One would have to be missing the vein with Mr. S. Holme's needle to float so dubious a deduction. The argument is to be taken-up with the oh-so liberalOregon Blues wrote: It's looking suspiciously like the opposition here doesn't want the government interfering with their right to smoke marijuana.
![LOL :lol: :lol:](/styles/byc-smilies/lol.png)
“Even the majority does not argue that respondents’ conduct is itself “Commerce among the several States.” Monson and Raich neither buy nor sell the marijuana that they consume. They cultivate their cannabis entirely in the State of California – it never crosses state lines, much less as part of a commercial transaction. Certainly no evidence from the founding suggests that “commerce” included the mere possession of a good or some purely personal activity that did not involve trade or exchange for value. In the early days of the Republic, it would have been unthinkable that Congress could prohibit the local cultivation, possession, and consumption of marijuana.”
I object to both the method (cost-benefit analysis reveals that the testing is a wash at best) and the insulting way it is being promoted: that similiar legislation has been introduced in twenty-two State Legislatures this calendar year is no indication that drug testing has suddenly become an excellent means of reducing fraud; it is, rather, as Shakespeare would put it "proof of something much too round". My response, to paraphrase Mr. Wales, "don't urinate (sic) down my back and tell me it's raining" If those State Legislators were serious they would actually get together and promote `real' fraud squashing $$$$. Thereby saving real money - but that is not their motive, is it? The problem with the `96 Personal Responsibility `reform' act (Clinton+Gingrich job) is that each State was allowed to implement it as they liked it. Some States are doing a pretty good job (Texas/Louisiana), some absolutely suck: (Pennsylvania, Maine). Take PA, for instance: An independent investigative panel was set up to look into the system. Two different Gov.s./administrations wouldn't force the State Welfare Agency to turn over their records or otherwise cooperate:Oregon Blues wrote: Me, I am thinking I resent it when I work hard in order to pay the rent , food, and medical of someone who spends their day laying on the couch, watching TV, stoned on meth, or heroin, or whatever, and I will include booze here. As far as I am concerned, if they don't want to be drug tested, they can go and get a job and pay for their own rent, food, and medical. I also resent it when the dopers sell their food stamps and buy dope instead of feeding their kids with the money they were given to feed their kids. Because that is money that the government has taken away from me so that I no longer have it to feed my own children. I consider it a violation of my rights, to take money away from my family to support lazy slugs who ought to be capable of working, but would just rather not. do not resent the assistance given to people who really need it, but I would be quite happy to see the cheats removed from the welfare rolls.
![](/proxy.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.backyardchickens.com%2F2%2F2e%2F2ea7caf6_dpw.jpeg&hash=849865e2f38f42456a8292295b0dc638)
Last edited: