OK, I did it. I'm the guilty one.

[johnaries]

After reading the decision today of the SCOTUS on medical marijuana, I felt the decision was a violation of State's rights and Individual Rights.

From what I read here and lurking on Free Republic, a lot of DUer's and FReepers agree on this one issue.

So, I registered on FR and posted the following:
Hello FReepers! Let me begin by fully admitting outright that I am what many of you refer to as a “DUmmy” That’s right, I am a member of DU, and I sometimes lurk here just as some of you lurk at DU. My screen name at DU is also johnaries.

But, I am not here to taunt, tease, or tell you all how much I hate you. I am here because there is an issue that the majority of both “DUmmies” and “FReepers” seem to agree on, if you can imagine that such a thing is possible. AND, I am afraid that unless “DUmmies” and “FReepers” work together on this issue it has no chance in h*ll of being resolved to the benefit of the American People.

I am talking about the Supreme Court’s decision today to override State’s Rights for Medical Marijuana.

Let’s face reality, the only argument against Medical Marijuana is that it is easily grown at home and pharmaceutical companies can’t control it and make a profit off of it. Pharmaceutical companies donate heavily to both Republicans and Democrats, so don’t expect any kind of partisan support from either side. We, the grassroots community, must do it.

Plus, billions of dollars spent in the War on Drugs are wasted on Marijuana, when that money could be better spent on truly dangerous drugs like crack, heroin, or meth.

Marijuana detractors claim that it is addictive. 1, doctors prescribe additive drugs every day: that’s why they’re only allowed by prescription. 2, Marijuana is not physically addictive. It can be psychologically addictive, simply because it can be used as an “escape mechanism”. This isn’t a problem with Marijuana, this is a problem with the person using it! H*ll, Harry Potter and Star Wars can be just as addictive!

Myself, I gave up pot a long time ago because after a while it just made me sleepy and stupid. I can tell you from personal experience that Nicotine, Caffeine, and Alcohol are MUCH more addictive and dangerous! And yet, they’re legal: because they can be regulated and taxed.

So, what do you think? Can “DUmmies” and “FReepers” work together on this issue? We can still agree to hate each other on everything else.

- Flame me as a traitor if you like, but I think this is an issue that goes beyond traditional partisan boundries and we need to step across those boundries if we expect to make a difference.

Ok, I'm ready. Hit me!

[LittleClarkie]

1. I have only one question

Did they ban you right away?

[Jacobin]

2. What was the response?

I don't like going over there. Have to hose my computer down.

Snips of responses, can you post here?

[NMDemDist2]

3. I'll only hit you if you don't bring their responses over here -- I want

the good, the bad and the ugly (or at least a tally of each) :evilgrin:

[ooglymoogly]

4. oh well what do you expect

zig heil

[in_cog_ni_to]

5. Did you get any responses or banned yet?

They don't allow Democrats to post no matter how "moderate" they are.

[SnoopDog]

6. Good job. Thats one small step for pot - one giant leap for Americans!

[seabeyond]

9. that is funny snoop. father (r) called for me to watch clinton (d)

on fox (r) with greta. and it was interesting. clinton talked about what started this fighting between two parties, and when it started how it was fed, parts dems did to contribute (though most responsibility went to repugs) and medias part in it.

was interesting all the sides of togetherness tonite and kumbiya

[SnoopDog]

10. Thanks. I'm waiting to read johnaries report!

[OrlandoGator]

7. Link?

n/t

[johnaries]

12. I posted in 2 threads:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1417304/posts
and
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1417402/posts

[Protagoras]

13. Quotes please

many of us don't have enough Firewall and software available to make us feel safe entering a Freepsychotic zone.

[proud2BlibKansan]

16. Now here is an interesting exchange

Free access to marijuana is a matter of religious faith to you?

Don't worry - his sentiment is neatly cancelled out by those to whom the supremacy of government authority is a matter of religious faith ... and action!

[TahitiNut]

20. Comment #85 Removed by Moderator

But it has some replies in the second thread.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1417402/replies?c=809

[proud2BlibKansan]

22. check this out

To: YOUGOTIT

Sadly,

The Bush administration supported this expansion of federal power. Anybody remember the so-called 10th amendment?

Where's a good strict constructionist when you need 5 of 'em?
28 posted on 06/06/2005 7:27:33 AM PDT by aliceburrows

[walldude]

8. No flame here

hell we need more "common ground" issues these days. The discourse between political parties has seeped into the public arena. The media and politicans have driven a wedge between us. Used to be you could have a disagreement and go grab a beer afterwords. Nowdays it's all or nothing...
"Only a Sith deals in absolutes".
(I know enough Star Wars already, but it's accurate)

[proud2BlibKansan]

14. But is this really a common ground issue?

Them freepers can be pretty righteous. And law and order types too.

[Hippo_Tron]

28. Some of them are libertarians

And some of them are strict constructionists. That's where you get cases like Bob Barr being against the Patriot Act.

[FreedomAngel82]

17. I think so too

I think there is a lot more of us on the same page then we think. The rightwing GOP people just use issues like gay marriage and abortion to divide us even more and make it appear that way. But if you talk about something like this, health care and having jobs we're in agreement. If only people would realize this!

[chaska]

11. Dude, did they kill you? Report.

[johnaries]

15. Not Banned Yet! But,

so far the responses have been pretty much what you would expect (WARNING! actual FReeper posts!):
To: johnaries
LOL!

You've definitely placed a tall order, there! We can't even agree amongst ourselves on this issue.

But let's analyze this a second. The Supreme Court really had its hands tied, here. If they came out in favor, they would have undermined WICKARD v. FILBURN; that keystone in US Law that gives Congress the power to control nearly everything and forms the elemental bedrock for all of the Federal programs that sprang from the New Deal. So, I'm pretty sure that neither you nor any of your DU cohorts would want to see that ruling overturned. But if that ruling stands, then this ruling must stand, too. You can't have it both ways.

Of course, if you REALLY love your weed, and you're willing to take on Big Fed to have it, I think there are a whole lot of Solid Conservatives who would gladly let you keep a few home cultivated plants in return for dismantling all of the scores of tax-dollar-sucking Federal programs that hinge upon WICKARD v. FILBURN.

Just think, we'd all be happy then; even the Libertarians!
To: johnaries
Libertarian dopers can get along with Commie dopers and Dummie dopers and fascist dopers too.

You are barking up the wrong tree with conservatives though.
To: johnaries
Your support from Freepers will be by you Dummies supporting judges like Thomas and Renquist.

Not to mention appeal court judges like Brown your dummie friends had been fillibustering.

Though most Americans support Social Security and the other workers' protections that grew out of the New Deal, Brown holds to a peculiar constitutional view that dismisses the New Deal as "the triumph of our own socialist revolution."

Speaking to the Chicago chapter of the Federalist Society five years ago, she said, "The New Deal . . . inoculated the federal Constitution with a kind of underground collectivist mentality. The Constitution itself was transmuted into a significantly different document."

See This:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1394155/posts?page=68#68
To: johnaries
ph... Getlost!
To: johnaries
Myself, I gave up pot a long time ago because after a while it just made me sleepy and stupid.
So you are awake now!!!! What happened to the "stupid" part? (JUST KIDDING, really, I would have picked on you, DU or FR alike).

At least the last one was semi-friendly and humorous.

Oh well, it's still early. I'm patient.

[johnaries]

18. OK, I am banned now.

That didn't take long. So, what part of the Free Republic is Free or Republic? Plato must be rolling over in his grave.

[in_cog_ni_to]

21. LOL....typical.

I'm surprised your post lasted as long as it did.

[johnaries]

24. I was probably banned while I was posting here.

Why am I not surprised? I go over there, be completely honest, offer an olive branch and ask "even though we disagree on other things, is this something we can work on for our common good?", they can't even think about discussing it because I'm the "enemy".

Typical Bush policy.

No wonder the world hates us.

On edit - wrong metaphor, changed "laurel of peace" to "olive branch". Dam! only a few minutes on FR can do that to your brain?!?!?!

[Avalux]

31. lol - you tried

and yes, poor Plato. Check my sig line. :hi:

[spindoctor]

19. I don't think good Republicans should smoke pot.

Highly immoral, highly immoral.

Then again, it would explain some of their theories.

Ahhhhh...

[beyurslf]

23. While I support medical mary j, i do think the SCOTUS

was right when saying it violated fed law.

[johnaries]

25. THANK YOU! At least that's an honest reply with some thought

behind it. And you're probably right. The Civil War pretty much established that Federal Law over-rides State Law. We can't blame SCOTUS for ruling on bad laws, we need to change the law.

I can't tell you how much that brief experience of FR makes me appreciate DU - yes, even the in-fighting and eating our own. At least we don't march in lock step and constantly have to toe the party line!

[Hippo_Tron]

26. Actually Marbury vs Madison established the supremacy clause

Or federal law over-rides state laws. The problem is that this is not about supremacy, it is about the federal government acting outside of its constitutional authority. Because the constitution doesn't express or imply that the federal government has the right to regulate marijuana and because the constitution doesn't express or imply that the people have the right to use marijuana, that means that it is up to the states to regulate marijuana. California's law saying that marijuana may be used for medicinal purposes is constitutional. The federal government's law saying that people can't use marijuana is unconstitutional because they don't have that power.

[beyurslf]

29. Where does the Constitution say the Fed Govt can require

people to pay into Social Security or Medicare? What amendment allows them to build highways or mandate special education? The Fed Govt has the authority to pass laws for the public good or public saftey--hence weapons bans and spped limits (back when we had them). I believe they would say that drug laws fall under this. They could always use interstate commerce as an excuse also.

Marcury v Madison established that the Supreme Court can rule that a federal law is or is not constitutional. It gave an actual purpose to the SCOTUS.

[Hippo_Tron]

30. Err I meant McCulloch vs Maryland

And they have not said that drug laws fall under "public good or public safety" they have used interstate commerce, which is a bunch of crap. What happens within the state of California has nothing to do with interstate commerce.

[Hippo_Tron]

27. The federal government's law was unconstitutional, see my post below

BTW, if you think that the interstate commerce clause gives the federal government this power, then explain to me how legalizing the growing and usage of medicinal marijuana within the state of California has anything to do with interstate commerce or, for that matter, has anything to do with any other state.

[Freddie Stubbs]

32. The Court's decision wasn't about the merits of medical marajuana

It was about the limits of the commerce clause.

[four more wars]

33. I gave up smoking weed 7 years ago

I gave up because I wanted to. Because, like you, it made me sleepy and stupid.

I have yet to hear one valid reason why alcohol should be acceptable and Pot should be illegal.

One valid reason that I can't refute, just one, and I'll join the campaign to have it permanently outlawed.

PS Freepers, don't try and give me a reason where I can easily turn round and give you 10 times as many reasons why alcohol is as bad, I want a justifiable reason why the Bush administration See's fit to send someone in possession of a couple of joints to jail for life, and yet it is perfectly fine to walk into to a local shop and buy a bottle of brandy........

[Must_B_Free]

34. Looked like many FReekers were against this ruling

on the basis of smaller government. One I saw was worried they would come for his bullets next.