Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'West Mall' started by Uninformed, Dec 6, 2012.
It's a substance regulated by the Feds thus it's not a surprise they were involved. In the past year they raided 50% of the local Seattle shops licensed to sell Medical Marijuana alleging they were selling harder drugs out the back door.
Gvt doesn't think you should have any Liberties
Just read the article...these guys weren't licensed. You can be a licensed medical marijuana grow operation in California but it appears these guys were growing it for the street.
I don't understand why Homeland Security is involved in drug enforcement. It seems like their job should have something to do with making the country secure.
I've never smoked pot in my life and have no interest in ever doing so. However, I fear a tyrannical federal government more than I fear pot. This is an area where the Supreme Court needs to step in and rein in the federal drug laws. Unless there's an intent to do business across state or international lines (and just growing a lot of it shouldn't by itself be enough to presume that), I don't see how the federal government has any legitimate authority here.
I'm not optimistic. We're likely to get a more liberal Supreme Court in the next few years, and the liberal wing won't support weakening the commerce clause, even if it's to legalize marijuana. (The issue has already been tested. Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005).
I would not expect any help from the SC as they have been undermining liberty in the interest of law enforcement since the Nixon admin
[quoteI would not expect any help from the SC as they have been undermining liberty in the interest of law enforcement since the Nixon admin
I am more concerned with the apparent expansion of roles for the Department of Homeland Security. I thought the department was a horrible idea at the time. My thoughts haven't changed. I could see the Department gaining more and more power and infringing on our freedom.
the libs have been enlarging the powers of the federal government generally while the repuiblicans have narrowed the ambit of the rights related to search and seizure, etc.
My joke with clients is that due process now means whatever is most useful to the constabulary.
A lot of our rights under the original ten amendments are sort of vague, just like the rest of the constitution. You can read them broadly in favor of liberty or narrowly in favor of law enforcement efficiency. It has been a one way highway for a few decades, starting with the appointments made by the fellow running the burglary ring out of the basement. Who was, in many respects a very good president imo