301–310 of 369 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Voting to put people in prison because of smells is certainly a take.
It's not about the smell. Secondhand marijuana smoke carries many of the same harmful compounds as cigarette smoke [1]. The issue is involuntary exposure in shared living spaces. And ballot measures are typically all-or-nothing: you can't vote yes on edibles but no on smoking in your apartment complex. [1] https://www.cdc.gov/cannabis/health-effects/secondhand-smoke...
Decisions like this illustrate what a hollow farce the modern federal courts’ approach is to Constitutional governance. To be clear, courts are not supposed to change policy or make new policy, they are just supposed to interpret the law as written. So supposedly this ruling is “not a change in the law” but rather a discovery that actually the law has always been this way but oops, someone read it wrong 158 years ago…
With my respect for you as a person, I think your idea here is demonstrating both ignorance and cynicism to the way the law works. This type of interpretation of law is by design. When lawmakers write a law, it’s specifically the judicial branch’s job to interpret it, which is exactly what is happening here. It’s also exactly how you describe by design: legislators can pass laws that say whatever they want. They can…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's only one of many ways to consume it, many people vape, have edibles or drinks and you just don't notice.
Even as a daily weed smoker myself though, it's hard not to acknowledge that a more liberal marijuana stance in a geographic location does lead to that smell being more commonly encountered when in public and out and about. Personally I don't mind, almost the opposite, but for people who don't like the smell, obviously they feel differently. Good thing we can have different policies in different places, and people ca…
Could depend on where I live and hangout though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure. But by the text of the constitution (the thing we made up) Congress does not have the power to criminalize “anything,” but only things in specific areas. Everything else is left to state law.
So make an "amendment" then. You've got a bunch already
If you have a stock pot, a steel bowl that is large enough to sit on top of the stock pot, and a Pyrex measuring glass, you can start distilling now. Put the glass in the center of the pot. Fill the pot with not enough mash to float the glass. Top the pot with the bowl. The condensate will form on the bowl and run towards the bottom center of the bowl, where it will drip into the glass. I was able to distill a few bo…
> I was able to distill a few bottles of home made apple wine that I had screwed up some additional flavorings on. It took a couple of hours for 3 or 4 bottles. My grandfather used to make something called Apple Jack using a method known as freeze distillation. He'd put fermented cider (widely available in rural New York) in a cask and place it out in the barn on a really cold night. The water would freeze, but the a…
One problem with freeze-distillation is that it's more like removing watery alcohol and taking everything else than it is like in boil distillation where you're trying to remove alcoholic water and leave everything else behind. So you still need to make multiple runs to get the ABV up, but boiling will remove impurities, whereas freezing will concetrate them.
[0] IDK, that's just a guess, I'm not inclined to look it up. I'm not writing a reference guide here.
Decisions like this illustrate what a hollow farce the modern federal courts’ approach is to Constitutional governance. To be clear, courts are not supposed to change policy or make new policy, they are just supposed to interpret the law as written. So supposedly this ruling is “not a change in the law” but rather a discovery that actually the law has always been this way but oops, someone read it wrong 158 years ago…
With my respect for you as a person, I think your idea here is demonstrating both ignorance and cynicism to the way the law works. This type of interpretation of law is by design. When lawmakers write a law, it’s specifically the judicial branch’s job to interpret it, which is exactly what is happening here. It’s also exactly how you describe by design: legislators can pass laws that say whatever they want. They can…
I think that would be constitutional, but in conflict with other laws.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yaeh this is a thing states do. South Dakota went in cahoots with the courts to cancel the ballot initiative to legalize weed, and California went in cahoots with the courts to sabotage prop 8 (the banning of gay marriage).
California Proposition 8 (gay marriage ban) was unconstitutional though, it was always likely to be struck down by the SC.
SCOTUS did not find gay marriage bans unconstitutional in that case. Only the 9th circuit did, and California intentionally stopped defending it at the 9th circuit because the 9th circuit is and was pro gay marriage.
Decisions like this illustrate what a hollow farce the modern federal courts’ approach is to Constitutional governance. To be clear, courts are not supposed to change policy or make new policy, they are just supposed to interpret the law as written. So supposedly this ruling is “not a change in the law” but rather a discovery that actually the law has always been this way but oops, someone read it wrong 158 years ago…
Do this one next: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich The Supreme Court somehow held that the feds can regulate what you do in your own home (in this case, growing marijuana for personal use) because it could have a butterfly effect on the interstate price. (Constitutionally, the feds can only regulate _interstate_ commerce.)
That's really strange.. I grow tomatoes at home. Surely that would apply too?