The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Crowder Finds Truth In Weeeeed

Posted on | November 26, 2012 | 23 Comments

by Smitty


I submit that the interesting angle is the federalist one. If people are allowed to decided which plants they want to be when they grow up, after what other liberty could they grasp?

Bookmark and Share

Comments

  • Wombat_socho

    “You look Jewish, anyway.” LOL.

  • http://thecampofthesaints.org Bob Belvedere

    went when they grow up’

  • http://thecampofthesaints.org Bob Belvedere

    It seems to me it should be a matter for the states. Where does The Constitution allow for drug or alcohol prohibitions or regulation?

  • http://twitter.com/richard_mcenroe richard mcenroe

    Check your fly before you go out and you’ll get less of that.

  • http://theothermccain.com smitty

    As noted in the post, it’s crucial we not let aspirations of liberty get too zany out there.

  • http://profiles.google.com/rob5136 Rob Crawford

    I have no problem with legalizing drugs. So long as I don’t have to support the drop-out addicts, they can ruin their lives all they want.

  • Finrod Felagund

    Precisely. It took the Eighteenth Amendment to ban alcohol federally, it should take no less to ban drugs.

    But that would presume that the United States is following the Constitution, which it hasn’t done since the time of FDR.

  • scarymatt

    I think the prohibition experiment in these states should be interesting. I have my doubts, but frankly that goes both ways.

    One of my first thoughts, however, was that it would be interesting to see how many people suddenly discover federalism.

    Also, news flash: stoners act like stoners.

  • http://twitter.com/richard_mcenroe richard mcenroe

    I say let the blue states legalize weed. Their election results are pre-printed anyway.

  • http://theothermccain.com smitty

    About this hope for separation you possess: stand by for it to be clubbed, baby seal style.

  • Freddie Sykes

    I think that the authorities have a role in keeping certain behaviors off the streets but no role, without violating the 4th Amendment, in controlling what goes on in a person’s home unless there is a victim who is brought forth to complain about such activity. Too many raids in our country are based on bad information supplied to our overly militarized police by lowlifes. Since warrants should only be issued when “supported by Oath or affirmation”, I think that these erroneous raids should result in investigations of the crime of perjury.

    PS: I would use marijuana but I do not know any felons selling it. I probably commit a few felonies a day due to the incomprehensible number of laws and regulations but that is not one of them.

  • Freddie Sykes

    I have no problem with open immigration, after heath and background checks, but not as long as we have a welfare state.

  • http://twitter.com/edgeofthesandbx edge_of_the_sandbox

    Here in Ca the dealers killed the proposition to legalize pot that was on the ballots in 2010. They told everyone that they don’t like “the way it’s written” so please vote against it. Funny they didn’t rewrite the bill for 2012. Oakland’s Oaksterdam University founder retired about a year ago.

    Basically the dealers figured that legalized pot would wipe out small dealers and growers. With the proliferation of “medical” marijuana dispensaries the prices fell significantly. There is no reason why a couple of leaves from a plant that anyone can grow in the closet should cost top dollar, provided that the grower is not taking any risks. Complete legalization will leave only industrial size farms in business. Funny how capitalism works.

  • http://wizbangblog.com/ Adjoran

    Maybe marijuana should be a federal problem or an individual liberty/privacy/property issue. The fact is that under present law it is not. It is a schedule I controlled substance just like cocaine or heroin. It should not be, but it is.

    Any sane approach starts there. Until that happens it is NOT a federalism issue, this is a Constitutional question which has been settled. Paulbot nuts can rail against the Constitution’s own prescription for settling disputes about the Constitution, but that only shows they do NOT support the Constitution, really – just their own interpretations and beliefs about what it SHOULD mean.

  • Pingback: Freedom does not exist without Discipline | Something Fishy

  • Quartermaster

    There are a few logical holes in your argument. I would step back and take a hard look at what you said. Your hatred of the “Paulbots nuts” really does color what you have said and renders it just a bit contradictory.

  • Quartermaster

    No worse than the idea of rule of law has been clubbed baby seal style.

  • Pompus

    The constitution says nothing whatsoever about who gets to decide what the constitution means. Justice Marshall was a human being, not a document.

  • http://wizbangblog.com/ Adjoran

    Who gets to settle “disputes arising under this Constitution” then?

  • Pompus

    The Supreme Court. Notwithstanding that there is nothing to that effect in the Constitution. Rather like Congress gets to pass laws requiring you to purchase health insurance–even though there is not even a good faith argument that the Constitution authorizes this.