. We have the Patriot Act. To my way of thinking, the drug laws in this country are about as sensible as laws trying to keep people from making love, cussing, and not driving new cars. If you look at the general shape of our authoritarian government today, it bears no resemblance to a government that complies with our constitution and amendments thereto.

With all the constitutional violations the privileged in this country indulge in, to single our marijuana laws is ridiculous. No law, including things like murder really means much to those with enough money to buy their way out around the law. The idea that we somehow have arrived at a tight and very fair system of laws that protect the people from harm is ludicrous. A government that controls its population with fear IS NOT GOOD GOVERNMENT. Check out a copy of Reefer Madness and you will see a real fairy story designed to empower the marijuana laws based on FEAR of marijuana powered fiends.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Drug Dealers should spend life in prison. Drug Dealers to kids, or caught near a school zone should be executed. In a public square. Yeah..that's right.

What if the drug dealer is 12, dealing his mother's medication in the bathroom of the school he attends? Execution or life in prison?

 

[Kharakov]

In the face of new evidence, I have to revise my opinion about the dangers of marijuana.

DEA agents working closely with their counterparts in Caerbannog, Wales have discovered evidence that marijuana grows can alter the behavior of local wildlife.

Fortunately, a monastic order in Antioch has already developed a method of dealing with the crazed wildlife.