As cannabis becomes legal in Minnesota today ,it’s become fairly clear that the DFL didn’t read the bill they’d copied and pasted from some advocate’s model legislation file.
Cities around the state are frantically passing legislation to treat public consumption the same as cigarettes, vaping and alcohol – things the state didn’t bother to do.
And they’ve thoughtfully left the door wide open for the black marketeers:
But even though growing, possessing and using weed will be legal for people 21 and older on Aug. 1, you still won’t be able to buy marijuana from a licensed dealer in most of the state. It will likely be more than a year before dispensaries begin opening. Democrats say they framed their bill that way so regulators would have enough time to develop rules for recreational marijuana sales.
Critics say allowing possession of so much marijuana without also allowing its sale will be a boon for unlawful and unregulated black market sellers.
Not to mention the tax rate – which, at 10%, is roughly 100% higher than the black market tax rate of absolutely nil.
So – we’ll have all the black-market crime, plus a disproportionally baked population.
It’s the DFL’s dream.
Yea, and to top it off, they obviously didn’t do any research into the effects on society that legalized pot would have. Colorado has had legal weed for about two years now. The state highway patrol has reported the marijuana related traffic deaths, were up 138%.
I guess that’s one way the Frisco Ho can depopulate.
I’m a proponent of legal weed.that being said…..
Of all the legal states I’ve visited, and that’s quite a few, the new MN laws are absolutely ridiculous. I just KNEW that whoever was in charge of this particular monkey show in this state would fuck it up. And they have…before it’s even been implemented.
Just one more monkey show in this monkey farm of a state. And forget labeling that as racist……I’m referring to the lead monkeys, Walz and Peggyhontus…
A product which formerly was illegal to sell, use or possess under federal law is now legal to sell, use and possess under Minnesota law. How is that possible? Only if the federal law is somehow not binding on Minnesota. Only if the federal law is an unconstitutional over-reach into areas where the Constitution gives the federal government no power to act.
Nice to see Democrats coming around to Libertarian point of view on the topic. Now, if we could Amy, Tina, Angie, Dean, Betty and Ilhan to sponsor federal legislation to correct the problem, that would be great.
Maybe we could get their support by tying the issue to immigration? New slogan: Open Borders, Open Carry. “Come on in, everyone is welcome, and bring your backpacks full of weed. Got a plane waiting to take you and your product to Minneapolis, all at taxpayer expense.”
Doing something in a half-assed way, if at all, is a well-known characteristic of chronic stoners.
Don’t worry, Big. Constitution is dead and libturds are already calling for the abolishment of SCOTUS. Because if calls for ignoring SCOTUS rulings are not abolishment, I do not know what is. Welcome to 3rd world banana republic, you know, a shithole.
JPA – sorry to say, I’m on their side on that issue. The Constitution does not give the Supreme Court the power to declare laws unconstitutional. The court invented that power in Marbury v. Madison and having invented it, continues to use it to strike down legislation today. They should not.
Yes, but what if the legislation is wrong? What if it really is unconstitutional?
And what if the polls are rigged so we can’t kick out the crooked politicians who pass unconstitutional legislation? Without the Supreme Court to correct it, what recourse do ordinary people have? What could the Founders have been thinking?
You forget – the Founding Fathers gained independence when they won a guerrilla war against their own government which was a world superpower. They assumed Americans would retain the will to fight for what is right – against their own government, if necessary – which is why the Second Amendment protects ordinary citizens’ right to own weapons at least as good as those the government has.
The Founders did not welcome government, they distrusted it. They agreed with Reagan – government is not the solution, government is the problem. The idea attributed to George Washington says: “Government, like fire, is a good servant, but a bad master. Let either once escape from the most rigorous control and its tendency is to spread in every direction and seize upon whatever it touches that can be converted into fuel to strengthen and extend it.”
The Supreme Court is not the guardian of the peoples’ rights. You are. I am. We all are. Thomas Jefferson said the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. The Founders honestly believed that the people should rebel when government gets too big for its britches. That’s the remedy, not the court.
Does that mean someone should have shot Tim Walz when he issued his blatantly unconstitutional lockdown order, and the Governor’s Council which blithely approved it, and the Minnesota Supreme Court which rubber-stamped it? Wouldn’t that have thrown the state into chaos and caused untold loss of life and billions of dollars in economic damage? Wouldn’t a Right to Revolt make our governments as unstable as any European parliament or any Third World Shithole?
Hey, you asked what the Founders intended. Don’t like it? Write a new Constitution. Just be careful what you wish for.
JPA – sorry to say, I’m on their side on that issue. The Constitution does not give the Supreme Court the power to declare laws unconstitutional. The court invented that power in Marbury v. Madison and having invented it, continues to use it to strike down legislation today. They should not.
I get your point about intent of 2A and agree, but are you saying if a state passes a law that is unconstitutional, SCOTUS does not have the right to an opinion whether it is or not, and states should ignore them regardless? What about independent and co-equal branches for checks and balances? Or did I misunderstand you? I was talking about libturd calls to ignore SCOTUS on every right-leaning decision as of late, including RvW.
I’m waiting to see what will happen to enforcement of the sale of weed by unlicensed dispensaries, i.e, the guy on the corner of 38th and Chicago, who most certainly deals weed and other products. Disproportionately black of course. So one of the benefits of legal weed will disappear if the state crushes competition. Just as many blacks in jail. Just wait. Plus armed robberies of legal dispensaries.
Good Job Democrats passing legislation the voters wanted to get passed. Please enjoy responsibly and in moderation.
That said— I’m a proponent of cannabis legalization and I also support any ordinance against public use unless it’s at a licensed event.
“I get your point about intent of 2A and agree, but are you saying if a state passes a law that is unconstitutional, SCOTUS does not have the right to an opinion whether it is or not, and states should ignore them regardless?”
correct
“What about independent and co-equal branches for checks and balances?”
Read Article III of the Constitution and remember that at the time, the States were independent entities having powers of their own. The federal government was just a flimsy spiderweb laid atop the states to provide a mechanism to resolve disputes between states, or between states and foreign governments. Nothing in Article III says the Supreme Court can nullify a law adopted by Congress or an appointment made by the President, precisely because giving the Court such power would usurp the powers of those other co-equal branches.
I know, it’s hard to get your head around. We’ve been taught the lie, lived the lie, grown up with the lie, accept the lie as a given. But it’s a lie. The Founders did not give the Supreme Court the power to act as Super Mommy. That was not an accidental omission, it was intentional, to avoid the kind of “justice system” we see elsewhere around the world.
“I was talking about libturd calls to ignore SCOTUS on every right-leaning decision as of late, including RvW.”
I know and you’re right, but I’m taking it a step farther. Libturds want to use SCOTUS as a heads-I-win-tails-you-lose weapon: all Liberal decisions are correct and must be obeyed, all Conservative decisions are incorrect and must be disregarded. That’s not a principled stand on the legitimate powers of the court, it’s ruthlessly using whatever instrument is at hand to bludgeon their opponents.
I’m taking a different stand. Supreme Court rulings that don’t concern matters listed in Article III of the Constitution . . . simply don’t count. They have no authority and carry no weight. Ignore them. Here’s a good starting point:
https://fee.org/articles/15-supreme-court-decisions-that-shredded-the-constitution/
Thank you Big, I’ll be reading up more on this issue.
Big
This is another example of a political theory called nullification developed by John C Calhoun back in the early 19th century. While Calhoun has recently been personally thrown under the bus by leftists, his ideas haven’t. Nullification was the justification for succession.
Calhoun, at his South Carolina plantation, anonymously composed South Carolina Exposition and Protest, an essay rejecting the centralization philosophy and supporting the principle of nullification as a means to prevent a tyranny of a central government
Calhoun supported the idea of nullification through a concurrent majority. Nullification is a legal theory that a state has the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal law it deems unconstitutional. In Calhoun’s words, it is “the right of a State to interpose, in the last resort, in order to arrest an unconstitutional act of the General Government, within its limits”.
This concurrent majority idea is what the DFL has adopted in this instance.
PB: How ironic that Calhoun’s doctrine might be used to justify non enforcement of Federal cannabis laws in Minnesota. Do you suppose he can get his lake back?
I’m taking a different stand. Supreme Court rulings that don’t concern matters listed in Article III of the Constitution . . . simply don’t count. They have no authority and carry no weight. Ignore them. Here’s a good starting point:
While I agree with what you write, I think there are an even smaller number of like thinkers out there than there are of those who see the benefits of (and need for) a convention of states. Due to exactly what you said: “We’ve been taught the lie, lived the lie, grown up with the lie, accept the lie as a given.”
Ironically, JPA, my argument works against me in other areas. Minnesota wants to be a child genital mutilation sanctuary? Go for it. Minnesota wants to tax rich people unfairly? Go for it. Minnesota wants to ban firearms? Well, now, that requires a bit more analysis.
The Constitution as written applied only to the federal government. State governments were completely separate and could do whatever they wanted to their own citizens. The role of the federal government was to prevent them from doing it to other states’ citizens (Delaware could not refuse to accept mail from Georgia, and Georgia was required to use the same legal tender as New York).
The 14th Amendment provided for “equal protection” but what does that mean for states? The Supreme Court tried to interpret it piece-mail (an interesting analysis of the results is here: https://www.billofrightsinstitute.org/essays/the-fourteenth-amendment-and-incorporation). Some rights protected under the federal constitution were selectively applied against the states, some were not, under the general theory that the 14th Amendment ‘incorporated’ the rights of the federal constitution.
I suggest the ‘incorporation’ doctrine is another usurpation of states’ rights, just as Marbury v. Madison was a usurpation of Presidential power. If Minnesota wanted a 2nd Amendment provision in its constitution, it would have included one the way most other states did. [Notably, Minnesota’s state constitution does NOT contain a right to keep and bear arms. Can’t be accidental – Minnesota was the 32nd state admitted so there were already plenty of sample Constitutions available (and newly admitted states freely stole laws from their Eastern neighbors including pretty much all of Minnesota’s criminal code, lifted from New York).]
If I’m right about the ‘incorporation doctrine’ being legal bullshit, and Minnesota having no state Constitution right to bear arms, then yes, Liberals should be able to ban guns in Minnesota. Not just ARs and Uzis but any and all arms – guns, knives, guns, slings, arrows, pointed sticks and heavy rocks. Ban ’em all.
Remember the phrase “laboratory of democracy?” That’s what you get when a whole bunch of states adopt a whole bunch of different policies to solve common problems. Don’t like living in gun-free Minnesota? Vote with your feet. Under this theory, White Flight should be considered a Good Thing as it provides instant feedback to local politicians.
Under my analysis of proper Constitutional government, I shouldn’t complain about Minnesota, I should up and leave. And so should you.
You know what the most annoying aspect of that analysis would be? Blade was right again.
Huh. Moderation. Let’s try again with different words:
Ironically, JPA, my argument works against me in other areas. Minnesota wants to be a transgender sanctuary? Go for it. Minnesota wants to tax rich people unfairly? Go for it. Minnesota wants to ban firearms? Well, now, that requires a bit more analysis.
The Constitution as written applied only to the federal government. State governments were completely separate and could do whatever they wanted to their own citizens. The role of the federal government was to prevent them from doing it to other states’ citizens (Delaware could not refuse to accept mail from Georgia, and Georgia was required to use the same legal tender as New York).
The 14th Amendment provided for “equal protection” but what does that mean for states? The Supreme Court tried to interpret it piece-mail: some rights protected under the federal constitution were selectively applied against the states, some were not, under the general theory that the 14th Amendment ‘incorporated’ the rights of the federal constitution, maybe, but not all of them.
I suggest the ‘incorporation’ doctrine is another usurpation of states’ rights, just as Marbury v. Madison was a usurpation of Presidential power. If Minnesota wanted a 2nd Amendment provision in its constitution, it would have included one the way most other states did. [Notably, Minnesota’s state constitution does NOT contain a right to keep and bear arms. Can’t be accidental – Minnesota was the 32nd state admitted so there were already plenty of sample Constitutions available (and newly admitted states freely stole laws from their Eastern neighbors including pretty much all of Minnesota’s criminal code, lifted from New York).]
If I’m right about the ‘incorporation doctrine’ being legal bullshit, and Minnesota having no state Constitution right to bear arms, then yes, Liberals should be able to ban guns in Minnesota. Not just black rifles but any and all arms – guns, swords, knives, guns, slings, arrows, pointed sticks and heavy rocks. Ban ’em all.
Remember the phrase “laboratory of democracy?” That’s what you get when a whole bunch of states adopt a whole bunch of different policies to solve common problems. Don’t like living in gun-free Minnesota? Vote with your feet. Under this theory, White Flight should be considered a Good Thing as it provides instant feedback to local politicians.
Under my analysis of proper Constitutional government, I shouldn’t complain about Minnesota, I should up and leave. And so should you.
You know what the most annoying aspect of that analysis would be? Blade was right again.
Nope, still bounced. No idea what went wrong. Too bad – it was a good post.
While we’re on the subject of unconstitutional laws, let’s talk about the National Firearms Act of 1934 which banned short-barrel shotguns and fully-automatic machine guns without payment of a federal tax.
Bill C
a constitutional convention is a really bad idea;
the primary reason is we have a very shallow bench when it comes to people like Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, Madison, etc,
there is no provision for limiting the convention to one issue, once the convention opens the entire constitution is likely to be rewritten
and finally how do you keep the Clintons, Obamas, Pelosis, etc out?
I hadn’t realized how early on in the country’s history that the SC already thrown a wrench in the constitutional works. Interesting analysis, Big guy. Thanks. That led me to look up the Supreme Court’s sabotage of the 10th Amendment (and the Tenthers movement).
Bill, you are exactly right.
It’s sobering to recall the Declaration was dated July 4, 1776 but the Constitution was adopted in 1787, eleven years later. What took so long?
Well, fighting a war of independence, for one thing. And then trying to figure out how to herd 13 independent cats into one cohesive nation. The first experiment was the Articles of Confederation adopted in 1781, replaced in 1787 by the Constitution.
The smartest minds of the time spent years studying forms of government from other nations and historical examples. They spent years debating the merits of various proposals, in person, in pamphlets, in speeches. They ended up with a very weak, loose set of rules to regulate disputes between the states and with foreign nations because that’s all the power the states were willing to give up – coin money, deliver the mail, receive foreign ambassadors, declare war. The states retained all other powers because they’d fought too hard to get out from under central government in the form of King George. Nobody wanted to risk going back.
I’m afraid citizens today wouldn’t be willing to invest the time and mental energy to study historical examples (“that was then, this is now”), wouldn’t be willing to learn from earlier mistakes (“this time, it will be different”), won’t see why their desires shouldn’t trump yours and mine (“hate speech is speech I hate”) and who will want to stack the deck in their favor (“affirmative action today, affirmative action tomorrow, affirmative action forever”).
I wonder if Ben Franklin thought the republic would last as long as it did. I bet not.
rAT, we have questions:
…do you think there will be a weed dispensary in HaCK? Or 10?
Will they compete with the methadone dispensary?
Does being a registered sex offender prohibit you from buying ganj?
If so, and if your ER nurse daughter buys some for you, is that a straw buy?
Bigman, I’ve been 90% right since I started commenting here in 2000. For a good portion of that time, most SiTD regulars scoffed (I was roundly criticized for telling y’all the cops are not your friends), but the subtle yet constant reevaluation that has occurred the past 4 years has not gone undetected.
The shit I say today will shock you, because you’re still dealing with XX years of indoctrination. Shucking that off is no easy task, I understand. But in another 5 years, all the stuff I’ve been saying for the past 20 years will be taken as matters of course.
The epiphany is inevitable for any White man or woman with an IQ >80.
BillC framed it perfectly:
“We’ve been taught the lie, lived the lie, grown up with the lie, accept the lie as a given.”
Yup. My rather unorthodox combination of non emotional, logical evaluation taught in EE classes, and the FTW ethos of riding in an M/C for 10 years made the transition effortless.
Everything you think you know is wrong. The sooner you are prepared to confront that as truth, the sooner you’ll be free.
“We’ve been taught the lie, lived the lie, grown up with the lie, accept the lie as a given.”
Speech is free. But the big lies cost the big bucks. Nobody ever told a bigger lie in America than Trump when he said the 2020 election was ‘stolen’ from him. In truth he was only able to overturn the popular vote in 2016 because of the Electoral College (double votes for hicks) and, because Joe Biden isn’t Hilary Clinton, he was unable to repeat that anomaly in 2020.
What I find so sad is that his supporters are prepared to believe having him face rule of law, like any other American person, amounts to a vendetta, whilst the rest of us have come to expect them to react in that way. The GOP used to be regarded as the party for law and ponder. Todays it has become the outlaw party. Home to the mob. What on earth happened to Conservatism in America? It no longer exists.
^ So, the Bigman used the word “trump” in his comment and Fluffy takes that as his opportunity to re-iterate all of his lies about his favorite subject name.
“Todays[sic] it has become the outlaw party.”
lol…No, rAT the outlaw party wouldn’t have 85% of the “conservatives” in the GOP.
Question: Do you have to check in as a registered sex offender on a regular schedule, or just when you get run out of a town?
Jacobins despise the Electoral College because it dilutes the power of the mob.
That analysis is short-sighted because the mob always turns and even Robspierre eventually died by guillotine. But this time, it will be different, won’t it, Emery.
Back to the subject of funny weed, I’m mostly with those who favor legalization, but with the provision that we also do some good studies about the costs in terms of illness (especially mental illness) and crime. Hopefully it is low to null, but the public does have a right to know.
Along those lines, the fact that weed-related traffic deaths have risen in Colorado is tragic, but given that the state had become a haven for potheads, not entirely surprising. We have had lesser and greater restrictions on the use of alcohol and tobacco in our times, and hence it’s not implausible to think that we could re-regulate cannabis after de-regulating it if the consequences are too awful.
Huberman says that, overall, occasional indica use probably isn’t too bad for mature adults, but UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES should it be used by people age 16-24 because their brains are still developing. I just about fell of my chair laughing. 16-24 is pot’s target demographic, I stopped smoking da’ kine when when I was 20 years old.
A couple of years back, the city and county got together to agree the cops would no longer stop drivers for routine equipment violations – tail light out, one-eyed bandit, missing license plate – because too many Black drivers were getting arrested.
Not for equipment violations, for crimes found in the subsequent conversation. License and proof of insurance, please. Say, what’s that smell – have you been smoking weed? Computer says your license is expired, you have no insurance, and you failed the field sobriety tests. With no sober driver in the car, we’ll have to tow it which means an inventory search and oh, what’s this under the seat, a nine mil? Got a permit for it? Didn’t think so.
Plainly, the problem was the smell of weed escalating the initial stop into a huge criminal case. So quit stopping people, then you won’t smell the weed and Black arrest rates won’t be so high.
Maybe legalizing weed will help.
Big, I moved to TX almost 10 years ago. Time files.
bosshoss429 on August 1, 2023 at 6:12 am said:
Yea, and to top it off, they obviously didn’t do any research into the effects on society that legalized pot would have. Colorado has had legal weed for about two years now. The state highway patrol has reported the marijuana related traffic deaths, were up 138%.
Actually closer to 10yrs I think.
“Actually closer to 10yrs I think.”
Chong: “like WOW man, has it been that long?”
Emery on August 1, 2023 at 3:13 pm said:
“We’ve been taught the lie, lived the lie, grown up with the lie, accept the lie as a given.”
Speech is free. But the big lies cost the big bucks. Nobody ever told a bigger lie in America than Trump when he said the 2020 election was ‘stolen’ from him.
SAME FOR HILLBILL leftist freak?
Nobody ever told a bigger lie in America than Trump when he said the 2020 election was ‘stolen’ from him.
I have never read material from someone(s) with their heads buried further underground and farther up their asses than from the E collective.
The denier-alism is truly monumental.
Nobody ever told a bigger lie in America than Trump when he said the 2020 election was ‘stolen’ from him.
“If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor”.
“I had knowledge of my son’s business dealings.”
Your head’s rent-free tenant uttered an opinion. Opinions aren’t facts, so they can’t be lies, nor can they be truth.
The 2 example statements are much closer to a statement of fact that turned out to be false.
Come on, don’t be a chicken, Emery. Just say you want to police opinions.
Since we’re talking about big lies and dope, I remember one from President Bubba (no close relation): “Ah did, but ah didn’t inhale.”
Seems to me that ranking lies in terms of how “big” they are is a wonderful fool’s errand, or at least the errand of someone who’s….inhaled more than he wants to admit.