How is it legal for the goverment to dictate what plants you can't grow or use?

[spidey07]

Taughnter - your last two paragraphs were the result of some monumental supreme court decision. I just can't think of it off the top of my head. Some guy was growing wheat for his family/community, in his own state. The SC ruled the via the commerce clause the gubment could stop him.

 

[Insomniator]

Originally posted by: Wheezer
ummm.......no one is telling you that you cannot grow a field of pot.

What they are telling you is that IF you do there will be consequences for your actions and just like everything else you have to weight if it's worth it or not.

The choice remains yours.

The fact that you won't WANT to go to jail or have a record is not the governments problem.

Murder is illegal and yet it happens everyday, some get away with it some don't, not to say that you can't kill someone...you can...the question is, is this persons life spending yours in prison?....it a gamble and a choice that only the individual can make.

What the hell kind of an argument is that? Really, can you explain to me the point of you posting that?

I think we can all agree murder is inherently wrong, the gov. doesn't need to warn us with jail time to keep that crime down.

The government's decision to impose consequences on us for smoking (hell lets just leave it at GROWING) one plant vs another is quite a bit different however.

What if pot had beautiful unique flowers? Would people so easily allow it to be outlawed? What if there is some process that allows Lillis to be used as drugs. Should they be banned?

 

[IceBergSLiM]

The points you are making are valid that the fed doesn't necessarily make these decisions but it basically strong arms states to do their bidding by threatening to withhold fed funds for education, roads etc.

Political extortion?

 

[Ns1]

Prop215/sb420 ftw

 

[tyler811]

Originally posted by: Arkitech

Originally posted by: I Saw OJ
You talkin about weed?

Absolutely.

If I prefer weed over alcohol, should'nt it be *my* decision to use it and not some idiot politician. If the goverment can decide what recreational substances the public should use what's stopping them from telling us what kind of clothers we should wear or music we should listen to. Perhaps we should all eat the same kind of foods and listen to the same type of musc.

It pisses off when I hear people refer to weed as the gateway drug when really alcohol is the gateway drug.

Then move to Amsterdam

 

[SlitheryDee]

It's legal because we made it so. The government isn't able to do anything that it doesn't first convince a majority is a good idea to do. That's not to say that a country that purports itself to be "free" and uses various expressions of freedom as its essential moniker is honoring the spirit of that freedom by limiting something as private and personal as what kind of plant a person can have even one of growing on their property. That strikes me as almost as invasive and limiting as picking any of a number of harmless, but somehow questionable hobbies and outlawing it. There should be virtually no limit to the activities you can pursue in your own home besides those necessary for keeping you from directly harming anyone else or limiting the personal freedom of anyone else. You can make anything legal with a majority vote, but you're a fool if you think you can keep your freedom even while voting yourself into a cage.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Scouzer
show me the freedom to smoke plants amendment in the constitution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...ed_States_Constitution

"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."

Of course, it's not like the government uses those rules as more than "guidelines" that are followed "most of the time, except when we don't like to"

Seems like those rules indicate states have a right to decide this matter. They do decide it. Feds only get involved in certain cases over which they have jurisdiction such as interstate commerce or federal grant money. Where's the problem?

1. Flagrant abuse of the interstate commerce clause to regulate everything and anything.
2. They DON'T get to regulate it. CA, along with other states would be fine legalizing certain things, but they can't because the feds would just come in and arrest people anyway.

 

[FoBoT]

Originally posted by: spidey07
Taughnter - your last two paragraphs were the result of some monumental supreme court decision. I just can't think of it off the top of my head. Some guy was growing wheat for his family/community, in his own state. The SC ruled the via the commerce clause the gubment could stop him.

a very dark day in US politics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

Amount of wheat at issue
In July 1940, pursuant to the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, Filburn's 1941 allotment was established at 11.1 acres (45,000 m2) and a normal yield of 20.1 bushels of wheat per acre. Filburn was given notice of the allotment in July 1940 before the Fall planting of his 1941 crop of wheat, and again in July 1941, before it was harvested. Despite these notices Filburn planted 23 acres (93,000 m2) and harvested 239 bushels from his 11.9 acres (48,000 m2) of excess area.[2]

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: FoBoT

Originally posted by: spidey07
Taughnter - your last two paragraphs were the result of some monumental supreme court decision. I just can't think of it off the top of my head. Some guy was growing wheat for his family/community, in his own state. The SC ruled the via the commerce clause the gubment could stop him.

a very dark day in US politics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

Amount of wheat at issue
In July 1940, pursuant to the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, Filburn's 1941 allotment was established at 11.1 acres (45,000 m2) and a normal yield of 20.1 bushels of wheat per acre. Filburn was given notice of the allotment in July 1940 before the Fall planting of his 1941 crop of wheat, and again in July 1941, before it was harvested. Despite these notices Filburn planted 23 acres (93,000 m2) and harvested 239 bushels from his 11.9 acres (48,000 m2) of excess area.[2]

That's it! Thanks. Should be required reading for everybody in this thread. This is the one that set the precedent. Sad day indeed.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: FoBoT

Originally posted by: spidey07
Taughnter - your last two paragraphs were the result of some monumental supreme court decision. I just can't think of it off the top of my head. Some guy was growing wheat for his family/community, in his own state. The SC ruled the via the commerce clause the gubment could stop him.

a very dark day in US politics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

Amount of wheat at issue
In July 1940, pursuant to the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, Filburn's 1941 allotment was established at 11.1 acres (45,000 m2) and a normal yield of 20.1 bushels of wheat per acre. Filburn was given notice of the allotment in July 1940 before the Fall planting of his 1941 crop of wheat, and again in July 1941, before it was harvested. Despite these notices Filburn planted 23 acres (93,000 m2) and harvested 239 bushels from his 11.9 acres (48,000 m2) of excess area.[2]

That's it! Thanks. Should be required reading for everybody in this thread. This is the one that set the precedent. Sad day indeed.

Just about everything that happened under FDR's "I can fix everything plan" fucked up America. He had pigs slaughtered and buried to force prices up, while people starved to death a few miles away.