Nullification at Work: Marijuana in CA

The federal government believes in might makes right. They do not care aboutrights they only care about power (theirs). The rich rule and the poor (you and I) are slaves.

@Patrick Henry: If it is true what you say, then the 10th Amendment Center is worthless until the States change their Constitutions to be in conformance once again with the original Constitutions. Any advice as to how to get started?

The only thing that is truly obvious here Mr. Constitutional student is that you have attempted to promote a ridicules reading of my state constitution.

And to tell you the truth, Patrick Henry, I don’t care, if you do think, I should not defend what is holy to me, from dogs like you.

The only thing that is truly obvious here Mr. Constitutional student is that you have attempted to promote a ridicules reading of my state constitution.

And to tell you the truth, Patrick Henry, I don’t care, if you do think, I should not defend what is holy to me, from dogs like you.

Hi JMB,

Thanks for taking my text and intentionally misquoting me “out of context”. (a cowardly act of Character Assassination or kill the messenger for pointing out the obvious??)

For those that are interested, it was clear to anyone with the reading skills of a 5th grader (including the Moderators of this site)..that Alan Dershowitz rather than the IL constitution of 1970 was the source (their are many others) of this conclusion/ determination.. (Please see below)

“”In short the 10th Amendment is dead or dormant (see Alan M. Dershowitz, Harvard Law Professor’s comments on this subject) and any claim of State Sovereignty … is now void and inoperative.”"
-P.H.

# JMB Says:
October 4th, 2009 at 2:25 am

“In short the 10th Amendment is dead or dormant and any claim of State Sovereignty … is now void and inoperative.”
-JMB

“”Well, that was a disappointment, I just spent a lot of my otherwise precious time looking for this specific statement, in my Illinois state constitution, to no avail.”"
-JMB

It would appear that JMB is either intellectually dishonest (mean spirited) or has profound problems with comprehending the English language.

“Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces.”
-Matthew 7:6 (NKJV)

Warm Regards,

P.H.

Hi JMB,

Thanks for taking my text and intentionally misquoting me “out of context”. (a cowardly act of Character Assassination or kill the messenger for pointing out the obvious??)

For those that are interested, it was clear to anyone with the reading skills of a 5th grader (including the Moderators of this site)..that Alan Dershowitz rather than the IL constitution of 1970 was the source (their are many others) of this conclusion/ determination.. (Please see below)

“”In short the 10th Amendment is dead or dormant (see Alan M. Dershowitz, Harvard Law Professor’s comments on this subject) and any claim of State Sovereignty … is now void and inoperative.”"
-P.H.

# JMB Says:
October 4th, 2009 at 2:25 am

“In short the 10th Amendment is dead or dormant and any claim of State Sovereignty … is now void and inoperative.”
-JMB

“”Well, that was a disappointment, I just spent a lot of my otherwise precious time looking for this specific statement, in my Illinois state constitution, to no avail.”"
-JMB

It would appear that JMB is either intellectually dishonest (mean spirited) or has profound problems with comprehending the English language.

“Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces.”
-Matthew 7:6 (NKJV)

Warm Regards,

P.H.

Great comment responses, every one worth my reading, thanks.

“In short the 10th Amendment is dead or dormant and any claim of State Sovereignty … is now void and inoperative.”

Well, that was a disappointment, I just spent a lot of my otherwise precious time looking for this specific statement, in my Illinois state constitution, to no avail.

“In short the 10th Amendment is dead or dormant and any claim of State Sovereignty … is now void and inoperative.”

Well, that was a disappointment, I just spent a lot of my otherwise precious time looking for this specific statement, in my Illinois state constitution, to no avail.

@Patrick Henry:

Who cares?

All that legal stuff is just mumbo jumbo – it doesn’t matter. If a mass of people refuse to cooperate with that “law” or any other law as the federal government demands of us – that’s all that matters. It’s the practical reality. If the people of California decide to stand up and say NO to the federal government, D.C. is sure going to have a hard time trying to enforce their opinions on us.

@Patrick Henry:

Who cares?

All that legal stuff is just mumbo jumbo – it doesn’t matter. If a mass of people refuse to cooperate with that “law” or any other law as the federal government demands of us – that’s all that matters. It’s the practical reality. If the people of California decide to stand up and say NO to the federal government, D.C. is sure going to have a hard time trying to enforce their opinions on us.

“”"When a state ‘nullifies’ a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or ‘non-effective,’ within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as that state is concerned.”"”

As a student of Constitutional Law I find it amusing, as the author suggests any matter of controversy between Federal v State jurisdiction (regardless of subject matter) may be contested “within the boundaries of that state”. The simply rational basis of this claim is unfounded in reality as these referenced “boundaries” or Territorial Jurisdiction claims were removed or redacted from all state constitutions beginning in the mid 1960’s to the early 1970’s. To verify this as fact, a simple comparative of the new state Constitutions (or revisions) to the old make this clear (see Illinois Constitutions of 1818, 1848 and 1870 at Article One http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Illinois_Constitution_of_1818, http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Illinois_Constitution_of_1848, http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Illinois_Constitution_of_1870 and compare to Illinois Constitution of 1970 http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Illinois_Constitution_of_1970 Oooops no Territorial Jurisdiction claim here!!). Several other modifications were made to state constitutions at this time including but not limited to removing any protection or recognition of American Common Law, removing many protections against arbitrary arrest (the General Assembly was given the right, not only to abolish the grand jury, but to limit its use.. no need to obtain a Grand Jury Indictment or Sworn Affidavit to make an arrest and incarcerate). These substantial changes were made to better conform to “The New Order of Things” (without a clear state territorial jurisdiction claim, the state government’s were free to impose Federal Law without regard to the SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE) as per Constitution Conventional Scholars Elmer Gertz & Edward S. Gilbreth (both were active parties involved with Illinois Constitution Convention of 1969 and co-authors of “Charter for a New Age” & Quest For A Constitution: A Man Who Wouldn’t Quit”). It also important to note that the “fundamental element” of the state being Citizens of a State (collectively known as We the People) had accepted Federal citizenship under the purported 14th Amendment.. (See Social Security application at http://www.ssa.gov/online/ss-5.pdf with special attention to question #3 CITIZENSHIP, this is where Americans make the election to become U.S. citizens and waive their Natural Rights and protection under the American Common Law as Citizens of a State). With no State Citizens, the State Governments that were “Republican in Nature” became obsolete.

The states today can best be described as “Quasi Federal” and certainly not Republican in Nature (or considered the original state governments “Incorporated into the Union”).

In short the 10th Amendment is dead or dormant (see Alan M. Dershowitz, Harvard Law Professor’s comments on this subject) and any claim of State Sovereignty … is now void and inoperative.

Warm Regards,

Patrick Henry

“”"When a state ‘nullifies’ a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or ‘non-effective,’ within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as that state is concerned.”"”

As a student of Constitutional Law I find it amusing, as the author suggests any matter of controversy between Federal v State jurisdiction (regardless of subject matter) may be contested “within the boundaries of that state”. The simply rational basis of this claim is unfounded in reality as these referenced “boundaries” or Territorial Jurisdiction claims were removed or redacted from all state constitutions beginning in the mid 1960’s to the early 1970’s. To verify this as fact, a simple comparative of the new state Constitutions (or revisions) to the old make this clear (see Illinois Constitutions of 1818, 1848 and 1870 at Article One http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Illinois_Constitution_of_1818, http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Illinois_Constitution_of_1848, http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Illinois_Constitution_of_1870 and compare to Illinois Constitution of 1970 http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Illinois_Constitution_of_1970 Oooops no Territorial Jurisdiction claim here!!). Several other modifications were made to state constitutions at this time including but not limited to removing any protection or recognition of American Common Law, removing many protections against arbitrary arrest (the General Assembly was given the right, not only to abolish the grand jury, but to limit its use.. no need to obtain a Grand Jury Indictment or Sworn Affidavit to make an arrest and incarcerate). These substantial changes were made to better conform to “The New Order of Things” (without a clear state territorial jurisdiction claim, the state government’s were free to impose Federal Law without regard to the SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE) as per Constitution Conventional Scholars Elmer Gertz & Edward S. Gilbreth (both were active parties involved with Illinois Constitution Convention of 1969 and co-authors of “Charter for a New Age” & Quest For A Constitution: A Man Who Wouldn’t Quit”). It also important to note that the “fundamental element” of the state being Citizens of a State (collectively known as We the People) had accepted Federal citizenship under the purported 14th Amendment.. (See Social Security application at http://www.ssa.gov/online/ss-5.pdf with special attention to question #3 CITIZENSHIP, this is where Americans make the election to become U.S. citizens and waive their Natural Rights and protection under the American Common Law as Citizens of a State). With no State Citizens, the State Governments that were “Republican in Nature” became obsolete.

The states today can best be described as “Quasi Federal” and certainly not Republican in Nature (or considered the original state governments “Incorporated into the Union”).

In short the 10th Amendment is dead or dormant (see Alan M. Dershowitz, Harvard Law Professor’s comments on this subject) and any claim of State Sovereignty … is now void and inoperative.

Warm Regards,

Patrick Henry

Note to “terry_freeman”: “Sale” and “possession” are two totally different things. My home state of Texas has dozens of dry cities and counties, but they do not prohibit possession. In fact, on the highway you can always tell when you’re going from a dry county to a wet one — all the taverns & liquor stores just across the county line, where people buy booze to take back home. Texans have an old saying about Southern Baptists — “they vote dry and drink wet.”

Something similar will soon be happening at the state level. Massachusetts recently enacted huge tax hikes on alcohol, so residents will simply drive to tax-free New Hampshire for their booze.

Note to “terry_freeman”: “Sale” and “possession” are two totally different things. My home state of Texas has dozens of dry cities and counties, but they do not prohibit possession. In fact, on the highway you can always tell when you’re going from a dry county to a wet one — all the taverns & liquor stores just across the county line, where people buy booze to take back home. Texans have an old saying about Southern Baptists — “they vote dry and drink wet.”

Something similar will soon be happening at the state level. Massachusetts recently enacted huge tax hikes on alcohol, so residents will simply drive to tax-free New Hampshire for their booze.

I really don’t want any reefer addicts injecting reefer into their eyeballs and nodding out on my doorstep. Everyone knows reefer kills or why would it be called ‘killa weed’?

Hell, making reefer legal would take jobs away from Americans like COPS, courts, jails, jail furniture manufacturers, scum-of-the-earth lawyers, legislators and put a considerable portion of the CIAs’ illicit funding at risk.

And don’t forget everytime you inject a joint into your bloodstream you’re helping Osama bin Hidin’ destroy what he hates the most, your freedom.

I really don’t want any reefer addicts injecting reefer into their eyeballs and nodding out on my doorstep. Everyone knows reefer kills or why would it be called ‘killa weed’?

Hell, making reefer legal would take jobs away from Americans like COPS, courts, jails, jail furniture manufacturers, scum-of-the-earth lawyers, legislators and put a considerable portion of the CIAs’ illicit funding at risk.

And don’t forget everytime you inject a joint into your bloodstream you’re helping Osama bin Hidin’ destroy what he hates the most, your freedom.

JMB writes (asks?):

“And will it be legal to smoke this stuff in front of our own children, or any body else’s, for that matter.”

Well, JMB, I suppose that would depend on how authoritarian the voters are in a given jurisdiction. So far, most people haven’t objected to the ingestion of other drugs in front of children. People routinely eat prescription narcotics, drink alcohol, and smoke cigarettes in front of children.

I think it is a bad idea to break laws in front of one’s children as that may make them complicit by being a witness. But, why should engaging in legal behavior in front of children be illegal? It’s probably not a good idea to expose kids to bad habits so as to not influence them to take up the behavior, but to criminalize this is another matter.

I can only imagine the outrage among some “patriots” if groups of pot smokers were to lobby lawmakers to prohibit the use of tobacco or alcohol in homes where there are children. People need to learn that freedom is a two-way street that requires acceptance of things that are none of their business to begin with.

JMB writes (asks?):

“And will it be legal to smoke this stuff in front of our own children, or any body else’s, for that matter.”

Well, JMB, I suppose that would depend on how authoritarian the voters are in a given jurisdiction. So far, most people haven’t objected to the ingestion of other drugs in front of children. People routinely eat prescription narcotics, drink alcohol, and smoke cigarettes in front of children.

I think it is a bad idea to break laws in front of one’s children as that may make them complicit by being a witness. But, why should engaging in legal behavior in front of children be illegal? It’s probably not a good idea to expose kids to bad habits so as to not influence them to take up the behavior, but to criminalize this is another matter.

I can only imagine the outrage among some “patriots” if groups of pot smokers were to lobby lawmakers to prohibit the use of tobacco or alcohol in homes where there are children. People need to learn that freedom is a two-way street that requires acceptance of things that are none of their business to begin with.

“Dry counties” are downright silly, when you think of it. You buy some beer in county A, where it is legal. You want to visit your friends in county C, where it is also legal. In between, you must travel through county B, which is a “dry” county. You pray that the State troopers do not stop and inspect your trunk, lest you be arrested and fined. How dumb is that? Do we want to encourage similar stops for marijuana?

Portugal legalized drugs in 2001. The world did not end. Their society did not turn into a wild drug-driven bacchnnal.

As for driving under the influence – let the behavior of the driver be the yardstick. If the driver is weaving, or otherwise driving in an unsafe manner, that’s cause for stopping the driver – whether the root is fatigue, alcohol, flu medication, sugar levels, or dope.

“Dry counties” are downright silly, when you think of it. You buy some beer in county A, where it is legal. You want to visit your friends in county C, where it is also legal. In between, you must travel through county B, which is a “dry” county. You pray that the State troopers do not stop and inspect your trunk, lest you be arrested and fined. How dumb is that? Do we want to encourage similar stops for marijuana?

Portugal legalized drugs in 2001. The world did not end. Their society did not turn into a wild drug-driven bacchnnal.

As for driving under the influence – let the behavior of the driver be the yardstick. If the driver is weaving, or otherwise driving in an unsafe manner, that’s cause for stopping the driver – whether the root is fatigue, alcohol, flu medication, sugar levels, or dope.

I believe that there are many other concerns involved here that should be addressed preemptively by those proper authorities, (the state lawmakers,) so as to make reasonable this new freeness of attitude to all those that might be inevitably affected.

The contentious possibilities creatable between that of a free smoking village and a not so free city are much more complicated then they might appear at first.

Are there practical ways to judge how stoned someone might be when driving a car.

And will it be legal to smoke this stuff in front of our own children, or any body else’s, for that matter.

The United States Constitution, and each individual state constitution admonishes that our state legislators have these responsibilities of properly addressing these issues.

Somebody better start getting busy hear, and I don’t think it should be those ever trustworthy advocacy groups either.

I believe that there are many other concerns involved here that should be addressed preemptively by those proper authorities, (the state lawmakers,) so as to make reasonable this new freeness of attitude to all those that might be inevitably affected.

The contentious possibilities creatable between that of a free smoking village and a not so free city are much more complicated then they might appear at first.

Are there practical ways to judge how stoned someone might be when driving a car.

And will it be legal to smoke this stuff in front of our own children, or any body else’s, for that matter.

The United States Constitution, and each individual state constitution admonishes that our state legislators have these responsibilities of properly addressing these issues.

Somebody better start getting busy hear, and I don’t think it should be those ever trustworthy advocacy groups either.

There are states where alcohol can be sold but there are dry counties within those states. In one case, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, booze is actually sold by the state, but individual counties can opt out, and there are dry counties there. Alabama has dry counties and so does Oklahoma. And there are other states with similar systems as well.

California is a big state with a big diverse population, and individual counties and municipalities should be allowed to opt out of pot legalization if they so choose. The legalization advocates would have a far less difficult time getting their bill passed if they included a provision to give final authority to local governments.

Sometimes the discussion about the medical use of marijuana gets mixed together with concerns about generalized legalization of marijuana. Marijuana in various forms, not usually smoked, has been used as medicine for centuries in many parts of the world. Marijuana appears to provide relief from pain, nausea, and other symptoms, with fewer ill effects and a greater margin of safety than many other classes of drugs. In particular, marijuana is safer than the narcotic drugs commonly administered for pain, and safer even than the non-narcotic drugs such as aspirin, ibuprofen and related compounds that are responsible for a few hundred fatal poisonings per year (http://www.acponline.org/journals/annals/15sep97/nsaid.htm).

From the American College of Physicians, 2008: “Evidence not only supports the use of medical marijuana in certain conditions but also suggests numerous indications for cannabinoids. Additional research is needed to further clarify the therapeutic value of cannabinoids and determine optimal routes of administration. The science on medical marijuana should not be obscured or hindered by the debate surrounding the legalization of marijuana for general use.”

Link to the American College of Physicians paper on medical marijuana at http://www.acponline.org/advocacy/where_we_stand/other_issues/medmarijuana.pdf

As Americans, we would be wise to adopt an approach allowing individuals to grow a little marijuana for personal use. It would put the illegal drug dealers out of business if users could legally grow a small amount for themselves and/or share it with others. Limit the size of the growing area or the number of plants, and put a small user-fee on it to cover administrative costs, something like a fishing license.

One possibility:$100 per year for a permit to cultivate a dozen plants.
It’s a win-win.

Sometimes the discussion about the medical use of marijuana gets mixed together with concerns about generalized legalization of marijuana. Marijuana in various forms, not usually smoked, has been used as medicine for centuries in many parts of the world. Marijuana appears to provide relief from pain, nausea, and other symptoms, with fewer ill effects and a greater margin of safety than many other classes of drugs. In particular, marijuana is safer than the narcotic drugs commonly administered for pain, and safer even than the non-narcotic drugs such as aspirin, ibuprofen and related compounds that are responsible for a few hundred fatal poisonings per year (http://www.acponline.org/journals/annals/15sep97/nsaid.htm).

From the American College of Physicians, 2008: “Evidence not only supports the use of medical marijuana in certain conditions but also suggests numerous indications for cannabinoids. Additional research is needed to further clarify the therapeutic value of cannabinoids and determine optimal routes of administration. The science on medical marijuana should not be obscured or hindered by the debate surrounding the legalization of marijuana for general use.”

Link to the American College of Physicians paper on medical marijuana at http://www.acponline.org/advocacy/where_we_stand/other_issues/medmarijuana.pdf

As Americans, we would be wise to adopt an approach allowing individuals to grow a little marijuana for personal use. It would put the illegal drug dealers out of business if users could legally grow a small amount for themselves and/or share it with others. Limit the size of the growing area or the number of plants, and put a small user-fee on it to cover administrative costs, something like a fishing license.

One possibility:$100 per year for a permit to cultivate a dozen plants.
It’s a win-win.

I think we can view Los Angeles as a test case for Marijuana legalization, as there are now more dispensaries in my part of the San Fernando Valley than 7-11s. I’d like to get an objective opinion from cops on the street as to how this has affected the trends of crime and violence in the area. If the consensus is a decrease in violence and criminal acts, then I would have a hard time seeing why the people of the CA Republic would change their minds after legalizing.

In terms of what personnel are entrusted with the prevention of Federal abuses, I still refer to Sheriff Mack from AZ. He’s about the furthest thing from a pothead that I can imagine, but is very much opposed to the Federal war on drugs. His point that Sheriffs are the only elected law enforcement personnel is very interesting.

I think we can view Los Angeles as a test case for Marijuana legalization, as there are now more dispensaries in my part of the San Fernando Valley than 7-11s. I’d like to get an objective opinion from cops on the street as to how this has affected the trends of crime and violence in the area. If the consensus is a decrease in violence and criminal acts, then I would have a hard time seeing why the people of the CA Republic would change their minds after legalizing.

In terms of what personnel are entrusted with the prevention of Federal abuses, I still refer to Sheriff Mack from AZ. He’s about the furthest thing from a pothead that I can imagine, but is very much opposed to the Federal war on drugs. His point that Sheriffs are the only elected law enforcement personnel is very interesting.

Michael Boldin is right on point – again – and the court has said so!

Read Nigro v. U.S. where the Supreme Court held:

” in interpreting the Act (Anti-Narcotic Act of December 17, 1914, c. 1, 38 Stat. 785) … we must assume that it is a taxing measure, for otherwise it would be no law at all. If it is a mere act for the purpose of regulating and restraining the purchase of the opiate and other drugs, it is beyond the power of Congress, and must be regarded as invalid…”

This is still good law. Nothing has changed in Article I Sec. 8 of the organic document called the Constitution to grant the authority to Congress since it was first penned.

Politicians do not produce any commodity for our daily use…both State and Federal politicians. Their only focus is on getting elected and then re-elected! Their perception of how to do this is to make wild promises of spending on Yours and My pet projects. Mencken is quoted as having said, “every political campaign is a sneak preview of the sale of stolen goods.”

These politicians only seek re-election so they can continue their own harvest – of our livelihood. Yet, they all know mankind will buckle when it comes money.

1.Federal Government enacts the Federal Reserve Act.
2.Enactment allows the feds to borrow and spend without restraint. Taking as their collateral from their Borrower – a.)EVERY Deed of Trust on EVERY piece of property, or chattel on every piece of personal property where the funds come directly or indirectly through the Federal Reserve; and, b.) every social security number (and the accompanying right to receive the income tax associated with that number).
3.Fed knows the States will buckle to their (the feds) wishes by funding various state initiatives.
4.Fed grows its “hold” on all aspects of life by unbridled spending at every level on every facet of American life.
5.Fed constantly justifies its unbridled expansion into natural born American state citizens lives by controlling money.

Money for Clunkers
Money for Food
Money for Housing
Money for charity.
Money for television.
Money for retirement (social security).
Money for school lunchs.
Money for teacher retirement.
Money for roads.
Money for agriculture.
Money for the Arts.
Money for ACORN.
Money for college.
Money for home loans.
Money for advertising the U.S. Postal service.
Money, Money, Money

With the Money comes the strings. Stop taking the money and the strings become unattached that same moment.

Michael Boldin is right on point – again – and the court has said so!

Read Nigro v. U.S. where the Supreme Court held:

” in interpreting the Act (Anti-Narcotic Act of December 17, 1914, c. 1, 38 Stat. 785) … we must assume that it is a taxing measure, for otherwise it would be no law at all. If it is a mere act for the purpose of regulating and restraining the purchase of the opiate and other drugs, it is beyond the power of Congress, and must be regarded as invalid…”

This is still good law. Nothing has changed in Article I Sec. 8 of the organic document called the Constitution to grant the authority to Congress since it was first penned.

Politicians do not produce any commodity for our daily use…both State and Federal politicians. Their only focus is on getting elected and then re-elected! Their perception of how to do this is to make wild promises of spending on Yours and My pet projects. Mencken is quoted as having said, “every political campaign is a sneak preview of the sale of stolen goods.”

These politicians only seek re-election so they can continue their own harvest – of our livelihood. Yet, they all know mankind will buckle when it comes money.

1.Federal Government enacts the Federal Reserve Act.
2.Enactment allows the feds to borrow and spend without restraint. Taking as their collateral from their Borrower – a.)EVERY Deed of Trust on EVERY piece of property, or chattel on every piece of personal property where the funds come directly or indirectly through the Federal Reserve; and, b.) every social security number (and the accompanying right to receive the income tax associated with that number).
3.Fed knows the States will buckle to their (the feds) wishes by funding various state initiatives.
4.Fed grows its “hold” on all aspects of life by unbridled spending at every level on every facet of American life.
5.Fed constantly justifies its unbridled expansion into natural born American state citizens lives by controlling money.

Money for Clunkers
Money for Food
Money for Housing
Money for charity.
Money for television.
Money for retirement (social security).
Money for school lunchs.
Money for teacher retirement.
Money for roads.
Money for agriculture.
Money for the Arts.
Money for ACORN.
Money for college.
Money for home loans.
Money for advertising the U.S. Postal service.
Money, Money, Money

With the Money comes the strings. Stop taking the money and the strings become unattached that same moment.

This is amazing news. I am glad that CA has joined the fight for freedom.

Why would the govt leagalize the cure for many types of cancer? Why would the govt allow for a end of the drug war? The drug war consumes billions a year in tax dollars to futher federal authority. Why dose the govt want to end many of the so called drug wars? With no criminal prosicution for those found with drugs there would be no reason to run or be affraid. There for there can really be no shoot outs. No need to continue to arm feds and cops with more powerful weapons which only raise taxes and keep no one safe. No need for "criminals" to be affraid of 20yrs for an ounce. Why would the federal govt want you to realise that you dont need them? The fda will approve of any drug they can enforce or control that will not instantly kill you. Nor can the drug have "severe" reactions in a mass populus. Marijuana is the only known drug that you cant O.D. on. The only way you can die from Mj is to choke on a bud as you try to swallow it hole. Why does the govt want to give up costly kemo for a plant that cost 25 bucks a year to grow? The answer is quite simple the US Govt is the biggest importer of illegal drugs and distrubitor in this country. Not to mention the propaganda and control the govt gets by keeping it illegal. Sadly i do not see this drug being legal here in the states. It is a topic that truly saddends me. 1/3 of the population have been arrested for mj violation. 1/3 of the population cant work for the govt cant get college loans cant qualify for many top end jobs due to a conviction of sitting home getting high. They didnt rape anyone kill anyone just minded there own business. Yes not all convictions were victomless but the majority were. Because of a plant. But you can legally get drugs that kill your sens of smell and taste. You can legal get drugs that change your mood leagally get drugs that give you cancer trouble pissing dizzyness cause suicidal thoughts uncontrolled bl;eading and the list goes on. But a drug that only gives the munchies and gives you a time of increased creativity is sooo bad

I am not from California, so what I have to say about this issue dose not matter very much, however.
I think it would be foolhardy for these state legislators to surrender their responsibilities regarding this particular issue.
I do not think it is proper for organized advocates to be writing up any laws, a state citizen can not vote an advocacy group out of office.
And what if 51 percent, over 49 percent, of this states population decide in 2012 that they no longer like this new law, should legislators now be in the business of searching out advocacy groups who agree with this fickle nature of a 1 percent swinging door population.

I think that every citizen who votes for a law, or against a law, should be removed from their office without any further delay.

Maybe we should brake this kind of reasoning all the way down to those individual streets in our own neighborhoods, and may the best street gang, win the day.

I wonder what kind of bribe it will take to turn my neighbors no vote into a yes vote, that’s not against the law is it?

This sounds to me like the California state legislators are planing to throw their people under the proverbial judicial buss.

I am not from California, so what I have to say about this issue dose not matter very much, however.
I think it would be foolhardy for these state legislators to surrender their responsibilities regarding this particular issue.
I do not think it is proper for organized advocates to be writing up any laws, a state citizen can not vote an advocacy group out of office.
And what if 51 percent, over 49 percent, of this states population decide in 2012 that they no longer like this new law, should legislators now be in the business of searching out advocacy groups who agree with this fickle nature of a 1 percent swinging door population.

I think that every citizen who votes for a law, or against a law, should be removed from their office without any further delay.

Maybe we should brake this kind of reasoning all the way down to those individual streets in our own neighborhoods, and may the best street gang, win the day.

I wonder what kind of bribe it will take to turn my neighbors no vote into a yes vote, that’s not against the law is it?

This sounds to me like the California state legislators are planing to throw their people under the proverbial judicial buss.

LOCAL governments decide how to handle it, not THE STATE OF CA. This is significant in my mind...what does local mean? State? County? District?

Michael Boldin a note for future needs. Disputes will doubtlessly arise upon the implementation of Federal Escrow Accounts as well as expose the general unfairness of federal funds that will require an exact accounting of the proportional spending and taxation in and from every State by the Federal government. In other-words we will eventually require a generally agreed upon number for the cost each state may legitimate clam to be robed from in this regard in terms of everything they don't want, and how much they might be allowed to take from their Federal Contribution in order to pay for instead of taking the unconstitutional string attached spending. This kind of math could possibly be done with computers, but the real issue will be establish an independent 3rd party source that all states could point to in justifying their actions. Because we are talking about them robbing other states if they take too much, and being robed from if they don't take enough, and the states Will be inclined to disagree on such things. It is vital that find someway to provide a 3rd party generally agreeable method of accounting, preferably several different sources. I would expect the Federal government to uses this dispute to justify actions against the States morally. We don't need this yet, but it might be fruitful to start looking around now for such 3rd party organizations that might being willing to do math and accounting on the behalf of the various state governments in their political arguments for justifying their deductions, as well as their case against the feds for unfairly robbing their people. In short: We will need to find a few "independent" accountants out there eventually... lol

Monorprise, thanks again for your perspective!

You're probably right that Federal Escrow Accounts are going to be a necessity to push back nationalization of all kinds of issues - be they drug enforcement, gun enforcement, or virtually everything else this unconstitutional regime in DC forces upon everyone.

Michael Boldin while we are not at all in dispute on this issue, as it is about who makes the laws not what the laws are.

I feel your classification of states that opt to go along with the Federal money for drug laws which the populations generally agree-with somewhat naive. Why would any state government take the risk and endure the cost of enforcing drug laws they agree with if they could possibly divert a large share of it else where?

While their exploitation of the situation is not necessarily helpful it is understandable and that doesn’t make them our enemy.

I am in agreement in that we will have to side with the left on some issues and the right on other issues, but not in our own State.

I believe our general goal can be achieved by creating the general disorder that exposes the unfairness of federal distribution of the general funds.

Why should California pay for Drug law enforcement which it nether wants nor has?
To the same degree why should Tennessee pay for gun law enforcement that it nether wants nor will hopefully have much longer?

This is the battle that has yet to seriously begin, but it is one in which we are headed to and hopefully preparing to fight and win. Winning being getting the Federal government out of theses areas all together.

It is certainly much more realistic to delay the cutting of the cost until the unfairness issue becomes apparent then to refuses money for an activity we would be doing otherwise with our own.

We would be getting ahead of ourselves and asking for too high a bar if we were to ask the people and their states NOT TO try and reclaim by any means necessary that money which they were forced to contribute in the first place.
We cannot expect a people or their state governments to ignore the economic equation, and not try and take as great a share of their federal tax contribution back as they can.

That is natural, and that is their right even if it is not within the legitimate rights of the federal government to take that money from them in the first place for theses end

Nullification cannot be so clear and absolute as to always take the greatest path of resistance.(Refusing all such illegal federal funds willfully given back to the state.) We simply cannot afford to wage this fight on all fronts all the time.
We instead must buy time until States can be driven to implement Federal Escrow accounts (risky and will take a great deal of time and unified efforts. Because the Feds will react strongly when we cut off their money supply), where they can directly take control of the money for domestic issues and thus keep their wealth from simply being redistributed to all the other States(IE: avoid forfeiting it all together).

I do not believe this was the message of alienating was what you conveyed so I do not think there is a dispute between us. I simply wanted to make this distinction clear.

Michael Boldin while we are not at all in dispute on this issue, as it is about who makes the laws not what the laws are.

I feel your classification of states that opt to go along with the Federal money for drug laws which the populations generally agree-with somewhat naive. Why would any state government take the risk and endure the cost of enforcing drug laws they agree with if they could possibly divert a large share of it else where?

While their exploitation of the situation is not necessarily helpful it is understandable and that doesn’t make them our enemy.

I am in agreement in that we will have to side with the left on some issues and the right on other issues, but not in our own State.

I believe our general goal can be achieved by creating the general disorder that exposes the unfairness of federal distribution of the general funds.

Why should California pay for Drug law enforcement which it nether wants nor has?
To the same degree why should Tennessee pay for gun law enforcement that it nether wants nor will hopefully have much longer?

This is the battle that has yet to seriously begin, but it is one in which we are headed to and hopefully preparing to fight and win. Winning being getting the Federal government out of theses areas all together.

It is certainly much more realistic to delay the cutting of the cost until the unfairness issue becomes apparent then to refuses money for an activity we would be doing otherwise with our own.

We would be getting ahead of ourselves and asking for too high a bar if we were to ask the people and their states NOT TO try and reclaim by any means necessary that money which they were forced to contribute in the first place.
We cannot expect a people or their state governments to ignore the economic equation, and not try and take as great a share of their federal tax contribution back as they can.

That is natural, and that is their right even if it is not within the legitimate rights of the federal government to take that money from them in the first place for theses end

Nullification cannot be so clear and absolute as to always take the greatest path of resistance.(Refusing all such illegal federal funds willfully given back to the state.) We simply cannot afford to wage this fight on all fronts all the time.
We instead must buy time until States can be driven to implement Federal Escrow accounts (risky and will take a great deal of time and unified efforts. Because the Feds will react strongly when we cut off their money supply), where they can directly take control of the money for domestic issues and thus keep their wealth from simply being redistributed to all the other States(IE: avoid forfeiting it all together).

I do not believe this was the message of alienating was what you conveyed so I do not think there is a dispute between us. I simply wanted to make this distinction clear.

It is far better that our states be divided upon these issues of liberty, then liberally forced to be united under them.

Monorprise - I'm pro Constitution. That means, I cheer on every effort to resist unconstitutional federal laws. That puts me on the side of conservatives at times, and on the side of liberals at other times.

The bottom line on the "drug war" is that the federal government doesn't have constitutional authority to say one way or the other on the legal status of this or any plant - or drug.

So, while it would be in line with the constitution for a state to make marijuana illegal, I don't see any state with the courage to refuse federal funding or federal enforcement of marijuana laws - and charging their own residents for the enforcement of it instead. If I'm wrong, please point me in that direction.

That keeps me far in the camp of the legalizers - they're the only ones doing something constitutional.

Lets not become overly pro-drugs here, lets remember the problem is not the drug laws but who is making them. The Conservative anti-drug states should be at full liberty to make and enforce their own drug laws, and in the interest of customs and law enforcement, States should be permitted to forbid the importation of such illegal drugs into their State. Non-adults must also be forbidden from crossing state lines without the permission of their parent or guardian. While neighboring States should respect such laws with regard to minors, in denying them such things if they cannot variety their State citizenship of a state that allows it or parental permission. We must not forget that our goal is that everyone should win, and that anyone of our ideas of what constitutes just law and order should not be imposed upon all others.

What good is pot if it's illegal to light it up? They'll have to rewrite tons of no-smoking laws to only prohibit tobacco. Go figure.

I believe the comments accurately generalize the real issue. Gun boat diplomacy IS the 'American Way'. It's only a matter of whom the vulnerable target of the 'diplomacy' IS at the time of the conversation.

If the above conjecture were false... would we be having this conversation? Aren't the same battles that MLK fought still being fought today? Isn't it only a matter of whom the villains are targeting?

How many imprisoned, beaten, tortured, tased, bloodied and bankrupted Americans does it take to qualify as not quite yet at the "free at last, free at last" finish line?

Hope I'm wrong.

I'm guessing that unless and until 'The States' use their own gunboat diplomacy to defend against the atrocities heretofore described, the more things change, the more they WILL stay the same.

Here's to Second Order Change,

Constant A. Change

The Federal Gov can not by law even so much as discuss legalization, it is up to the states to change the law on the state level, and the Federal Gov will follow suit, the Federal Gov is forbidden by law to lead this movement, if we were to wait for them, innocent people will still be going to jail for the next 1000 years, its set up that way, intimidation is all the Fed Gov has

so you’re saying that without using some kind of aggression of violence to “beat back” the bad guys, all efforts like this are useless? Was the civil disobedience by Ghandi and his followers something that meant “little”? How about MLK?

Resistance to immoral, unjust and unconstitutional laws doesn’t only come in the form of an armed standoff between federal and state officials.

so you’re saying that without using some kind of aggression of violence to “beat back” the bad guys, all efforts like this are useless? Was the civil disobedience by Ghandi and his followers something that meant “little”? How about MLK?

Resistance to immoral, unjust and unconstitutional laws doesn’t only come in the form of an armed standoff between federal and state officials.