Federal Appeals Court Rules DEA, Federal Govt. Must 'Promptly' Reassess Marijuana's Illegality

How many red states have legalized weed?

 

Federal Appeals Court Rules DEA, Federal Govt. Must 'Promptly' Reassess Marijuana's Illegality

Talk about judicial overreach wow... So what happens if the DEA and Fed Gov't reaffirms marijuana being illegal?

 

To make law on the basis of "society being affected negatively" is an anathema to the founding principles and individual liberty.

This justification for law is known as "Utilitarianism" - a justification that looks only at "what will increase happiness for the collective". This justification completely ignores the rights of the individual.

The problems with this justification are 1) who gets to decide - one mans poison is another mans pleasure 2) allows for an end run around the safeguards that are in place to protect against Tyranny

For example - If it saves one life/ Harm Reduction. I realize that this kind of argument is now at plague proportions - which leads folks to believe that this is "Legitimate" .. but is it ?

Is "If it saves one Life" valid justification for law ?

If this is valid justification - should we not ban skiing tomorrow ? Would this not save one life - or reduce harm ? What about boating - that is really dangerous - one could drown.

Driving a car ? Forget it - in fact one should probably not rise from bed in the morning as one might fall and break neck.

In a free society the individual has the right to risk a reasonable amount of harm to themselves. If we start saying things like "someone harming themselves could incur costs to our healthcare system which poses a harm to society" - and making law on this basis - we are on a slippery slope to Tyranny/Totalitarianism.

 

I'm all for decriminalizing and even legalizing but I'm having a problem with how the court is doing this. I can't read the linked article, link is broken. The court should be sending it back to the Congress not the DEA, don't know if "Federal Govt." includes Congress in the article. DEA only enforces the law it can't change it. Now it the judge declared the marijuana laws unconstitutional then he could enjoin the DEA but if he is somehow within his authority ordering a review then I would think that would be Congress.

 

Then a new lawsuit will be filed accusing the DEA of improperly scheduling cannabis.

 

I thought the DEA made the scheduling?

 

After further reading yes you are correct DEA does the actual scheduling based in criteria Congress legislates. Marijuana is listed as class one because of "potential for abuse". It perhaps should be class two now because of medical use but the FDA has not stated a medical value that I know of. Cocaine and meth are class two and can land you in jail. I go back to Congress changing the law.

 

More activist liberal judges overstepping their authority

 

How do you figure that ? It is blatantly obvious that the laws against Pot are a clear example of "illegitimacy of authority" = abuse of Gov't power.

I thought you were for limited Gov't ?

 

I am not an anarchist

Government may change its mind about pot but has the authority to ban harmful drugs

 

So you think Tyranny is OK because you are not an anarchist. Forgive me but this is really a bad argument. It is not an "either or" or black vs white issue.

On what basis does the Gov't have this authority ?

 

The problem I have with legalization still hasnt changed. Their is no viable testing process to tell if someone is under the influence. You can smoke out on Friday night, have an innocuous slip at work that ends up in a workers comp claim, which is then denied and you are fired for failing a drug test.

Maybe further legalization will get more than just small start ups involved in the development, but that remains to be seen. Until then, I'm still solidly behind decriminalization, but against legalization.


One further point, it wont be much longer until the first strains hit the market that are genetically modified to be physically addictive. I'm guessing it will be with the introduction of nicotine. Much like tabbacco companies did in the 80s.

 

[

Harmful things like being uninsured?

 

I just don't understand the fascination with marijuana.

 

Tobacco was introduced in the 80's or wasn't addictive until the 80's?

There are test for someone being "impaired". They are also working on test that can swab the mouth for residue I guess but then perhaps someone will come up with a mouthwash to wash it all out.

 

How about with alcohol?

 

I do not accept Utilitarian arguments as valid in general. The reason for this is because they allow for an end run around the safeguards put in place to protect individual liberty and prevent Tyranny.

Sure one could bolster a valid argument with a Utilitarian perspective but as a stand alone argument this is Tyranny - by definition.

Utilitarianism is justification for law that looks only at "what will increase happiness for the collective". Harm reduction arguments are one example - a very common one these days.

The problem with this justification is that it completely ignores the rights of the individual. Full Stop.

Then there is the problem of "who gets to decide" ? one mans poison is another mans pleasure.

 

Did you not know that in the 80s the tobacco companies were caught lacking cigarettes with much higher than normal levels of nicotine in order to increase the addiction rates?

https://www.nytimes.com/1994/06/22/...co-with-stronger-nicotine-head-fda-tells.html

 

Who cares what your opinion of marijuana is. The question is not whether or not you like Pot. The question is whether one has sufficient justification to force others not to use the stuff.

 

What does this jibberish have to do with anything I posted?

 

I don't care what people put in their body, but I still don't understand the fascination with marijuana.

 

I don't understand the fascination with alcohol, tobacco, or drugs.

 

Awe man, it's a miracle drug!! Ahem, I mean herb! It cures everything! And it's ORGANIC!

Much like cocaine....which comes from another plant, and opiates, which come from a pretty little flower.

BRING ON THE ORGANICS!! Like crude oil.....oh wait, lefty is against that. Never mind modern civilization, that doesn't count. Ban oil, legalize drugs!

Fine, I don't give a ****. But in exchange for that all governments must do away with all welfare. Local, State, and Federal.

Then Darwin can sort it out.

 

There is no money in freedom. The politicians get rich from things being illegal.

 

Most people have to use mind-numbing substances in order to cope with living in America.