This gets at something I think a lot of people don't really understand. They see polls that show strong support for policy X, and then complain that politicians don't enact it. What they fail to consider is that while a strong majority may be in favor of the policy, it's not the top (or top 3) priority, and they will support candidates that have the opposite position on X, if they support their top priority.

This is situation where well thought out (and moderately constrained) referendum process can help achieve the majority desire for a policy that would not otherwise be considered important enough to drive the selection of representatives.

Mormons voted strongly to legalize MJ in Utah. Maybe your politician is just an odd man out?

edit: Well, I should note the Utah vote was only for "medical" MJ.

You should argue with him he's acting like Satan. The mormons (I used to be one) say that Satan wanted to force everyone to be good, Jesus wanted each person to have free will and choose.

I personally would be okay with having it legal if smoking could still be banned in multifamily complexes. I don't care if my neighbors are using edibles, but since I know that legalized weed means more smoke coming from my neighbors' balconies, I will always vote "No" when marijuana legalization is on the ballot in my location.

That's been going on for a long, long time.

That's only one of many ways to consume it, many people vape, have edibles or drinks and you just don't notice.

Some people say the same about the smell or noise of babies. It's not a very strong argument for getting ones way in controlling others.

> but only inside your own personal enclosed house.

Isn't it usually illegal to smoke things like cigarettes inside rented homes, legality aside? And don't most people rent? That seems like a whole can to deal with.

THC is perfectly legal here (Quebec, Canada) and believe me, there is no smell on the streets!

What is actually disgusting and happens often in the streets is the smell of ordinary cigarette smoke.

Oh no, the thought of catching a whiff! No one must smoke in texas, since you know, everyone follows the law. Smoking weed only started in general with legalization. It was mythical beforehand.

I mean, there are plenty of neighborhoods in CA that don't have that smell...

How does the supreme court revisit precedents if the circuit court doesn't readdress the issue?

In particular, Necessary and Proper as it relates to the taxing power, which the challenged statute relied upon, having been passed decades before the scope of Commerce Clause powers began their expansion, let alone Wickard v. Filburn.

> Circuit courts may not overrule Supreme Court precedent.

That's a Supreme Court opinion that only applies if the new case reaches their docket and gets reaffirmed.

I don't see SCOTUS ever overturning Wickard, sadly. Too many federal programs and regulations would lose their legal basis if that happened.

That would be an improvement in the same spirit, as the modern CRAs are also unconstitutionally limiting over what one chooses to do with their own property. The scope should be limited to government-involved services and facilities, as those must serve all possible taxpayers. We live in a more connected, option-saturated information age where even bigots more often than not understand the utility of at least doing business politely and making nuanced exceptions. Egregious offenses are corrected by social pressure and business competition. The current regime of ambulance-chasing liabilities inserted into every organizational, contracting, and hiring process harms far more people of every race and sex than it helps.

fixing the interstate commerce clause is one of those things that needs to be done eventually, but will likely never be done - even if just to "fix" it so everything remains the same but is based on simpler allocation of powers than through a "loophole".

>there can be no interstate market in a substance that is illegal to trade.

There is in fact an interstate market in many substances that are illegal to trade because laws against things do not make those things fail to exist.

The reason marijuana is Federally illegal in the first place is because the commerce clause is interpreted to allow it.

> If the law is broken, fix the law

If you follow that argument to its conclusion, you end up at: fixing the law requires amending the Constitution, and if the law for amending the constitution is broken, the remedy is revolution. Most participants prefer the current practice instead.

A lot of stuff does have interstate implications. Especially now that most corporations operate in an interstate fashion.

That said, I agree that it's overused. I personally think that the 9th amendment should be used in a lot of cases, like civil rights, instead of the interstate commerce law.

The supreme court, however, has basically decided that the 9th amendment doesn't really exist.

You could just as easily stuff most of those things under the "general welfare" clause if you do the same rigamarole of years and years of precedent hand-waving. We live in a post constitutional state. The constitution is just something worked to backwards so the guys who function as our priests/gods point to the document because that's the only way to feign some sort of legitimacy to our government.

Ultimately none of us signed the constitution and all of those people that did are dead. It is a religious artifact used by the whig -god people to argue they are right. Not something followed with faith to the historical context nor literal contract.

(edit: to below trying to compare bad-faith ICC to good-faith general welfare, you must apply similar levels of creativity and bad faith. Ban things through high or impossible to pay taxation. "Tax" behavior to force people to do something in a certain way, make very heavy penalties for not paying the tax, and also make it extremely difficult to buy the tax stamps (this is how they did drug control until they decided to use the new fraud of "interstate" commerce).

> Gen Z / Alpha have embraced X-"realism" and fully accept essentialism/reject "intersectionality". They're far more conservative/prudish than millennials, even at their young age.

This does not meet up with my experience with them at all.

Just quick check, what percentage of onlyfans creators are Gen Z / Alpha vs other nonsense year demographics?

SCOTUS did a pretty hilarious soft "strike down" of Wickard where they basically determined the gun free school zone act (GFSZA) violated interstate commerce clause. So congress just added "in interstate commerce" to the GFSZA and now it does the exact same thing even if there was no interstate commerce involved, and nothing involved ever crossed state lines or actually entered interstate commerce.

So SCOTUS basically solved this by saying the law had to say "in interstate commerce" but it is basically just there as a talisman to ward away challenges, a distinction without any difference as it becomes a tautology.

No. It absolutely does not use that language, and it baffles me as to what would cause you to say that it does.

Please endeavor to say only true things.

Okay. So if you decide to visit a friends house does him sharing still count as personal use ?

In many communities you have a guy who cooks plates of food and sells them. While technically this is illegal with out a permit, it’s usually tolerated.

I’m all for the legalization of everything for adults, but it’s a very complex issue. Education is the way here, not punishment

And before people say you are being hyperbolic, the government still regulates sex positions. Sodomy is illegal in 12 US states.

Been samplin’ a little bit of Grandpa’s attribution clause, have we?