51–60 of 143 posts
my last comment still applies though... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10503260
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wickard v. Filburn isn't the lynch-pin of the Federal war on drugs. It's a ridiculous case, but it's also a narrow one: does the Commerce Clause cover marijuana grown for personal use . That is obviously not interstate commerce within any sensible definition of the concept. However, the drug trade in general is archetypal interstate commerce. Almost nobody grows and processes their own weed or their own cocaine. It a…
Possession is illegal at the Federal level. All drug commerce that does not cross state lines is also illegal. There could be no federal war on drugs at all without the interstate commerce power the supreme court has derived. Going further, the purpose of the interstate commerce clause was to give the power to regulate tariffs (and other taxes) between the states, not make entire trades illegal because sometimes thos…
For states where the state's laws agree that the drugs are illegal (i.e. most states now, and all states until relatively recently), there could be a (legal) federal war on drugs so long as the state government does not object. As to the practicality of the enforcement of such objections, we're seeing it play out right now with the states that have legalized it.
What shocked me about this article was the poll showing 77% of people in Mexico are opposed to legalization. Why? Social conservatism? Do they not understand that prohibition benefits the cartels and funds their violence?
If the US does not legalize those drugs, then Mexico will have to take the cost of legalization without it's biggest benefit.
>"In a 4-1 ruling, the court found that prohibitions on using marijuana violated the 'right to the free development of personality'" Perhaps that is out of context, and I don't know their constitution as a whole, but I am not finding a lot of sense in that sentence. If drug use can be considered a "right to the free development of personality", then how else could America's "right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of…
Why don't we stop enumerating specific rights (which leads to picking winners and losers and inconsistent application) and refactor them into a few basic principles. Such as the basic property right of self ownership. Since you own your body, not the State, you may use marijuana. Simple.
How about we throw out our constitutions and make "be a good person" the law and leave it at that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/politics/magazine/104914/... says "In 2010, Mexican officials estimated that cannabis now provides the cartels with as much as half of their revenue."
I have also seen this 50% figure from various sources but I find it hard to believe, although I have no specific knowledge that would refute it. As far as I know, it's mostly low-grade weed that comes over the border, and while some grow operations within the US are cartel-run, I still am so surprised it would equal their profits from cocaine and methamphetamine combined.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's never about what the laws say, but rather about who interprets the laws.
I've always hated that a "law" can be interpreted really.
Unfortunately, I have met too many CS types that are surprised by the concept of law interpretation. That's why liberal education is important.
>"In a 4-1 ruling, the court found that prohibitions on using marijuana violated the 'right to the free development of personality'" Perhaps that is out of context, and I don't know their constitution as a whole, but I am not finding a lot of sense in that sentence. If drug use can be considered a "right to the free development of personality", then how else could America's "right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of…
Why don't we stop enumerating specific rights (which leads to picking winners and losers and inconsistent application) and refactor them into a few basic principles. Such as the basic property right of self ownership. Since you own your body, not the State, you may use marijuana. Simple.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've always hated that a "law" can be interpreted really.
This is your engineering or science background clashing with reality. I, for one, am glad that laws are interpreted and not taken as hard rules. Stupidity would reign otherwise, because it is impossible to create a hard and fast rule that will stand the test of time in a changing civilization. Unfortunately, I have met too many CS types that are surprised by the concept of law interpretation. That's why liberal educa…