 |
| |
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Zkribbler
I'm granting that the feds can outlaw interstate drug trafficking. I'm questioning whether, given the fact that the feds cannot outlaw me beating up my wife (Lopes), can the feds can outlaw me growing marijuana in my own backyard for my own use? |
Beating up your wife has no effect on commerce, except maybe an indirect effect in purchasing of medical services on her part, or a 12-gauge. 
Smoking dope for actual or alleged pharmaceutical reasons does have an effect on commerce, in that if you couldn't grow it, you'd buy it, or buy something else, and since you can grow it, you don't buy it or a substitute from another source.
The narrow view of the commerce clause you and che, among others, are espousing for this case is similar to the rationale used by the Hughes court to strike down Federal laws against child labor. In that era, commerce was viewed as segmented, such that manufacture and sale within state boundaries was distinct from subsequent sale across state boundaries, and still subsequent end sale within another state.
The segmented view of commerce would have required a different holding in Heart of Atlanta Motel and other civil rights cases involving private action, so the commerce clause interpretation has far broader implications than the convenience of smoking dope.
You can't have it both ways - the commerce clause has to be construed in the same manner regardless of the underlying social issue - interstate commerce is expansive, inclusive, and embodies the entire scope of supply and demand in the total marketplace, or it is arbitrarily segmented into single transactions and the Feds have no jurisdiction over any act which does not directly cross state lines.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
 |
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Zkribbler
That is the logical enpoint, isn't it? Once Congress puts an end to interstate drug trafficking by banning it, then logically interstate commerce will not be affected by intra-state drug commerce. And that reasoning would go double for raising drugs for your own use. At that point, regulation would seem to be to be the sole province of the states as a health and safety issue. |
Actually your logical endpoint would be a Berzerker like limitation on the federal government's power. If you want to go that way, it's your perogative .
In addition to MtG's correct statement, this reading would allow any drug usage as long as it was deemed to be grown within the state and then consumed in the state. It does have an effect on supply and demand which has an effect on interstate commerce.
Think about this way, your view would allow a baseball player to take steroids if the chemical processing and manufacture were all located in that state. It would not be illegal under your formulation, since it was entirely intrastate. However, that ignores the interstate effects if every state had legalized steroids 'intra-state'. It would affect prices in other states through supply and demand, for one. Secondly, advances in steroid production by one creator would spread to other states.
As MtG points out the only reason that Title VII is allowed to exist is because there is a broader view of interstate commerce, saying that hotels or businesses that discriminate against blacks in their commerical activities have many direct and indirect interstate economic effects, especially on travel and supply & demand for workers.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ajbera
|
 |
of the Cookieville Minimum Security Orphanarium
Apr 1999
time: 05:35
|
|
You can also bake cookies after cooking the pot in butter. Here is an excellent recipe:
"2 1/2 c. flour [have more handy in case the batter is thin]
1 tsp. baking soda
1 tsp. salt
1 c. (2 sticks) butter -- have 3 sticks handy
3/4 c. granulated sugar
3/4 c. packed brown sugar
1 tsp. vanilla extract
2 eggs
2 c. chocolate chips (a 12 oz. package)
And of course, at least 1 oz. marijuana -- do not skimp!
You will also need two large bowls, a cookie sheet, an oven and a measuring cup.
Preheat oven to 375 degrees. Cook the weed with the butter [cook on low-medium, don't burn, cook about 10 - 15 min., butter should be dark brown.] Discard the cooked grass, and melt more butter until you have 1 cup.
In one bowl combine flour, baking soda and salt.
In another bowl combine butter, sugar, brown sugar and vanilla extract, beat until creamy. Beat in eggs.
Gradually add flour mixture. Stir in chocolate chips [I actually make the dough with out chips, then top each cookie with a few chips after I've put it on the baking sheet.]
Drop by level measuring tablespoonfuls onto ungreased cookie sheets. Bake at 375 degrees for 9-11 minutes. [In my experience, 9 min is fine, tends to burn after that.]
Makes 50-60 cookies.
Note: If you do not want to use a full ounce of pot, cut the ingredients in half, including the pot (i.e. 1/2 oz. pot, 1 1/4 c. flour, etc.). Or, for stronger cookies, cut all ingredients except the pot in half. The step-by-step instructions are based on the full ounce, 50-60 cookie recipe."
Tested, and it works very, very well. Can be powerful, so use caution.
(Hope I don't get in trouble with the mods for this.)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ajbera
|
|
of the Cookieville Minimum Security Orphanarium
Apr 1999
time: 05:35
|
|
Che, all I gotta say is "try the recipe." It is very potent, and has an excellent duration.
I have known people who just make pot butter and leave it in the fridge to spread on toast, etc., but there is the question of dosage. In the cookie recipe, 1 oz makes about 60 cookies, so you have an idea of what you'll be feeling when you eat one.
However, some of the cookies usually wind up being more potent than others. My friend got so high with one of my cookies a few weeks back he got the spins and vomited, had to lie down for a bit before the high had mellowed. My cookie got me perfectly high, and they were roughly equivalent sizes.
Still, I heartily recommend our fellow 'Polystoners try it out. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flip McWho
|
|
New Zealand
May 2002
time: 17:35
|
|
Yeah its a long way till I try a bunch of cookies. Don't really have that much excess weed hanging around really.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ajbera
|
|
of the Cookieville Minimum Security Orphanarium
Apr 1999
time: 05:35
|
|
Well, you can either proportionately reduce the entire recipe; for example, for 1/4 oz, use 5/8 c flour, 3/16 c sugar... or make a full (or half) batch of cookie dough, but just make enough cookies for your needs. So, if 1 oz makes ~ 60, 1/8 oz makes 7 - 8. Make enough dough for 30 normal sized cookies, but instead make 7 - 8 big sized, but normal potency, cookies.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:35
|
|
quote:
This was a bizarre ruling. If any of the three solid conservatives dissented, I figured it'd be Scalia. What's Thomas doing there... |
I must say I'm pleased to see Thomas in the dissent, he's being consistent with his opinion in the Lopez case where he effectively said the interstate commerce clause meant interstate commerce and not "anything under the sun we can tie commerce into".
Think about it, why did the Framers want the ICC? Because under the articles of confederation states engaged in trade wars and the Framers wanted to prevent a source of strife and allow free trade.
Now the power given to Congress to facilitate free trade is being used to ban free trade. 
So the intent is being violated, but what about the letter of the law? How did you guys read a power to regulate (or ban) anything that might "effect" interstate commerce into the Constitution? I know why the SCOTUS has let Congress get away with murder by re-writing the Constitution, but how did you guys buy into that nonsense?
If you grow a plant in your backyard, a weed that grows in many parts of the country because of all those hemp farmers from the past when it was legal, how are you engaging in interstate commerce?
That was why Congress didn't use the ICC back in the 30's when they first started down this path. The ICC had not acquired it's modern meaning yet (FDR would soon try to pack the court) and Congress would not argue that a plant growing in a state was interstate commerce. So instead they put a huge tax on cultivation, but that was unconstitutional as well regardless of what the political hacks on the court say. Congress cannot use a constitutional power to invent new constitutional powers, and in that case, Congress used its power to tax to invent a power to single out 1 product and effectively ban it. Taxation was to raise revenue, not play social engineer.
quote:
In addition to MtG's correct statement, this reading would allow any drug usage as long as it was deemed to be grown within the state and then consumed in the state. It does have an effect on supply and demand which has an effect on interstate commerce. |
How did "regulate interstate commerce" become
"ban any product that effects interstate commerce"? By that "logic", Congress can ban all products. Do you really think thats what the Framers (and more importantly, the states) had in mind when they gave Congress that power? This is just another example of Congress using one power to create other powers that are not in the Constitution.
quote:
In a 6-3 vote, the justices ruled the Bush administration can block the backyard cultivation of pot for personal use, because such use has broader social and financial implications. |
Where in the Constitution does it say Congress can ban what you do or what you grow in your backyard because there are broader social and financial implications? Regulate interstate commerce? It isn't even commerce! And its painfully illogical to say we will make it illegal for you to grow and use pot because you're effecting interstate commerce. That means Congress can force me to buy a Ford Mustang because if I don't, I'm "effecting" interstate commerce. You cant grow and use that pot because by doing it yourself, you aren't buying it and that "effects" interstate commerce. But its illegal to buy! The lunatics are running the asylum...
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35.
Apolyton Time is 00:35. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
07-06-2005 02:20
)
Attachment: 
|
