here's the thing

[justonemore]

dear psy. it galls me to say you're right, but right you are. And, yeah, C.S. Lewis had it right. (love that guy) But, no, my point regarding the narcos is that if they are displaced in revenue, they will do what other criminals do, and seek very violently a new kind of stasis. Arms and war come quickly to mind, but there's prostitution, kidnapping. other forms of violence. These folk are very dangerous, no redemption,fire on sight, sort of people. And, frankly i'm damned if i know why people seek power over others, i come originally from the west, where freedom is a given, and i grew up in miami, where piracy is king, and a man is what he is, so best leave him alone. It's a quandary, why people do what they do.    J.O.M.

[mark babitz]

:cheers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroin#His ... in_traffic  ::unhappy:: http://www.a1b2c3.com/drugs/mj005.htm :rocker:  Once you take away a trade it will be replaced like anything else, I think that kidnapping will become more popular in the U.S.. It is an unlimited resource and makes quick cash and quietly, Most people with the exception of T.V. have no idea of how wide spread and common it is when traveling abroad, But then most folks have never walked threw a town with cops armed with machine guns, and corruption just ramped http://blog.hotelclub.com/10-countries- ... napped-in/  :jawdrop: http://americas.fiu.edu/Commentators/Ma ... ng_eng.pdf  :jawdrop: It is a trade that no one relay hears about or discuses, If they did, most wouldn't  travel too far from home. I believe the drug co will jump in and taxes will be enforced and the Government  will become the new [ Cartel ] so to speak. The U.S. needs income and pot is as close to alcohol as they can get , with out going over the edge. And now is the generation that smoked or at least tried it. Bootleggers never went away, they are very common in the south and east in the mountains,The ones that did stop, turned into drug dealers or went straight, or to prison. And hard drugs  will always be the trade, There is a fortune to be made on paraphernalia,and accessories, and having the the country stoned always opens doors for new crime. Instead of drunks you get stoner's, the judicial door still turns, and fines  will somehow be there for, being too high or giving your pot to someone without a prescription etc .There is a hell of a secondary market, How much stuff does the average person go online for or sneaks  around and ask  for things, when now they could buy that stuff right on Main St with out trouble or funny looks,?. The U.S. has it all figured out, think of the drinking and smoking stops the cops will make,Stoned to the Ba-Jesus and three beers ?. Not a good recipe. but will be come more common,Two cups of coffee and a joint in the morning, with the rush hour twist, Life will be better with POT :rocker:  :rocker:  :cheers:  :cheers:

[SharonMcCarthy]

[

[Anne Bonney]

dear psy. it galls me to say you're right, but right you are. And, yeah, C.S. Lewis had it right. (love that guy) But, no, my point regarding the narcos is that if they are displaced in revenue, they will do what other criminals do, and seek very violently a new kind of stasis. Arms and war come quickly to mind, but there's prostitution, kidnapping. other forms of violence. These folk are very dangerous, no redemption,fire on sight, sort of people. And, frankly i'm damned if i know why people seek power over others, i come originally from the west, where freedom is a given, and i grew up in miami, where piracy is king, and a man is what he is, so best leave him alone. It's a quandary, why people do what they do.    J.O.M.

Is that what happened when prohibition ended?  If I'm remembering my history correctly, prohibition gave rise to Al Capone.

[Froderik]

Not really reading this thread, but I'll say anyone arguing against decriminalization is a douche-bag.  :on phone:

[justonemore]

wow! that one got dumb in a hurry!  Just for a point of reference, i knew a 'shiner' and ran for him three times. ran out of north carolina, dropped in cordele ga. he made a wonderful product, his farm was in the black because of it, and he'd put seven kids through college on the proceeds. illegal? sure, but i got no kick with the man, not now, not ever.  he never mis treated anyone, and wouldn't take no kick from any one and that's why he ( and i )are still alive. Does the government have the right to tax any agricultural product? Ever?  see. in case you haven't thought it through, there are only three ways of creating wealth, and they are mining, manufacturing, and agriculture.be very wary of taxes on agriculture. J.O.M

[justonemore]

I just re-read my last post and ain't no denying. yup! it's a fact. i'm a redneck, cain't help it, was raised that way. but i can quote Suetonious, if that's any help.Worser than you can imagine, i'm catholic.J.O.M.

[psy]

Does the government have the right to tax any agricultural product? Ever?  see. in case you haven't thought it through, there are only three ways of creating wealth, and they are mining, manufacturing, and agriculture.be very wary of taxes on agriculture. J.O.M

The problem is the Supreme Court's idiotic rulings on the commerce clause.  The commerce clause states that congress has the right to regulate commerce between the states.  Now you might ask how growing a plant on your own property and consuming it there might qualify?  Basically they ruled that regulating interstate commerce extended to anything that could possibly affect interstate commerce.  So if you grow a plant on your property and that decreases interstate commerce, they can ban that activity.

See Gonzales v. Reich and previous precedents:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v ... e_decision

the court wrote:

the regulation is squarely within Congress' commerce power because production of the commodity meant for home consumption, be it wheat or marijuana, has a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market for that commodity

If you follow this logic out, the federal government can basically ban whatever they want, which was not the intent.  The intent was that congress was only allowed to pass laws in areas explicitly allowed.  It's a gigantic catch-all loop-hole.

[justonemore]

Dear psy, boy howdy, metal on metal you're right again ( this time it don't gall me so much) yes , absolutely It's a tenth amendment issue, and one we  need to address. the interstate commerce ruling is one we need to reject, and gives monolithic federal power thanks for pointing that out, and i can still quote suetonius fer ya, though with a southern accent, I promise not to dress up like wolf blitzer while i do it., Kudos.( is that just sick, or what?)J.o.M ( i mean the wolf blitzer thing, not the suetonius thing.. funny story and by way of illlustration, i spent three days on a job in bainbridge ,ga., and i was shepherded by an army ranger, whose actual name was Bubba, well Bubba was a much sharper guy than you'd think also pretty damn big, pretty damn fast and effective as hell.Bubba, it seems had a thing for classical scholarship, and he quoted the romans at me until i could too. also truly great barbecue. We just didn't have that much to do, hanging around in the woods. then we went home, he to his and me to mine, and i read the romans, and cleaned my guns. j.O.M

[Antigen]

the court wrote:

the regulation is squarely within Congress' commerce power because production of the commodity meant for home consumption, be it wheat or marijuana, has a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market for that commodity

If you follow this logic out, the federal government can basically ban whatever they want, which was not the intent.  The intent was that congress was only allowed to pass laws in areas explicitly allowed.  It's a gigantic catch-all loop-hole.

Yes, isn't that silly! I thought their object was to eliminate interstate and intrastate commerce in canabis.

Be a patriotGrow Your Own!

[justonemore]

dear ginger No, the interstate commerce ruling was based on wheat. a man grew wheat on his own land. it was one of those 'bellweather' rulings. and the issue at hand is not, absolutely not, about marijuana. there are many herbs, (or weeds, if you prefer) that have as far reaching consequence, such as rue, or pennyroyal, to name a couple familiar to women. The issue at hand here is what you may do on your land, who may decide,and at what point do you determine, all by yourself, and acting as a grownup,What you may grow, to whom you may sell, under what circumstance? At what point is the land, and the decisions that pertain thereto, yours?  same/same for any commercial activity. It's a real, deadly, serious issue.J.O.M.

[Froderik]

dear ginger No, the interstate commerce ruling was based on wheat. a man grew wheat on his own land. it was one of those 'bellweather' rulings. and the issue at hand is not, absolutely not, about marijuana. there are many herbs, (or weeds, if you prefer) that have as far reaching consequence, such as rue, or pennyroyal, to name a couple familiar to women. The issue at hand here is what you may do on your land, who may decide,and at what point do you determine, all by yourself, and acting as a grownup,What you may grow, to whom you may sell, under what circumstance? At what point is the land, and the decisions that pertain thereto, yours?  same/same for any commercial activity. It's a real, deadly, serious issue.J.O.M.

Wha... What are you trying to say? I'll grow w/e i want on my property.. ?

[justonemore]

C'mon Froderick, think this one through.. property rights are a profound issue, and at the very heart of liberty. I think that they devolve properly to communities, and states, and only where they involve conflicts between states, to "los federales" ie: suppose we're neighbors, that i run a day care on my property on my property, and you wanna start a munitions factory.. How is that to be decided? At issue here is how questions such as that are decided amongst neighbors, with the imperative being the maintenance of peace and public order. Ideas, anyone? J.O.M

[Froderik]

C'mon Froderick, think this one through.. property rights are a profound issue, and at the very heart of liberty. I think that they devolve properly to communities, and states, and only where they involve conflicts between states, to "los federales" ie: suppose we're neighbors, that i run a day care on my property on my property, and you wanna start a munitions factory.. How is that to be decided? At issue here is how questions such as that are decided amongst neighbors, with the imperative being the maintenance of peace and public order. Ideas, anyone? J.O.M

Ok, I get what you were saying now.. took me a minute.

[Antigen]

Ok, JOM, then by what authority does the Federal government pass and enforce drug control laws?