Comments on: Nullification: Ballot Drive for Legal Pot in CA http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/09/nullification-ballot-drive-for-legal-pot-in-ca/ The Tenther Grapevine Mon, 13 Feb 2012 00:06:38 +0000 hourly 1 By: bph1981 http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/09/nullification-ballot-drive-for-legal-pot-in-ca/#comment-366 bph1981 Thu, 15 Apr 2010 00:56:54 +0000 http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=283#comment-366 Your logic could be construed to the following "I drive a smart car, others drive F-250s, IF an F-250 should hit me, it COULD kill me, thus your driving an F-250 infringes on my right to safety". This slippery slope logic can be applied to anything that people use or consume. On the intoxication statement, so what if i am intoxicated?If i break the law, then bust my butt, if i am just intoxicated, not bothering another soul, only your ideas of morality and decorum, don't partake in exchange of ideas or conversation with me and leave me the F alone. You my friend are espousing some sort of quasi-dictatorial "lest no-one offends" society that, frankly already kind of exists, see North Korea. Remember control is an illusion, you can never control one's appetites, only react to behaviors, without ever actually nullifying the appetite. In the mean time, move to montana, homestead, and completely shut yourself from society as that is the only way your logic would truly be applicable. Your logic could be construed to the following "I drive a smart car, others drive F-250s, IF an F-250 should hit me, it COULD kill me, thus your driving an F-250 infringes on my right to safety". This slippery slope logic can be applied to anything that people use or consume. On the intoxication statement, so what if i am intoxicated?If i break the law, then bust my butt, if i am just intoxicated, not bothering another soul, only your ideas of morality and decorum, don't partake in exchange of ideas or conversation with me and leave me the F alone. You my friend are espousing some sort of quasi-dictatorial "lest no-one offends" society that, frankly already kind of exists, see North Korea. Remember control is an illusion, you can never control one's appetites, only react to behaviors, without ever actually nullifying the appetite. In the mean time, move to montana, homestead, and completely shut yourself from society as that is the only way your logic would truly be applicable.

]]> By: BPH1981 http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/09/nullification-ballot-drive-for-legal-pot-in-ca/#comment-364 BPH1981 Thu, 15 Apr 2010 00:19:47 +0000 http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=283#comment-364 Remember though, you are stating case law, the supreme court was never intended to use case law as a sole basis for intrepretation of the constitution. They were supposed to take the constitution on its face and be the final arbiter on cases affecting citizens rights versus the federal govs, no further, and not use political affiliation or legal jargon to taint or cover their intentions. The history of court decisions has not been consistant, even with the same court deciding cases of the same flavor, demonstrating that politics and narrow intrepretations when politically expedient, were overwhelmingly used to decide federal law. The constitution was written in the plain language of the time, akin to the bible being translated into the geographical vernacular, so the PEOPLE could understand what they were buying, not " just trust me, I am a lawyer, you can't possibly understand the constitution, let me tell you what it means". The founding fathers were specific and tried to avoid ambiguous language and set no mandate to the court for use of case law to decide all cases, they were trusted to hold their oath and allegiance to the constitution first, politics last. Remember though, you are stating case law, the supreme court was never intended to use case law as a sole basis for intrepretation of the constitution. They were supposed to take the constitution on its face and be the final arbiter on cases affecting citizens rights versus the federal govs, no further, and not use political affiliation or legal jargon to taint or cover their intentions. The history of court decisions has not been consistant, even with the same court deciding cases of the same flavor, demonstrating that politics and narrow intrepretations when politically expedient, were overwhelmingly used to decide federal law. The constitution was written in the plain language of the time, akin to the bible being translated into the geographical vernacular, so the PEOPLE could understand what they were buying, not " just trust me, I am a lawyer, you can't possibly understand the constitution, let me tell you what it means". The founding fathers were specific and tried to avoid ambiguous language and set no mandate to the court for use of case law to decide all cases, they were trusted to hold their oath and allegiance to the constitution first, politics last.

]]> By: BPH1981 http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/09/nullification-ballot-drive-for-legal-pot-in-ca/#comment-365 BPH1981 Thu, 15 Apr 2010 00:19:47 +0000 http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=283#comment-365 Remember though, you are stating case law, the supreme court was never intended to use case law as a sole basis for intrepretation of the constitution. They were supposed to take the constitution on its face and be the final arbiter on cases affecting citizens rights versus the federal govs, no further, and not use political affiliation or legal jargon to taint or cover their intentions. The history of court decisions has not been consistant, even with the same court deciding cases of the same flavor, demonstrating that politics and narrow intrepretations when politically expedient, were overwhelmingly used to decide federal law. The constitution was written in the plain language of the time, akin to the bible being translated into the geographical vernacular, so the PEOPLE could understand what they were buying, not " just trust me, I am a lawyer, you can't possibly understand the constitution, let me tell you what it means". The founding fathers were specific and tried to avoid ambiguous language and set no mandate to the court for use of case law to decide all cases, they were trusted to hold their oath and allegiance to the constitution first, politics last. Remember though, you are stating case law, the supreme court was never intended to use case law as a sole basis for intrepretation of the constitution. They were supposed to take the constitution on its face and be the final arbiter on cases affecting citizens rights versus the federal govs, no further, and not use political affiliation or legal jargon to taint or cover their intentions. The history of court decisions has not been consistant, even with the same court deciding cases of the same flavor, demonstrating that politics and narrow intrepretations when politically expedient, were overwhelmingly used to decide federal law. The constitution was written in the plain language of the time, akin to the bible being translated into the geographical vernacular, so the PEOPLE could understand what they were buying, not " just trust me, I am a lawyer, you can't possibly understand the constitution, let me tell you what it means". The founding fathers were specific and tried to avoid ambiguous language and set no mandate to the court for use of case law to decide all cases, they were trusted to hold their oath and allegiance to the constitution first, politics last.

]]> By: GreyMast http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/09/nullification-ballot-drive-for-legal-pot-in-ca/#comment-363 GreyMast Thu, 21 Jan 2010 16:01:12 +0000 http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=283#comment-363 Well thats a very facinating argument your positing Mr. Patric Henry and if what you are saying is true, then we can rejoice as we force Barack Obama from the office of the President. The Constitution requires that only a natural born US Citizen can become president. This would be impossible unless you were born in DC. He was born in Hawaii or somewhere outside of US territory and therefore cannot truely be president. Well thats a very facinating argument your positing Mr. Patric Henry and if what you are saying is true, then we can rejoice as we force Barack Obama from the office of the President. The Constitution requires that only a natural born US Citizen can become president. This would be impossible unless you were born in DC. He was born in Hawaii or somewhere outside of US territory and therefore cannot truely be president.

]]> By: denise http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/09/nullification-ballot-drive-for-legal-pot-in-ca/#comment-362 denise Thu, 24 Dec 2009 22:05:32 +0000 http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=283#comment-362 were do i go to put my signature for the cause of legalizeing marijuana ?denise were do i go to put my signature for the cause of legalizeing marijuana ?denise

]]> By: JP http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/09/nullification-ballot-drive-for-legal-pot-in-ca/#comment-361 JP Tue, 22 Dec 2009 18:52:18 +0000 http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=283#comment-361 I live in California and am all for making marijuna legal - but only if like for tobacco, they ban it from being smoked in public, both indoors and outdoors, including $500 arrests and fines for smoking it outdoors in all public parks and recreation areas, like they do in San Francisco, Santa Cruz, Hayward, Belmont and other progressive cities inside California. I live in California and am all for making marijuna legal – but only if like for tobacco, they ban it from being smoked in public, both indoors and outdoors, including $500 arrests and fines for smoking it outdoors in all public parks and recreation areas, like they do in San Francisco, Santa Cruz, Hayward, Belmont and other progressive cities inside California.

]]> By: Michael Boldin http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/09/nullification-ballot-drive-for-legal-pot-in-ca/#comment-360 Michael Boldin Wed, 16 Dec 2009 00:28:05 +0000 http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=283#comment-360 Bravo, Tim!! Bravo, Tim!!

]]> By: Tim http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/09/nullification-ballot-drive-for-legal-pot-in-ca/#comment-359 Tim Wed, 16 Dec 2009 00:10:57 +0000 http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=283#comment-359 "In short the 10th Amendment is dead or dormant" At what point was the tenth amendment removed from the constitution? No matter what has changed it is still there and is usable by anyone as long as it is there and it says any power not given to the federal government is reserved for the states. This gives states a wide range of powers for itself and the right to govern over its boundries as it sees fit no matter what citizenship status a person may have (either federal or state) the state still has the power to enforce laws over its borders by its own governmental process that it has established for itself. Individual state constitutions that has forbidden itself from using its powers such as southern state constitutions that forbid them from leaving the union again are restricted by those provisions but in my state we have no such provision so why or any state that did not sign on to the new movement have to comply with those state's constitutions since a state constitution governs that state only. "In short the 10th Amendment is dead or dormant"
At what point was the tenth amendment removed from the constitution? No matter what has changed it is still there and is usable by anyone as long as it is there and it says any power not given to the federal government is reserved for the states. This gives states a wide range of powers for itself and the right to govern over its boundries as it sees fit no matter what citizenship status a person may have (either federal or state) the state still has the power to enforce laws over its borders by its own governmental process that it has established for itself.

Individual state constitutions that has forbidden itself from using its powers such as southern state constitutions that forbid them from leaving the union again are restricted by those provisions but in my state we have no such provision so why or any state that did not sign on to the new movement have to comply with those state's constitutions since a state constitution governs that state only.

]]> By: Tim http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/09/nullification-ballot-drive-for-legal-pot-in-ca/#comment-358 Tim Wed, 16 Dec 2009 00:01:34 +0000 http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=283#comment-358 This is the beginning of the end for the federal government because once nullification becomes legally recognized by both democrats and republicans then neither side can deny the other sides right to nullify anything they believe in such as Health care and gay marriage. This is the beginning of the end for the federal government because once nullification becomes legally recognized by both democrats and republicans then neither side can deny the other sides right to nullify anything they believe in such as Health care and gay marriage.

]]> By: Dean http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/09/nullification-ballot-drive-for-legal-pot-in-ca/#comment-357 Dean Sun, 22 Nov 2009 22:06:15 +0000 http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=283#comment-357 "People need to learn that freedom is a two-way street that requires acceptance of things that are none of their business to begin with." =========== You are incorrect. That statement has a fatal flaw and the 10th is not freedom to do ANYTHING one pleases. It still has to be compatible with the natural rights of others. My "business" begins the moment your "business" collides with mine. With rights come responsibilities. You have no reasonable means of enforcing those responsibilities. At what point does my freedom to be "free from you" kick in? Are you willing to face punishment for encroaching upon my rights? How do you propose enforcing that? There is *no* realistic or effective means of doing so that I am aware of. Do you think that it will be any simpler or less expensive than the current attempt at a system of enforcement? The threshold and area of effect for a set of chemicals dispensed via the atmosphere is much more difficult to determine than one that is administered directly and internally. The only means of doing so currently is to force activity as far underground and from mainstream as possible. Yes, expensive, but more effective and cheaper than the alternative. If the effects of this enforcement were not felt, then this thread would not exist, rampant misspellings and all. Marijuana smokers fight TWO problems, each one of which is already a demonstrated problem with each of two other substances. Atmospheric administration and intoxication. A third is shared by all three, addiction. While it may be measurably "less" than the other two, it DOES still exist. The atmosphere. That is currently the biggest problem facing smokers. Cigarettes deliver their payload via air. It is nowhere near a 100% efficient operation. As a result, the claimed detrimental health effects are not limited to the primary user. All smokers of any substance have an "area of effect" that reaches beyond the primary user and pollute long term any enclosed environment that the activity is performed in. The outdoors are generally considered regenerative and self cleaning due to natural processes but may suffer localised short term contamination. As an illustrative extreme example, it is possible to ingest recognizable tobacco smoke following behind another driver in traffic. In a simple enclosed atmosphere, the situation is irrefutable. Secondary unwilling individuals present will be subject to measurable doses. There is no right that I am aware of that allows you to subject others unwillingly to harm at your discretion. Nominally "Their business." How do you effectively address that in your bid for legalization? When you find that answer, you will help tobacco smokers greatly. They FAR outnumber you and haven't a solution yet. Intoxication. Additionally, the resulting effects of intentional administration have measurable psychoactive effects altering the mental state of users such that it reduces their mental and thus motor capacity in safety situations. If sober and capable of rational judgement, would you feel more, less, or the same safety where a pilot at the controls of a high-performance aircraft you were aboard was intoxicated? Again, like alcohol in this case, enforcement is VERY difficult. So, at what point does your activity infringe upon my rights and freedom? Considering that substance has a double threat as compared to two other problem substances, I don't see a case for complicating enforcement issues. There are already existing enforcement nightmares with cigarrettes and alcohol and abrogated responsibilities to not abuse others rights in the name of rights to abuse oneself. Just as with alcohol and cigarettes, the social benefits of marijuana are negligible, the social harm is tangible and measurable. The health benefits are under study, but there will eventually be better alternatives as the effects of the compunds are studied, reproduced synthetically and administered in a controlled manner. Until then, medical uses are no excuse for non-medical usage. "People need to learn that freedom is a two-way street that requires acceptance of things that are none of their business to begin with."

===========

You are incorrect. That statement has a fatal flaw and the 10th is not freedom to do ANYTHING one pleases. It still has to be compatible with the natural rights of others.

My "business" begins the moment your "business" collides with mine. With rights come responsibilities. You have no reasonable means of enforcing those responsibilities.

At what point does my freedom to be "free from you" kick in? Are you willing to face punishment for encroaching upon my rights? How do you propose enforcing that? There is *no* realistic or effective means of doing so that I am aware of.

Do you think that it will be any simpler or less expensive than the current attempt at a system of enforcement? The threshold and area of effect for a set of chemicals dispensed via the atmosphere is much more difficult to determine than one that is administered directly and internally.

The only means of doing so currently is to force activity as far underground and from mainstream as possible. Yes, expensive, but more effective and cheaper than the alternative. If the effects of this enforcement were not felt, then this thread would not exist, rampant misspellings and all.

Marijuana smokers fight TWO problems, each one of which is already a demonstrated problem with each of two other substances. Atmospheric administration and intoxication. A third is shared by all three, addiction. While it may be measurably "less" than the other two, it DOES still exist.

The atmosphere.

That is currently the biggest problem facing smokers. Cigarettes deliver their payload via air. It is nowhere near a 100% efficient operation.

As a result, the claimed detrimental health effects are not limited to the primary user. All smokers of any substance have an "area of effect" that reaches beyond the primary user and pollute long term any enclosed environment that the activity is performed in. The outdoors are generally considered regenerative and self cleaning due to natural processes but may suffer localised short term contamination.

As an illustrative extreme example, it is possible to ingest recognizable tobacco smoke following behind another driver in traffic. In a simple enclosed atmosphere, the situation is irrefutable. Secondary unwilling individuals present will be subject to measurable doses.

There is no right that I am aware of that allows you to subject others unwillingly to harm at your discretion. Nominally "Their business."

How do you effectively address that in your bid for legalization? When you find that answer, you will help tobacco smokers greatly. They FAR outnumber you and haven't a solution yet.

Intoxication.

Additionally, the resulting effects of intentional administration have measurable psychoactive effects altering the mental state of users such that it reduces their mental and thus motor capacity in safety situations.

If sober and capable of rational judgement, would you feel more, less, or the same safety where a pilot at the controls of a high-performance aircraft you were aboard was intoxicated?

Again, like alcohol in this case, enforcement is VERY difficult. So, at what point does your activity infringe upon my rights and freedom?

Considering that substance has a double threat as compared to two other problem substances, I don't see a case for complicating enforcement issues.

There are already existing enforcement nightmares with cigarrettes and alcohol and abrogated responsibilities to not abuse others rights in the name of rights to abuse oneself.

Just as with alcohol and cigarettes, the social benefits of marijuana are negligible, the social harm is tangible and measurable. The health benefits are under study, but there will eventually be better alternatives as the effects of the compunds are studied, reproduced synthetically and administered in a controlled manner.

Until then, medical uses are no excuse for non-medical usage.

]]>