Skip to main content

View Diary: Perry and Santorum spar over marijuana & why Dems should be pushing the issue. (42 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Abortion! (0+ / 0-)

    Okay, go all of the way back to the beginning. There was something about freedom, as I recall! And of course "The Right to Privacy" was not discussed because everyone had actual privacy to the extent that trying to diminish privacy by trying to distill it down to a mere "RIGHT" would have been the farthest thing from the minds of those folks. But what did they want, what did they believe, and how would they now react (if, of course, that were even vaguely physically possible)? They would look at the mental masturbation that you spread on these pages and wonder how in the fuck they ever screwed things up this badly.

    But, of course, The Warren Court saved them with that whole "penumbras" thing (and whatever else mumbo jumbo it took) and "The Right to Privacy" certainly did stand there in all its splendor for any and all to behold. And the weak assed cowardly right wing Supremes don't have the guts to take the sword to it, but they clearly have set out to have it pecked to death by ducks. and you come here and virtually demand that the rest of us acquiesce to their patently indefensible strategy and arguments?

    THE SECOND AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION!!

    There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

    by oldpotsmuggler on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 06:42:11 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  ok, going back to the beginning, (0+ / 0-)

      there same courts that upheld a right to choice didn't uphold a right to marijuana.  Now, that might mean they half-assed it, or it might mean, they saw the slippery slope coming -- which is to say, why not a due process right to heroin.  he Supreme Court is simply under no obligation to mandate the legalization of marijuana if that would result in the complete inability of state or federal governments to do any kind of pure food and drug laws!  

      (If it's that marijuana is less dangerous than heroin -- as it is -- the courts count on legislatures to do the right thing.  Though they haven't in this case, there's not a principled line by which they can endorse marijuana legalization as a due process right and not take away a whole lot of desirable regulation.)  

      But no, the constitution was intended to give the federal government a lot of regulatory power, and to retain powers for the states that existed at common law.  One of these was regulation of what products are available for sale to put in one's body.  As a federal or state regulation, marijuana prohibitions are constitutional.  That doesn't make them good ideas, that doesn't make them bad ideas.  They happen to be bad ideas, but only because we live in a society that makes marijuana prohibition unreasonable.  If we lived in a different society, a different empirical outcome would result.  The genius of the Constitution is the answer would stay the same.

      Now, if you want to talk about specific areas in which criminal procedure law has bent to accommodate the war against drugs, I'm all ears, but drug prohibition, in and of itself, is completely constitutional.  And the price for arguing it isn't is that states -- including Mississippi and Wyoming -- should be able to set whatever rights they wish to.  

      Reconceptualize as follows:  marijuana smoking might be private.  Marijuana buying isn't.  Paying for an abortion is a decision a hell of a lot more fundamental and constitutive of gender identity (reproductive choice) than choosing to get fucked up in one manner versus another.  Merely saying "right to privacy" as if it's a self defining concept gets you nowhere.  What "is" the right to privacy?  I submit it's not the choice to smoke weed or not smoke weed.  I have nothing against it either way, but the fact is, the consequences of abstention are not nearly the consequences of being forced to carry a fetus to term.  That doesn't make anti-marijuana laws enforceable in a fair manner, which is what i initially argued, but not all unfairness rises to the level of unconstitutionality.  The easiest solution is not to smoke pot.  It's just not a civil rights issue, except to the extent anti-marijuana laws are unfairly enforced, but that's (a) not sufficient to make them unconstitutional on their face and (b) not something that's determinable on the face of the statute.  As I've said repeatedly, a statute can be a bad idea and constitutional at the same time.  Statutes can also be good ideas and unconstitutional.  

      and what makes you think a second constitutional convention would work out the way you want it?

      "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

      by Loge on Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 09:32:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Now "devils advocate" against yourself and (0+ / 0-)

        you'll see that you are choosing to take the position you like, not the only possible position that there is.

        What is there about personal freedom that you oppose?

        There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

        by oldpotsmuggler on Wed Sep 28, 2011 at 01:00:16 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's ridiculous (0+ / 0-)

          a Supreme Court decision within the past decade has held precisely that the federal government can regulate medicinal marijuana on commerce clause grounds, Gonzales v. Raich.

          My personal preference is these laws are stupid on the grounds they are not enforced fairly (though constitutionally) or in a cost-efficient manner.  So, your entire premise in response is out of line (and I could say the same thing -- you're trying to say what's constitutional is what you like).  But the Constitution allows a whole bunch of bad stuff to happen.  How this is the "position I like" is deliberately dishonest on your part.  It's a Constitutional position I like, that there should be robust federal regulation of a wide variety of things, but applied to an area where I think it's unwisely applied, as I made abundantly clear.

          The only thing I oppose regarding "personal freedom" is the faulty intellectual assumption that the Constitution protects more than it actually does.  Calling something "freedom" and then bootstrapping a Constitutional argument on top of it is just circular reasoning.  As Oliver Wendell Holmes said of being a Justice, if my fellow citizens want to go to hell, it's my job to help them.  Now that wouldn't apply where there is a clear violation of a Constitutional right, or where a law unfairly burdens a protected class of citizens, to pick the two most prominent examples, but nobody has successfully proven a Constitutional violation from the application of a marijuana prohibition as a matter of substantive law.  That's just a straight-up fact.

          "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

          by Loge on Wed Sep 28, 2011 at 02:23:12 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The justification of law is to aid in the (0+ / 0-)

            development of the society. And Holmes said a lot of seemingly bright stuff, but, when it comes down to it, he was only a more intelligent and coherent Scalia.

            See, my starting point is that I'm your worst nightmare. I was the guy in law school that sold the pot to the faculty and the Law Review folks (but, actually I never sold to them, because I was astute enough to supply those people for free, and made up for it on what I charged the rest of the law school student body). So what you need to reconcile to have even a beginning point for your whole approach to the modern world is why I'm the only one in that scenario who experienced any legal repercussions from our societies drug war on itself, and why we can still keep churning out "legal minds" who are all too happy to construct facile "legal arguments" justifying what even you can't avoid describing as societal self destructive behavior.

            There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

            by oldpotsmuggler on Wed Sep 28, 2011 at 07:10:20 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  My worst nightmare (0+ / 0-)

              is scorpions attacking me in my sleep, not old hippie burnouts.

              Saying law exists to serve society can support nearly any position, including perhaps the polar opposite argument.  While legislatures got this question wrong, it's still the type of question im more comfortable with elected officials making (going back to the point that there are no fundamental rights at issue in pharmaceutical regulation or commercial transactions).  I'm all for changing these laws legislatively, not at all for cutting the knees out of the federal government in many areas, as is the price for doing so judicially.   So, I need to reconcile nothing.  Sometimes democracies make mistakes.  The choices are to support correcting them or not, and in the meantime to decide whether to follow or not follow the laws in question.  The only conflict emerges with people who break a law they support.  I follow one I think is unwise.

              Oh, and Holmes and Scalia believe mostly the exact opposite things, except that lochner style freedom of contract is bad law.

              "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

              by Loge on Wed Sep 28, 2011 at 09:25:44 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Bought and paid for, owned lock, stock and barrel (0+ / 0-)

                legislatures?

                And a Supreme Court only nominally (at best) not there also?

                At some point in time you have to join the battle based on the legal system you have, not the one you wish you had.

                Dude (or dudette, as the case may be), only one of us is hallucinating, and it ain't me.

                There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

                by oldpotsmuggler on Thu Sep 29, 2011 at 07:42:54 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  you might not be hallucinating (0+ / 0-)

                  but your comment makes zero sense.  

                  just to begin, you think being forced to carry a fetus to term is an equivalent infringement on liberty of not being allowed to listen to Pink Floyd without the benefit of reefer.  So, i submit you don't have to hallucinate to be out of whack.

                  oh, and I'm describing the legal system we have, and i wish we have.  if marijuana laws are struck down, i want it to be by legislative repeal, not by judicial fiat.  

                  put that in your pipe and smoke it.

                  "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

                  by Loge on Thu Sep 29, 2011 at 08:24:19 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Like I said - (0+ / 0-)

                    "At some point in time you have to join the battle based on the legal system you have, not the one you wish you had."

                    You're welcome to join the real world as soon as you're able to develop the moral strength to do so.

                    When we imprison millions of our citizens, year after year, decade after decade, for doing nothing more than exhibiting behaviors that our bodies are hard wired to seek, we inflict grievious societal harm with absolutely no discernable offsetting benefit.

                    And you're seemingly willing to perpetuate this injustice ad infinitum?

                    There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

                    by oldpotsmuggler on Thu Sep 29, 2011 at 08:49:35 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  so, you're repeating the line in your comment (0+ / 0-)

                      that doesn't make any sense.

                      Joining the real world involves recognizing limits.  And while I agree that imprisoning people for marijuana is not cost-effective, I don't see it as necessarily unconstitutional, and I don't see the Constitution as awful because it allows that.  Like I said, it deprives people of something they want to do, but that's the price of democracy.  

                      The moral strength and real world, etc., is I do believe we should interpret the Constitution as it exists in such a way as to promote the best outcomes.  Nevertheless, sometimes ideas come in conflict.  In this case, throwing out the idea of regulating any kind of pharmaceuticals seems like a worse idea than criminalizing the occasional old pot smuggler.  

                      And I maintain, simply saying what you want to do i equivalent to what the government shouldn't have the right to prohibit is just dishonest.  Being sober for a while isn't equivalent in the least to carrying a child against one's wishes.  This is true even while recognizing that marijuana prohibitions just don't work. They're bad ideas, as applied.  That should be good enough.

                      I'm not going to join a battle I have no chance -- and have no arguments -- of winning.

                      "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

                      by Loge on Thu Sep 29, 2011 at 09:04:20 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site