Mexico supreme court rules ban on marijuana use unconstitutional

Post by PhantomGremlin » Thu, Nov 05, 2015, 5:41 AM UTC

ahallock wrote: post #22

esaym wrote: post #2

>"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.

   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.

Post by IIAOPSW » Thu, Nov 05, 2015, 5:46 AM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #19

esaym wrote: post #2

>"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…

The Declaration of Independence, where that phrase comes from, is basically marketing bullshit. It's full of rhetorical flourish that Jefferson got away with precisely because it has no legal significance. After all, that same document says that "all men are created equal" while the Constitution enshrined the institution of slavery for another few generations. The closest analogue in the Constituon is the idea that d…

Post by im3w1l » Thu, Nov 05, 2015, 5:53 AM UTC

copperx wrote: post #58

esaym wrote: post #9

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…

Post by IIAOPSW » Thu, Nov 05, 2015, 6:18 AM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #64

IIAOPSW wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The constitution was agnostic on slavery so far as I can recall. Article and section please?

Article I, Section 9, cl. 1 (which was among the provisions explicitly shielded from Amendment prior to 1808 by Article V.)

Post by oxide » Thu, Nov 05, 2015, 6:37 AM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #42

dreamdu5t wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no analogue in the Constitution because the Constitution enumerates the specific powers granted to the Federal Government. Drug prohibition is not one of them , and the entire Federal war on drugs is held up by the lynch-pin supreme court case Wickard v Filburn... where the Supreme Court decided that "interstate commerce" applies to goods literally not involved in any commerce whatsoever. https://en.wikipedi…

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…