Denver decriminalizes psychedelic mushrooms

Post by tinix » Thu, May 09, 2019, 1:46 AM UTC

mises wrote: post #34

zanethomas wrote: post #30

I'm confused. If the federal government needed an amendment to criminalize alcohol how did it have the power to criminalize other drugs without an amendment?

It used to be that we recognized the fact that the feds had a very limited constitutional scope. That has been obliterated in the 20th century, with everything being justified under the necessary and proper clause and the commerce clause. A centralized bureaucracy has been gradually sapping the sovereignty of individuals, municipalities, and states; and replacing effective, local solutions with broad-brush national s…

Post by Lazare » Thu, May 09, 2019, 1:48 AM UTC

tinix wrote: post #40

Lazare wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In principle, the constitution outlines a federal government with specific, limited, enumerated powers. Over time, our interpretation of what those powers are and how they can be applied has changed a lot. The 18th was considered to be needed because although Congress does have the power to regulate interstate commerce, obviously selling alcohol isn't really interstate commerce. You might be brewing your own beer, or…

> the Supreme Court found that growing wheat on your own land to feed to your own chickens was interstate commerce ONLY because it affected the sale of other grains... in theory, because instead of buying grain off the market to feed your chickens, you used your own grain, which not only deprived the market of your purchase, it also took grains away from the market also... since you didn't sell them. there is no comp…

Post by [deleted] » Thu, May 09, 2019, 1:50 AM UTC

tomatotomato37 wrote: post #37

zanethomas wrote: post #30

I'm confused. If the federal government needed an amendment to criminalize alcohol how did it have the power to criminalize other drugs without an amendment?

Wickard v. Filburn, fucking up the separation of powers since 1942. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

Post by tinix » Thu, May 09, 2019, 1:58 AM UTC

Lazare wrote: post #43

tinix wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the Supreme Court found that growing wheat on your own land to feed to your own chickens was interstate commerce ONLY because it affected the sale of other grains... in theory, because instead of buying grain off the market to feed your chickens, you used your own grain, which not only deprived the market of your purchase, it also took grains away from the market also... since you didn't sell them. there is no comp…

> there is no competition for cannabis or psilocybin. > i'd love to see this argued in court. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich > In both cases, 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. (To be clear, I disagre…

Post by tinix » Thu, May 09, 2019, 2:00 AM UTC

mises wrote: post #46

tinix wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine if all of Europe was supposed to fall under a common legal system. Yeah, it's that absurd, geographically, politically, and realistically. Don't get me started about EU mandates. I'm all for standardization, but only if adherence is elective.

I assume this is sarcastic? I wasn't saying any thing about the EU. It's quite different from America, if for no other reason than because citizens of EU nations see themselves first and foremost as citizens of said nation, not the EU (which is understandable, as that is the case). The question here was concerning America. Do you really believe the bulk of federal overreach in America is comprised of "standardization…