World according to America

[Greebe]

No but it was America against Vietnam and therefore it didn't really affect anyone else apart from those parties. Those who did get involved didn't have to. Politician's or not you still Lost which I find amusing.

It wasn't a war against Vietnam silly, GAWD... it was a war against communistic expansion in the far east with China and Russia backing it.

[Wombat]

The problem with your logic is that drug policy is a Federal authority because it involves interstate commerce as defined in the 10th Amendment.

Since there are commercial drugs that contain cannabinols, and these are shipped in interstate commerce, this means marijuana falls under the Federal statutes as enforced by the FDA and DEA.

This coverage has been upheld in the Supreme Court many times and those decisions specifically state that the States (or localities) have no authority to de-regulate them.

Doc, by your logic then the federal government would control <B>all</B> commerce, because people would be hard-pressed to find anything that isn't traded across state lines somewhere. The fed is specifically limited to inter-state for a reason, and the Cali. case is the perfect example of somewhere that the DEA has no authority.

[Dr Mordrid]

The Federal government does regulate all interstate commerce. This is under Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution, otherwise known as "The Commerce Clause."

The Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to regulate all interstate commerce and was originally included to standardize trade rules. Since then it has been used to standardize other things that left to the States would create a nightmare of conflicting standards and laws.

While the States share certain powers with the federal government (ex: the power to tax their own citizens), the Supreme Court has held that the power to regulate interstate commerce exclusive to the Federal government.

One recent area where a Federal takeover was prevented was in the realm of gun control. Back in the late 90's Congress passed the Brady Law, which was to standardize certain aspects of gun purchases. To justify ithe Federal role the law tried to implement the Commerce Clause because guns are sold across state lines.

The Supreme Court overturned key aspects of the Brady Law because they conflicted with States rights under the 10th Amendment which states;

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The Supreme Court held that there was no commerce involved in gun control, thus under the 10th Amendment the Brady Law was unconstitutional.

One important (but not the only) factor in their opinion was that licensing of firearms is done either at the State or local level and has been since day one without complaint from the Federal government.

Dr. Mordrid

[thop]

the US would have won in a walk.

nothing to do with what you said, but i just cannot let that count as an argument

[Dr Mordrid]

Granted that was a paraphrase, but the original paragraph would have been too long to use.

Nevertheless; the concensus was that the US would have prevailed (like that better?) had our chicken-shit politicians not surrendered just before the victory parade

Dr. Mordrid

[thop]

this is just a guess not based on any facts but when a man sends soldiers out to fight and die in another country his opinion changes when nearly 50.000 are dead i'd believe. maybe that's also a reason.

[Strahd]

Originally posted by 3dfx
Politician's or not you still Lost which I find amusing.

I fail to see what can possibly be amusing regardless of which side won and lost. Enlighten me please on how this amuses you.

[Dr Mordrid]

Speaking as someone who lost several close friends during VietNam I can tell you that the prevailing attidude is that the loss was great, but the real pain is that because the politicians lost their nerve those losses were for nothing.

If the war had been allowed to proceed sucessfully, as it was heading, at least the families and friends would have had that.

Dr. Mordrid

[Dr Mordrid]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by 3dfx
Politician's or not you still Lost which I find amusing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I fail to see what can possibly be amusing regardless of which side won and lost. Enlighten me please on how this amuses you.

I fail to see what's amusing about it either.....

Dr. Mordrid

[thop]

I can understand that Doc, it is just that IMHO probably the burden of dead men became too big for them too carry. Giving up on half way (or more like seeing the finish line as you say) is probably not the best way, but i have no idea how somebody feels who is responsible for the death of thousands of his soldiers so i cannot judge them for that.
I mean there is a reason that the US tries to keep wars as clean as possible since then with their high-tech machinery, and at all cost avoid to send troops or anything that'll likely cause casualties.

[Wombat]

Doc, your post still does nothing to support why the federal government should have any say as to what is planted, cultivated, distributed, and consumed entirely within California's borders by Californians.

[Dr Mordrid]

Actually it was giving up 98% of the way.

The actually burden were the communist led protests in the US. Yes, after the fall of the Soviet Union it was discovered that most of the leadership that started the demonstartions were connected to the KGB.

Unfortunately drones, robots & such were in their infancy during VietNam, though some were used. Now that they are emerging as dominant battlefield forces why shouldn't we use them?

Predators, Dark Star and Global Hawk today; remote mechs and fighter planes tomorrow. Even some of our Navy ships (US Aegis and Canadian Halifax classes) can be put into a mode where the defensive fire control is totally automatic.

Dr. Mordrid

[Dr Mordrid]

Originally posted by Wombat
Doc, your post still does nothing to support why the federal government should have any say as to what is planted, cultivated, distributed, and consumed entirely within California's borders by Californians.

Dont' read very closely, do you?

Because the marijuana plant contains cannabinols, the active ingredient in which is in a restricted drug; namely Marinol, which is sold across state lines.

This all began with the Pure Food and Drugs Act of 1906, whereupon the FDA draws most of its precidents. At first the selling of drugs like cocaine, morphine and cannibis were allowed but with purity standards.

In 1909, the importation of opium for non-medical uses was criminalized, 57 but no further restrictions were placed on patent medicines containing opium, morphine, heroin, cannabis and other narcotic substances.

These laws established Federal controll over these drugs both in interstate commerce and within states themselves. The same controls are what control access to presctiption medications of all types as well as their purity and efficacy.

In 1941 the OSS (CIA's predecessor agency), looking for a truth serum, and other Federal agencies started research on the effects of marijuana and found plenty to cause concern. By 1945 the evidence was great enough for the AMA to editorialize that its recreational use was dangerous and that, in modern terms, it was a "gateway drug"; meaning its abuse was likely to lead to experimentation with other even more dangerous drugs. Marijuana was then outlawed.

The Commerce Clause and 10th Amendment concerns were addressed by the Supreme Court a couple of years ago and dismissed, so California and its citizens who use marijuana are in conflict with Federal Law....and it looks like Ascroft is preparing to lower the hammer.

Over the years more research showed not only the effects found in the 1940's but new problems including loss of learned behaviors, reduced immunity, impared learning, lung disease even worse than with tobacco (when smoked), agression and several behavior defects and impared motor skills in the children of marijuana users. Many studies also show that marijuana can prevent absorbtion of several necessary nutrients.

In short: the bullshit you've been reading that it's harmless is just that: bullshit.

Dr. Mordrid

[Wombat]

In short: the bullshit you've been reading that it's harmless is just that: bullshit.

Where did you pull this from? I said no such thing, and I don't care if it is or not. I don't see it as being relevant to this specific case, since the co-op is distributing the drug to terminally ill people. The co-op has a very small size, and a waiting list, but they're losing a couple members per month to the grave. I don't think these people give a shit about the long term effects. In the meantime, let them have a little less pain, restored appetite, and minor side effects.

[KRSESQ]

Gotta go with Wom on this one. There's enough anecdotal evidence to indicate that marijuana would be beneficial to certain terminally ill patients. Marinol pills are useless for someone who can't even keep water in his stomach due to chemo (if you want to discuss meds with truely TOXIC side effects!), and the Marinol suppositories being tested are uncomfortable and undignified.

Any other drug with side effects similar to marijuana would be legal, with cautionary restrictions. The key objection to marijuana is that it is a euphoric drug with a long recreational history. If it weren't for that, there'd be no problem.

Kevin

Now don't go turning this into a legalization debate!!!

(been there, done that)