Comments on: Bill would eliminate federal prohibition of marijuana http://rockrivertimes.com/2011/06/23/bill-would-eliminate-federal-prohibition-of-marijuana/ The Rock River Times - THE VOICE OF THE COMMUNITY SINCE 1993 Wed, 22 May 2013 21:52:05 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Daniel Robert Smyth http://rockrivertimes.com/2011/06/23/bill-would-eliminate-federal-prohibition-of-marijuana/comment-page-1/#comment-2995 Daniel Robert Smyth Sat, 25 Jun 2011 21:23:54 +0000 http://rockrivertimes.com/?p=31243#comment-2995 Federal law cannot prohibit drugs that are not transferred across state and federal lines. What you grow and use at home without selling or buying it is free for all! Federal law restricts drug trafficking by the way of the commerce clause in the constitution. Unlike the alcohol prohibition amendment to the constitution that was overturned, there are no federal rules for drugs made and used in the same state! To win in the federal courts, you need to prove that the drug you are using does not fall under the commerce clause of the constitution. It CAN be done! The goal of the bill, HR 2306, is not to legalize marijuana but to remove it from the list of federally controlled substances while allowing states to decide how they will regulate it. The bill appears doomed on arrival, according to the Associated Press, which reported that House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith said his panel, which the proposed law is required to venture through, would not even consider it. A first step to allow the good stuff in without the narcotic label is long over due! Sadly, the feds have little to do with the law being legal for use in Illinois. The state has lengthy laws and regulations concerning drugs of all kinds. Unless the federal government mentions the drug by name as legal for all, we will continue to have legal problems with the state. I am not a current user, but I would not be opposed to venturing back to a younger period in my life. This being said, I agree and applaud employers who restrict the private use of drugs in the workplace. I have no problem with an employer testing me for drugs as a condition for employment and at periodic times as they may desire. As long as the testing is known about before hand, it is up to the employer and not the worker what the employer wants to deal with. As I see so many of my relatives paying more than my rent payment for drugs just to live on, I welcome the idea of making all drugs free for all to use. If you want Heroine, knock yourself out! If you like the smell of garbage in your clothes and your house, be a pothead. If you are a lush or a speed freak, belly up to the table and have at it! As I see it, my rights end where yours begin! If you want to ruin your life, no matter how much you are advised not to, then you should be on your own. I will go to the doctor and ask for his recommendations. Then I should be able to get it all without insurance for a buck at Wall-Mart or make it right in my tub! Why do we need the government to make it so that my insurance better pay of I can't have my medicine? So drop Barney Frank off at the bank, and let's get a responsible person from the Democrats to help sponsor the bill! ARE there any responsible Democrats? Federal law cannot prohibit drugs that are not transferred across state and federal lines. What you grow and use at home without selling or buying it is free for all! Federal law restricts drug trafficking by the way of the commerce clause in the constitution. Unlike the alcohol prohibition amendment to the constitution that was overturned, there are no federal rules for drugs made and used in the same state!

To win in the federal courts, you need to prove that the drug you are using does not fall under the commerce clause of the constitution. It CAN be done!

The goal of the bill, HR 2306, is not to legalize marijuana but to remove it from the list of federally controlled substances while allowing states to decide how they will regulate it.
The bill appears doomed on arrival, according to the Associated Press, which reported that House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith said his panel, which the proposed law is required to venture through, would not even consider it.

A first step to allow the good stuff in without the narcotic label is long over due!

Sadly, the feds have little to do with the law being legal for use in Illinois. The state has lengthy laws and regulations concerning drugs of all kinds. Unless the federal government mentions the drug by name as legal for all, we will continue to have legal problems with the state.

I am not a current user, but I would not be opposed to venturing back to a younger period in my life.
This being said, I agree and applaud employers who restrict the private use of drugs in the workplace. I have no problem with an employer testing me for drugs as a condition for employment and at periodic times as they may desire. As long as the testing is known about before hand, it is up to the employer and not the worker what the employer wants to deal with.

As I see so many of my relatives paying more than my rent payment for drugs just to live on, I welcome the idea of making all drugs free for all to use. If you want Heroine, knock yourself out! If you like the smell of garbage in your clothes and your house, be a pothead. If you are a lush or a speed freak, belly up to the table and have at it! As I see it, my rights end where yours begin! If you want to ruin your life, no matter how much you are advised not to, then you should be on your own.

I will go to the doctor and ask for his recommendations. Then I should be able to get it all without insurance for a buck at Wall-Mart or make it right in my tub! Why do we need the government to make it so that my insurance better pay of I can’t have my medicine?

So drop Barney Frank off at the bank, and let’s get a responsible person from the Democrats to help sponsor the bill! ARE there any responsible Democrats?

]]>