Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Discussions
Drug Screening Account Executive
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="jibbs" data-source="post: 1546589"><p>You're right. There's nothing specific about substances in the constitution. It just gives the federal government rights to try and pass laws that don't conflict with <strong>the rest</strong> of the constitution, and the laws that they do manage to pass will supersede any conflicting state, local and municipal laws.</p><p></p><p>The problem is how it all gets interpreted-- it's like a chain or a domino effect:</p><p></p><p>The supremacy cause is in place, giving federal authority "law of the land."</p><p></p><p>Later, Congress, a large part of that federal authority I just mentioned, enacted the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 which criminalized marijuana as one of <strong>the worst drugs</strong> according to the law. This legislation was enacted federally, which is important to note because that fact means that it falls under the rather large umbrella of the Supremacy Clause-- making any conflicting state laws null and void if the matter were ever taken to court for whatever reason.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>So no, you're absolutely right-- the Constitution doesn't mention anything about plants or substances or the like in the clauses that I'm mentioning. The connection is made a bit more clear when you start to connect the dots from one concept to another, though.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Does that make more sense? I mean, cool if you disagree, I just don't see how a person could if I could just find a way to make myself a bit more clear... <img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/FeltTip/ignored.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":ignored:" title="Ignored :ignored:" data-shortname=":ignored:" /></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>[EDIT: For the record, I think it's bull<img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/group1/censored2.gif" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":censored2:" title="Censored2 :censored2:" data-shortname=":censored2:" /> that it works this way. I think the government should step the <img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/group1/censored2.gif" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":censored2:" title="Censored2 :censored2:" data-shortname=":censored2:" /> out of my medicine cabinet and let me do me provided I remain a productive, self-sustaining member of society. Our federal laws are just behind on the times, though, and it's some bull<img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/group1/censored2.gif" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":censored2:" title="Censored2 :censored2:" data-shortname=":censored2:" />, seriously.]</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="jibbs, post: 1546589"] You're right. There's nothing specific about substances in the constitution. It just gives the federal government rights to try and pass laws that don't conflict with [B]the rest[/B] of the constitution, and the laws that they do manage to pass will supersede any conflicting state, local and municipal laws. The problem is how it all gets interpreted-- it's like a chain or a domino effect: The supremacy cause is in place, giving federal authority "law of the land." Later, Congress, a large part of that federal authority I just mentioned, enacted the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 which criminalized marijuana as one of [B]the worst drugs[/B] according to the law. This legislation was enacted federally, which is important to note because that fact means that it falls under the rather large umbrella of the Supremacy Clause-- making any conflicting state laws null and void if the matter were ever taken to court for whatever reason. So no, you're absolutely right-- the Constitution doesn't mention anything about plants or substances or the like in the clauses that I'm mentioning. The connection is made a bit more clear when you start to connect the dots from one concept to another, though. Does that make more sense? I mean, cool if you disagree, I just don't see how a person could if I could just find a way to make myself a bit more clear... :ignored: [EDIT: For the record, I think it's bull:censored: that it works this way. I think the government should step the :censored: out of my medicine cabinet and let me do me provided I remain a productive, self-sustaining member of society. Our federal laws are just behind on the times, though, and it's some bull:censored:, seriously.] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Discussions
Drug Screening Account Executive
Top