Drug test for welfare recipients

[redhen]

The law banning pot is a federal law. The fed does not have the power to make that law. They only have the power to make it illegal to transport pot across state lines.


As for firing them, you have the power to fire your congressman, senator an the president for any reason you want. But not the other congressman an senators. They don't work for you.

Gah,.. i'm confused, as usual..

All i know is, in MA, if you get caught with it... or caught selling it... you can be really screwed.. again depending on the amount you are caught with..

You mean i cant fire other states congressmen or senators?? If so, yes, i kinda already thought that...it would be the residents/voters of each state to do that..? No?

 

[rebelcowboysnb]

Yes, all you could do is drug test an report the results then wait an see what there constituents do.

As for the law, go read threw the Constitution an see if you find anywhere it gives the fed the power to ban ownership of a plant.

 

[redhen]

Yes, all you could do is drug test an report the results then wait an see what there constituents do.

As for the law, go read threw the Constitution an see if you find anywhere it gives the fed the power to ban ownership of a plant.

Oh, okay,.. NOW i see what you are getting at!...
You KNOW i'm slow....
Have patience with me..

 

[newfoundland]

Just to put the cat amongst the pigeons, birth control is free here.

 

[EweSheep]

Yeah, go tell it on past Gov Blago! Wished we could fire our Gov. Quinn for such wasted spending and we are already in debt up to our eyeballs!

The law banning pot is a federal law. The fed does not have the power to make that law. They only have the power to make it illegal to transport pot across state lines.


As for firing them, you have the power to fire your congressman, senator an the president for any reason you want. But not the other congressman an senators. They don't work for you.

 

[chickened]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Substances_Act

This is where they get the power.

Yes, all you could do is drug test an report the results then wait an see what there constituents do.

As for the law, go read threw the Constitution an see if you find anywhere it gives the fed the power to ban ownership of a plant.

 

[chickened]

It should be free here... and mandatory for some.

Just to put the cat amongst the pigeons, birth control is free here.

 

[rebelcowboysnb]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Substances_Act

This is where they get the power.


Quote:
No, that is them trying to make a power for the fed that the Constitution did not give. You can not legislate new powers. Regulating a drug inside all the states was what Prohibition was. It took amending the Constitution to give the fed thet power. The states then changed there mind an repelled that power. To be legal, the Prohibition of pot would take the same amendment to the Constitution. The states did not give them that power threw a new amendment so the fed ran over states rights an are enforcing a illegal Prohibition. The fact that Ca made pot legal but the fed is still holding raids in Ca shows the carelessness about states rights.

 

[chickened]

I thought Congressional acts were made by the States through representatives.

I thought we would have learned our lesson about drugs with opium dens.

Constitution. Article VI, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, declares: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; .

No, that is them trying to make a power for the fed that the Constitution did not give. You can not legislate new powers. Regulating a drug inside all the states was what Prohibition was. It took amending the Constitution to give the fed thet power. The states then changed there mind an repelled that power. To be legal, the Prohibition of pot would take the same amendment to the Constitution. The states did not give them that power threw a new amendment so the fed ran over states rights an are enforcing a illegal Prohibition. The fact that Ca made pot legal but the fed is still holding raids in Ca shows the carelessness about states rights.

 

[AquaEyes]

I agree that there are negative effects an individual experiences when using drugs, but there are negative effects of doing a lot of things. I understand and agree with the idea that some substances are too dangerous for the general population to be allowed to possess, but in terms of regulation, I would agree only if those dangers relate to effects felt by people beyond the user. For example, possessing strongly radioactive material will cause harm to people based upon proximity, regardless of who actually possesses the substance. When it comes to growing a plant and consuming it in such a way so as to enjoy the effects produced in the body and brain, to me that's a bit absurd.

The origins of criminalizing cannabis were cultural and racist -- portraying "the wrong sort of people" as being frequent users, there became a movement to ban the behavior as a way of punishing those people, and it created a snowball effect that we now call the drug war. The main forces who wish to keep it illegal are those who gain financially from it being so -- dealers who make more profit because of how supply and demand are affected by the laws, and law enforcement agencies who are paid to keep chasing them down. Neither wants the system to change, because then they'll be out of a job. The main proponents of decriminalization are the people who wish to continue enjoying their usage in the privacy of their own homes without fear of arrest or paying fines for doing so.

When a movement began to criminalize alcohol, a thriving black market arose, because demand for the product didn't disappear when it suddenly became illegal. Suppliers saw this demand and potential for profit, and competition led to violence. Law enforcement saw another way to wield power, as well as accepting bribes to "look the other way." The effect was that for people who still desired to consume the product, costs went up dramatically, and because the product was an illegal substance, the threat of incarceration was ever present.

And what do we have today? Basically the same system, only the substance has changed.

I can't remember which country off the top of my head (I'll have to dig around and get back to you), but I remember seeing a documentary about the drug war here that examined how things are working in a European country that recently decriminalized many of its drugs, and had government-funded rehabilitation provided free for addicts seeking to get clean. The part that raised my eyebrows was when the interviewer asked "Don't the taxpayers object to the idea of paying for addicts' rehab?" and the person responded "Well, in actuality, we have determined that it costs less taxpayer money to do it this way than it costs to maintain the addicts as criminals in jail."

Hmmmm......