EU bad for democracy?

[Brian Ellis]

The EU can never become a single federation until I can take an electrical appliance from one country and plug it in in any other country!

This can never come to pass, because wiring regulations are so different. For example, the UK have a ring main system which imposes each appliance must have a fuse in the plug (which is GROSSLY over-engineered and expensive, anyway). Then there is the question of the earth (ground) connection, with three different systems in Europe. etc. etc. etc... ad nauseam. I know someone who is a highly qualified electrician having done an apprenticeship with 5 years night school in the UK. He moved to Spain recently but, before he could work there, he had to study the local wiring regs and pass an exam, it is that different. Before he got his Spanish ticket allowing him to work as an electrician, he spent nearly 6 months as a barman, serving UK yobs with excess quantities of beer.

[Kurt]

The US didn'thave that problem then, there WAS no electricity. Give it 50 years or so

[Brian Ellis]

Well, Franklin tried hard to harness lightning

[cjolley]

Under the Constitution anything that affects interstate commerce is Federal authority...

Well, you can apparently take out the qualifier and just stop with the word "anything".

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2005-06-06T151229Z_01_N06349752_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-COURT-MARIJUANA-DC.XML

PS So much for Scalia being a strict constructionist when it goes against his social beliefs.

[Gurm]

Well, you can apparently take out the qualifier and just stop with the word "anything".

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2005-06-06T151229Z_01_N06349752_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-COURT-MARIJUANA-DC.XML

PS So much for Scalia being a strict constructionist when it goes against his social beliefs.

Bleh. More and more I keep praying that Rehnquist will somewhere find the wherewithal to stick it out. He keeps those goons in check.

[Dr Mordrid]

That decision was pretty much expected. The problem was that the defendants were claiming that because a state passed a clearly illegal law and because they were handicapped that somehow they were entitled to protection from federal prosecution under the Americans With Disabilities Act.

That just wasn't gonna happen because federal jurisdiction supercedes that of the state in matters of federal law; in this case the abilitiy of the FDA to regulate drugs and medicines.

States can't be allowed to do that or you might as well not have an FDA.

Dr. Mordrid

[Gurm]

That decision was pretty much expected. The problem was that the defendants were claiming that because a state passed a clearly illegal law (medical marijuana; something under FDA jurisdiction) and because they were handicapped that somehow they were entitled to protection from federal prosecution under the Americans With Disabilities Act. That just wasn't gonna happen.

Dr. Mordrid

What makes the law clearly illegal? I contend that the FDA has no jurisdiction on narcotics unless and until they cross state lines. Then again, I'm a pretty serious "states rights" sort of guy, so...

ALSO, I find it increasingly disturbing that marijuana is considered as terrible a narcotic as CRACK.

[Dr Mordrid]

Check my edit, which was done while you were posting and not after. Only the feds can change federal laws and regulations.

MJ is mutagenic (modifies DNA) both for those taking it and for any babies produced by those so affected, so what's so great about it? Not to mention that its even more harmful than tobacco when it comes to lung damage etc.

Dr. Mordrid

[Wombat]

Yes, pot is deadly, and as addictive as crack. It's impossible for people to be productive members of society if they use marijuana.

Yeah, 'cause pot babies are just as badly off as crack babies.
So why not ban alcohol, since FAS is just as bad.



And you're dodging Gurm's inquiry: Why should the FDA have any jurisdiction if it's purely intrastate?

[Gurm]

MJ is mutagenic (modifies DNA) both for those taking it and for any babies produced by those so affected, so what's so great about it? Not to mention that its even more harmful than tobacco when it comes to lung damage etc.

Yet tobacco is still sold, as is alcohol - and I'd argue that while you have a hard time finding any mutated pot-babies, Fetal Alcohol cases are common enough that practically everyone knows a kid who has it.

Caffeine is more addictive than crack. Pot is neither physically addictive nor particularly dangerous to society (ever see someone high on pot bust up a bar or cause a multi-car pileup... or start a fight and kill people?) - although it IS dangerous to your waistline.

And you're dodging Gurm's inquiry: Why should the FDA have any jurisdiction if it's purely intrastate?

No no, his edit fixed that. In essence, it was decided long ago that the FDA should have authority over drugs and medicines - and that this authority should override state authoritities. Otherwise, you'd have one state approving a new drug that other states don't, or allowing weird food additives... you get the picture, yes?

Same reason that the Supreme Court ruled the way it did on Roe v. Wade - because if they left abortion up to the states, they'd have a gigantic interstate problem with people from Utah crossing over to New Mexico to get abortions.

I do understand. I don't APPROVE, but I understand. The fact is that the feds are using the FDA's authority to do their bully-work on the fictitious "war on drugs", which by the way we lost before it ever started.

[Wombat]

I disagree about the pile-ups. I think stoned drivers are as dangerous as drunk ones.

I don't think the comparison of FDA authority to Roe v. Wade is valid. Roe v. Wade is about a right, and rights are something that no part of our government may infringe upon.

Drugs aren't a right, but I don't believe that the federal government has any authority over them if they're completely within state boundaries. As it is, states DO regulate alcohol differently. Liquor licenses, blue laws, state vs. private distribution. And the big one: age at which you're allowed to buy alcohol (basically deciding who possession is legal vs. illegal for). Why is alcohol possession within states' rights, but marijuana is not?

[cjolley]

Why is alcohol possession within states' rights, but marijuana is not?

It's explicilty granted in the amendment that ended prohibition.

I'm still not sure how sure how home grown home used small amounts of mj qualify for federal regulation though.

[Gurm]

I disagree about the pile-ups. I think stoned drivers are as dangerous as drunk ones.

Possibly, but honestly stoned people have a tendency to drive REALLY SLOW in the righthand land, thinking that they're going WAY TOO FAST.

I don't think the comparison of FDA authority to Roe v. Wade is valid. Roe v. Wade is about a right, and rights are something that no part of our government may infringe upon.

It's not about a right. The feminist movement, and abortion activists, have MADE it about a right. But the decision itself was about STATES RIGHTS. The Supreme Court, in upholding "a woman's right to choose" was actually more interested in preventing the states from all ruling in different ways. Could you imagine if they HADN'T ruled the way they did? California would allow abortions, but Utah wouldn't. People would be crossing states lines to commit what THEIR state views as a FELONY. That would mean that the feds would have to police interstate traffic the same way they police interstate sex crimes - y'know, like when you take your jailbait girlfriend who is only 17 across the border to a state where 16 is the age of consent.

Drugs aren't a right, but I don't believe that the federal government has any authority over them if they're completely within state boundaries.

Can you imagine if the FDA didn't have total control over drugs and medicines? Progressive states would green-light untested drugs that showed promise. The FDA's drug approval process is bad enough without creating 50 miniature versions!

As it is, states DO regulate alcohol differently. Liquor licenses, blue laws, state vs. private distribution. And the big one: age at which you're allowed to buy alcohol (basically deciding who possession is legal vs. illegal for). Why is alcohol possession within states' rights, but marijuana is not?

When they repealed prohibition they specifically exempted alcohol in a variety of ways.

[schmosef]

where is 16 the legal age of consent? :shakes head:

[Wombat]

where is 16 the legal age of consent? :shakes head:

Lots of places.