NationStates Jolt Archive

It was said in another thread, "why don't we just let the states decide whether or not to legalize marijauna or not?"

and in another, "Why don't we let the states decide on whether to legalize guns or not?"


Well, obviously, these two questions are intertwined, and I'll answer them in the most efficient way possible.

Say, for example, California said guns were okay, and Arizona banned guns. Well say someone from California wasn't aware of this (this happens...a lot) and brought over a handgun to Arizona during the moving process.

Imagine the chaos that would reign in the man was found with the handgun in Arizona. The cops would be all over him, gun-less, in a second. Why? Because two states contradicted each other.

Oh screw this.

Well the states do have the power to decide whether or not to decriminalized marijuana. The federal government only prohibits sale/possesion on federal property, regulates sales, interstate trafficing, international trafficing, use of federal highways to transsport and sundry other federal forms. In fact if you can prove that even fifty pounds of marijuana has never been transported accross state lines and none of it will be transported accross state lines, you can get off on major federal charges for drug trafficing (good luck proving none will ever go across state lines).

As for guns, no. The right to bear arms is a federal right and applies to the citizens of the US and the citizens of the several states via the 14th amendment. States may regulate the right to bear arms but may not prohibit it. Once again the US government uses their power to regulate interstate commerce to create the rules for firearms it has. Provided your gun was made in one state of materials from that state and will never go into annother state (you won't prove that one), it is completely legal under federal law even if it is a machinegun, as long as it was manufactured legally.

Every country in the EU has its own policy on gun ownership. The EU allows free movement of persons. What's the problem?

The guy in Arizona is breaking the law, tough! He gets done. It is your responsibility to find out the law in a country you are moving to, not their responsibility. If you move from the USA to the UK and bring all your guns with you, we aren't going to say "hey, (s)he's American, it doesn't matter", guns are strictly forbidden in the UK, not even the police carry them.

It is okay to smoke Opium in a number of countries, but so should the US let those people bring bags of heroin into the mainland US? Of course not, it's illegal!

The states have different laws as it is. Transporting prohibited items over a border is and will be illegal. There is nothing different about inter-state law or international law. Nor is there anything special about guns or drugs that require the federal government to pass laws regarding.

It was said in another thread, "why don't we just let the states decide whether or not to legalize marijauna or not?"

and in another, "Why don't we let the states decide on whether to legalize guns or not?"

Because states' rights dont allow laws to pass which contradict the Constitution - and legalizing marijuana and banning gunds goes against it

Because states' rights dont allow laws to pass which contradict the Constitution - and legalizing marijuana and banning gunds goes against it

Where does the Constitution talk about marijuana? Would you care to point it out?

Well they do allow states to legalize marijuana as California did for medical use, but the Federal govt. will still not allow the state to go thru with the program.

and LOL the constitution does not forbid the legalization of Marijuana

Centralisation is bad.

Colodia wrote:>

"Say, for example, California said guns were okay, and Arizona banned guns. Well say someone from California wasn't aware of this (this happens...a lot) and brought over a handgun to Arizona during the moving process.
Imagine the chaos that would reign in the man was found with the handgun in Arizona. The cops would be all over him, gun-less, in a second. Why? Because two states contradicted each other."

Ok, You don't want the individual to have any responsibility or rights, that is apparently obvious. First your title is false on its face. The states don't want any bit of the federal power, The federal authority wants more power of the states now. The federal statutes place federal mandate as such: National Security, by unifying the 50 states in a pledge of direction as one country. In the federalist papers our founding fathers speak of this extensevely under the several states, knowing that the states wanted to retain thier own power, except the old power of declaring war on each other or a foreign invader. This became the federals main objective, to protect and ensure that every American (not just the states that allowed it) has a chance of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Outside of creating this patriotism for one country that originally one only had for one state, and ensuring a federal military and other national security entities, there isn't much left that our founding fathers wanted control over our states with. Now to address your hypothetical on Guns and marijuana.

When I moved from Oregon to Chicago ill , to Fort leonardwood MO, to Coronado California It was my responsibility to figure out the gun laws in each of those states and counties prior to being stationed there in the military. Each one of these states and cities/counties had differnet gun laws, as it is now we have states rights fairly decent, Im only calling on the attention of the voting American's to preserve our freedoms with these states rights.

The deal with *Medical* marijuana, thier is a difference, I am not calling for legalization of marijuana, I am calling on the fact that 9 states and thier voting public from each of those states have approved the use of medical marijuana for the sick and dying. You must have a doctor's recomendation of prescribtion for this medication. This is all legal because thier is nothing in our constitution about drugs what so ever, our founding fathers knew that this was the begining of a country and a begining of finding new medicines and cures for our people. The powers of the states are explained very well by squi in a posting to this thread, I believe the one right after your initial posting.

All I am calling for on the medical marijuana is that the federal government reclassify marijuana from a class 1 drug to a class 2 or 3. Because a class 1 drug is defined as having no theruputic uses what so ever, and science and tens of thousands of medi-marijuana patients can't be wrong.

Well they do allow states to legalize marijuana as California did for medical use, but the Federal govt. will still not allow the state to go thru with the program.
No they don't. The Feds have only threatened to prosecute doctors who prescribe marijuana for violating the fedral laws governing interstate commerce (practicing medicine is apparently interstate commerce). Oh and they have also threatened to shut off the gift of medicare money to the California, but come on that's a gift from the federal government and not an exercise of power.

Squi wrote:>

"No they don't. The Feds have only threatened to prosecute doctors who prescribe marijuana for violating the fedral laws governing interstate commerce (practicing medicine is apparently interstate commerce). Oh and they have also threatened to shut off the gift of medicare money to the California, but come on that's a gift from the federal government and not an exercise of power."

Right on with that, it has to do alot with commerce and interstate lines on the federal side, which can be understandable completly since we know that criminals are among every profession and lifestyle on earth. The problem I have is with it being marginalized to something outside of the actual issue at hand. Sick people is the issue and they have a prescription for a medication by thier doctor, these people didn't ask thier doctor to prescribe a specific medication, but to offer options to a failing drug therapy program that they are already on. I know vicadon, oxycontin and perkasets(spelling on these) are far more debilitating to the patient than a herbal natural remedy, that has been in existance since the begining of time, and spoken of in biblical tenses as a heal all remedy. Again makes sense to me, to say that because I wouldn't exactly choose this medication for my cancer or other debilitaing disease or issue, then nobody else should have the choice on this matter.

Squi wrote:>

"No they don't. The Feds have only threatened to prosecute doctors who prescribe marijuana for violating the fedral laws governing interstate commerce (practicing medicine is apparently interstate commerce). Oh and they have also threatened to shut off the gift of medicare money to the California, but come on that's a gift from the federal government and not an exercise of power."

Right on with that, it has to do alot with commerce and interstate lines on the federal side, which can be understandable completly since we know that criminals are among every profession and lifestyle on earth. The problem I have is with it being marginalized to something outside of the actual issue at hand. Sick people is the issue and they have a prescription for a medication by thier doctor, these people didn't ask thier doctor to prescribe a specific medication, but to offer options to a failing drug therapy program that they are already on. I know vicadon, oxycontin and perkasets(spelling on these) are far more debilitating to the patient than a herbal natural remedy, that has been in existance since the begining of time, and spoken of in biblical tenses as a heal all remedy. Again makes sense to me, to say that because I wouldn't exactly choose this medication for my cancer or other debilitaing disease or issue, then nobody else should have the choice on this matter.
As for marijuana and cancer, it is not used as a treatment but as a pallative for the side-effects of the treatment (chemo). It seem to fairly effective at damping the worse effects of chemo too, but it is not a treatment for the cancer. Where marijuana has some disputed medical effect is in the treatment of glaucoma, but while the studies I have seen show some effects which are worthy of further study they do not go so far as to show marijuana is an effective treatment.

Squi wrote:>
"As for marijuana and cancer, it is not used as a treatment but as a pallative for the side-effects of the treatment (chemo). It seem to fairly effective at damping the worse effects of chemo too, but it is not a treatment for the cancer. Where marijuana has some disputed medical effect is in the treatment of glaucoma, but while the studies I have seen show some effects which are worthy of further study they do not go so far as to show marijuana is an effective treatment."

I jumped the gun on the cancer deal, It should of read that marijuana is there to treat mainly pain that is caused by certain diseases and the nausiating effects of alot of medicines people will be requireed to take, especially aids patients that have like handfuls upon handfuls of daily medications. It can be used as a appetite inducer for people with cancer after chemo and other's that need help with an appetite, it has has been shown that cannibinoids contain a natural broncio-dialator(spelling) for people with lung problems such as asthma, (pretty wierd since it is usualy smoked) But one can eat it also. But the main reason from what I hear from friends that are med-mari-patients is that it is mainly thier to curb pain without the dabilitating effects the medication they were precsribed before and from being bed ridden due to those prior medications. It no doubt allows certain people to live a more useful life without the known side effects so many other medications are causing, and thats a good enough reason for me.