Will the Tenthers Support This?

When California voters head to the polls in November, they will decide whether the state will make history again — this time by legalizing the recreational use of marijuana for adults.

Even if the Proposition passes, marijuana will still be illegal under Federal Law. The U.S. Supreme Court already ruled that way in a Medical Marijuana case. While President Obama has directed the DoJ to go after more serious crimes and basically leave medical marijuana users alone, a more stringent “law-and-order” president could reverse that with a swift executive order.

So, will the Teabaggers who support “State’s Rights” even to the point of secession over health care take to the streets and defend California should it legalize marijuana for recreational use?

About these ads

3 thoughts on “Will the Tenthers Support This?

  1. Now if it were Meth – I think the Teabaggers would be on board.

    (the selective ‘outrage’ of the tenthers is laughable – a bit scary but laughable)

  2. I run the California Tenth Amendment Center and we are staunch supporters of those who resist Federal drug policies. Weed is a key part of my message anytime I give a speech- yes, even when I speak to TEA Party people. You may be surprised to know that Paul Armentano from NORML is one of our contributors.

    We at the Center are in full support of full legalization for California, which would put our state even further ahead of the curve in terms of resistance to Federal drug policy.

    I’d love to share more if your readers are interested- the characterization that we are a ‘right wing’ bunch is simply inaccurate.

  3. hi there resistdc,

    The Tenth Amendment reads:
    “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.”

    The Amendment does absolutely NOTHING to constrain or override anything of the United States (that is Federal) Govt’s (Congress) ultimate authority and powers.
    State Constitutions are subservient in power and authority to the US Constitution. ( Read the whole of Article 1). THE END.

    But anyway, lets pretend the 10th actually does do something, and by it’s magical authority that the Federal Govt is specifically prevent from imposing any drug laws on any State–ONLY each State has the authority to write and enforce drug laws.

    So would California then automatically legalize Marijuana? Of course not. The issue of legality would simply be transferred from Washington to Sacramento and it would be decided there.

    Would California voters have more influence over Sacramento law makers than Washington lawmakers? Maybe.

    But what if the representatives from the Southern counties, and their constituents want to legalize weed, whilst those in the North don’t? Now what?

    Should individual counties then have their own constitutions with their own Tenth amendments? “County Rights?”

    How about Cities? How about towns?
    How about every town has it’s own tailor made drug laws?

    The problem isn’t Federal versus State powers, the real problem is whether the laws themselves are practical and serve the community as a whole, or just selective, entrenched, private interests.

    I am of the personal opinion that Marijuana should be nationally legalized for recreational use, similar to alcohol.

    If legalized it could be regulated (quality standards, fair price) and reasonably taxed (guaranteed consistent govt income). Jail population would go down significantly, depressing the for-profit private jail market and relieving the police and judicial systems to concentrate on more meaningful crime and law enforcement, increasing effect and general quality of life, reducing prosecution costs.

    Whilst ‘drug users’ are known to commit crimes, so do drunks. Alcohol is a drug too.
    However I’ve never heard of anyone getting high on pot going on a violent rampage–the worst effect I gather is sense of paranoia which just makes the person go and hide somewhere, rather than picking a fight as is common amongst drunks.

    Crimes of burglary. stealing, appear to be firmly associated with coke, meth, heroin users. As far as I can tell and know from experience with friends, recreational dope smokers aren’t driven to crime because of their habit–but of course dope dealers are, in order to protect their business, which is lucrative because the trade is illegal.

    If growing dope was legalized the bottom would fall out of the commercial market. If anyone could grow dope, there would be no dealers and thus none of the associated crime.

    One way that that it could be legalized yet still be something of a blight on society would be if dope were corporatized like tobacco or corn.

    The other and complimentary way the legalization of dope could result in less than beneficial effects would be if SOME States legalized, whilst others didn’t, consistent with the “States Rights” concept,

    Say California legalized dope, but Nevada, Oregon, New Mexico made it illegal.
    So Cali becomes an exporter of dope to those states, whose importers/dealers would be criminals. So what happens then?
    Do Nevada. Oregon and New Mexico make dope legal, thus ending the criminal problem? Or do they get together and pressure Cali to make dope illegal?
    Do they have a border war, either way?

    State’s Rights in action, buddy!

    BUT if Washington finally came around and voted that dope me made legal in all States, that Federal Power would suit you just fine wouldn’t it .if it forced Cali. to legalize dope?

    Hope this helps, and try not to associate with the teabagging 10ther idiots, they won’t make you any smarter.

    .

Comments are closed.