Medical Marijuana...
- Thread starter Gato_Solo
- Start date
I don't get where you're going with all of these 
Federal law specifying that the federation should use "filtered water" would make Oaxacans get filtered water even if they don't need it. For the passing of such law the federal legislators from Oaxaca and a bunch of other states would have to agree. So I doubt such a thing would be likely, thou it isn't impossible.
As I said earlier, federal laws are there for the benefit of the country as a whole, not to designate favorites. I did said there are local and state laws, which can be more specific but not supersede or contradict federal laws.
Federal law specifying that the federation should use "filtered water" would make Oaxacans get filtered water even if they don't need it. For the passing of such law the federal legislators from Oaxaca and a bunch of other states would have to agree. So I doubt such a thing would be likely, thou it isn't impossible.
As I said earlier, federal laws are there for the benefit of the country as a whole, not to designate favorites. I did said there are local and state laws, which can be more specific but not supersede or contradict federal laws.
What? Mexico also has states rights that can overrule fedreal authority?
Instead of Chihuahua seeing a need for something, and spending local money to fix a local problem, they ask the feds to pay for it. Under your definition, if Chihuahua gets it, so does everybody else.
Now, since Mexican President Martinez owns Veracruz Bottled Water, he likes the idea of federal powers. He can say that all Mexican states must purchase bottled water. To avoid a conflict of interest, he doesn't demand they purchase his brand, but simply by association, his sales will go up.
Oaxaca, in the interest of states rights, decides not to buy bottled water.
Are they breaking the law since Federal Power overrules State Power?
me said:
As in the federal legislators that represent Oaxaca and the federal legislators from the other states as well. Perhaps you guys have no federal legislators and that's where you're getting confused.
Gonz said:
The president can not create a federal law, it is a duty of the legislative power, which at federal level, is formed by federal legislators.
And yes, if such a federal law existed, the oaxacans would be breaking the law and there would be no eternal debate over who has the ultimate authority.
catocom
Well-Known Member
exactly, and that's not far from the way some folks feel about the former.
The Senators & Representatives (Congress) that everybody hears about are federal. The states each have a replica governmental version with the only real difference being the President is called Governor & the rules made there only pertain to that state.
Gato_Solo
Out-freaking-standing OTC member
How can those states even pass a law that contradicts a federal law?
That's the $64,000 question, innit? Here's the way that it's supposed to work.
The Federal government sets up laws that deal with interstate, and the individual states set up laws that are intrastate.
Example...murder becomes legal in California. I kill a man in Vegas, just to watch him die, and then haul my happy ass to California and set up a home, just because I can not be prosecuted. I can't be prosecuted in California, so I'm safe, right? After all, the US Constitution does not list murder as a crime...only treason...however...the US Constitution does allow for prosecution of said murder because said felon has crossed state lines to 'avoid due process'. This is where federal law kicks in, making said perpetrators arrest and extradition necessary, and off I go, back to Nevada to face justice. Same for every other state law. It kinda forces all states to adopt similar laws. If one state has a law that could adversly affect another state, the federal rules apply.
spike
New Member
You must want cigarettes and alcohol to be illegal too then.
Professur
Well-Known Member
Tobacco, yes. Alcohol has been found to be beneficial in reasonable consumption, lowering cholesterol and the risk of strokes. Abused, it's harmful. I've yet to hear any modern studies showing either pot or tobacco to be harmless in any amounts. Even one cig a day dramatically increases the health risks.
chcr
Too cute for words
Professur
Well-Known Member
I didn't say there were no 'helpful' aspects to it. I said there was no amount which wouldn't have harmful effects. Just like Chemo, the good comes with significant bad. But where with Chemo, the alternative is death, with pot, the alternative is ... aspirin.
spike
New Member
Nope, the alternative is often opiates or other drugs with serious side effects or addictive qualities. What exactly do you think these harmful effects are from marijuana.
I hear drugs advertised on TV all the time that have some pretty messed up side effects. Would you like to make those illegal too?
Some people should admit their bias is because it's green and a plant, or hippies smoked it, and they're just used to pills and booze.
SouthernN'Proud
Southern Discomfort
Tell me about it...
This discussion is rapidly deteriorating into the reason I initially posted that I'd be staying out of it. We avoided that for awhile. Now that the discussion has taken on the anticipated rancor, I shall indeed be staying out of it.