United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: State Proposes Bold Law to Treat Pot Like Tobacco And Expunge All Records of Marijuana “Crimes”
Source:
Activist Post
URL Source: http://www.activistpost.com/2016/09 ... -records-marijuana-crimes.html
Published: Sep 27, 2016
Author: Claire Bernish
Post Date: 2016-09-28 07:51:26 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 27975
Comments: 181
Bold legislation introduced in New Jersey last week would not only treat cannabis like tobacco — legalizing it — but would expunge records for individuals previously convicted of certain marijuana-related ‘crimes.’ Should the bill, A4193, pass, convenience stores would be permitted to sell cannabis alongside cigarettes — available to anyone aged 19 and older. “This bill would legalize marijuana by removing all criminal liability associated with marijuana from the New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice … as well as its regulation as a controlled dangerous substance under the New Jersey Controlled Dangerous Substances Act,” the proposed law states. Sponsored by Assemblyman Michael Patrick Carroll — once deemed the state Legislature’s “Most Conservative” member, as the Newark Patch pointed out — the legislation “[l]egalizes marijuana and provides for records expungement for certain past marijuana offenses; treats marijuana products similar to tobacco products, including the use of civil penalties for providing marijuana to persons under 19 years of age.” Carroll’s bill audacious thumbs its nose at the DEA’s vehemently criticized decision this year not to reschedule cannabis from its current inexplicable designation as a dangerous substance of no medical value, akin to heroin or cocaine. “To me it’s just not a big deal,” Carroll told Politico. “It’s already ubiquitous. Anybody who thinks this is somehow going to increase the availability of marijuana has never been 19. If that’s the case, then what’s the big deal about having it available at the local 7-Eleven?” Alcohol, after all, is a standard fixture at convenience stores and gas stations, with store owners facing fines and other civil penalties for underage distribution. “The whole point here is to get the government out of the business of treating at least marijuana use as a crime and treat it instead as a social problem,” Carroll continued, adding he’s never tried cannabis, personally. “You’re talking to the world’s most boring, straightest guy,” he said. “I’ve never popped a pill, never smoked a joint, nothing. I’ve never quite understood the all the allure of this stuff.” Apparently, though, he doesn’t feel his personal views concerning substances should override contrary opinions and choices. On the surface, the right-wing lawmaker would seem the last person sponsoring legislation taking such a radical departure from federal law — but on issues of personal freedom, his stances align most closely with libertarian philosophy. Carroll not only co-sponsored New Jersey’s medical cannabis legislation, in April he proposed lowering the state’s drinking age to 18, saying, according to the Patch, If you’re old enough to make the determination you want to enlist in the Marines, you’re old enough to determine if you want to have a beer. Despite an overwhelming public perception cannabis should at least be decriminalized and growing national disillusionment with the failed drug war — with the resultant largest prison population in the world, gang violence, strengthening of Mexican cartels, epidemic-level police violence, and inability of those in need to get life-saving medical cannabis treatment — the Drug Enforcement Agency opted to maintain marijuana prohibition this year. Should the proposed law indeed pass, New Jersey would join Alaska, Colorado, Washington, and Oregon in legal, recreational weed. In fact, degrees of decriminalization and legalization — mostly for medical use — exist in half the states in the nation. November’s election will likely expand those numbers. Ballot measures could potentially legalize recreational use in varying degrees in California, Nevada, Massachusetts, Arizona, and Nevada — and although they aren’t all expected to pass, the segment of the population arguing against legalization shrinks seemingly by the month. New Jersey lawmakers are attempting a multi-pronged approach to legalizing weed. Another bill, A2068, filed in January by Assemblyman Reed Gusciora — ironically, one of the most liberal members of the state Legislature — and State Sen. Nicholas Scutari would legalize cannabis and treat it akin to alcohol. A third is expected after several legislators, including Gusciora and Scutari, return from an information-gathering field trip examining legalization in Colorado in October. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie — whom Carroll refers to as “the Fat Man” — will almost certainly veto any legislation concerning cannabis. But his tenure in office draws to a close just over a year from now. “We would like to get the ball rolling, even with this governor and even if he vetoes it, the choice then could be made to put it on the ballot through the Legislature or set the groundwork for the next administration,” Gusciora told Politico. “I think it’s only a matter of time.” Claire Bernish writes for TheFreeThoughtProject.com, where this article first appeared.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-40) not displayed.
.
.
.
#41. To: Operation 40, Gatlin, Vicomte13, Deckard (#32)
An amendment was not required to make alcohol "illegal" in the first place. In dry counties, alcohol sales are prohibited today by local laws. What makes you think it requires a constitutional amendment? And the 18th Amendment prohibited "the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes." What is not there is simple possession. The bottle of scotch one lawfully had the day before prohibition began did not become contraband the next day.
And I agreed. What's the matter with you?
Big fan of international treaties and the U.N. are you? No doubt you'd have no problem if an international treaty decreed that all American gun owners be disarmed. And you wonder why you are despised by many posters here. That among other things. He's also a submissive fed.gov sycophant with a pathological authority fetish. He also lacks empathy for the sick and dying who wish to ease their suffering. And when Mexico, in retaliation for Trump's wall, legalizes meth and floods our country with it that's OK with you, also. Hey. As long as you get your precious marijuana legalized, f**k everyone else, right?
The self-admitted drug warriors here are certainly adamant in their Reefer Madness propaganda pushing. Their attitude is - fed.gov would never lie. Poor deluded slobs. Yes - I'm sure the fevered rantings of a lunatic like you are worth oh-so much. Seriously man - anger management classes are certainly available in your area. I'd advise you to run not walk to the nearest one. An amendment to the U.S. Constitution was not required to make alcohol illegal. Neither is one required for marijuana or any other drug.
MY precious marijuana? Never used the stuff. Think that people who do are fools. Think that it rots the brain. Trump will put up that wall and seriously cut back drugs. Meth is made in America. Every trailer you see out there in the countryside has a meth lab in it. Marijuana kills people in about the same time that it takes cigarettes and beer to do it. Meth kills people in about 3 years. So, if the Mexicans go ahead and decide to commit SUICIDE by legalizing meth, then we won't need the wall much by the end of Trump's second term. The Mexicans will all be dead from meth. You don't like marijuana, but you really HATE the idea of being FORCED off of a law that you agree with. We all hate that. Nevertheless, that's what happened to the Christian Ladies who got their Temperance Movement law erected as Prohibition, but then saw themselves unable to keep that law, because it didn't work. In the end, no compromise was really found with them. They were simply overpowered and the law they loved was struck down by superior force. That's really how things work politically: law is determined by naked power, not wisdom. If the cops keep shooting people, the public backlash will eventually result in a fundamental shift of power against them, just like we were eventually forced to pull out of Vietnam and lose the war, because the people just were not going to stand it anymore.
An amendment to the U.S. Constitution was not required to make alcohol illegal. Neither is one required for marijuana or any other drug. Plants are regulated and prohibited by laws. For a list of prohibited plants in the state of New York, with pretty pictures, see: http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/lands_forests_pdf/isprohibitedplants2.pdf http://www.dec.ny.gov/regulations/2359.html What is the difference between prohibited and regulated invasive species? Prohibited invasive species cannot be knowingly possessed with the intent to sell, import, purchase, transport or introduce. In addition, no person shall sell, import, purchase, transport, introduce or propagate prohibited invasive species. Regulated invasive species, on the other hand, are species which cannot be knowingly introduced into a free-living state, or introduced by a means that one should have known would lead to such an introduction, although such species shall be legal to possess, sell, buy, propagate and transport. Federally, plant control comes under the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) under federal statutes at 7 U.S.C.
Nope. I have yet to read one good reason why we should legalize yet another recreational drug.
So have poisons also been used for medicinal purposes across the spectrum of human existence dating from before 4500 BC to present day. Yep, for centuries healers and scientists have harnessed the power of natural poisons, toxins, and venoms, to create medicines against such ailments as cancer, diabetes, and malaria. Should there also be no laws, regulations and controls on poisons and these poisons distributed to the public totally uncontrolled? I don’t think so. The Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 mandated the EPA to protect the public from "unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment" by regulating the manufacture and sale of chemicals. Poisons are defined as chemicals.
I somehow don't believe this has ever crossed his mind....and it never should.
Not really poison when it is used in a medically beneficial way, is it sparky? Should there also be no laws, regulations and controls on poisons and these poisons distributed to the public totally uncontrolled? Regulation is one thing - prohibition is quite another. Please try to keep up. Oh, one more thing simpleton - marijuana is NOT poison. I somehow don't believe this has ever crossed his mind....and it never should. Don't worry "Major" - you still have the top spot. No reason will persuade you. You're not persuadable on the subject, just as I am unpersuadable on abortion. You're certain you're right, and you're not budging. And if we were kings, that would be that. As things are, the world moves on without us. It imposes rules we don't like, it doesn't ask us our opinions, and that is that.
A place of honor coming from the low life likes of you.
Not really: But heavy use of pot,does transmogrify you into an alien:
Marijuana is really not a medicine since unlike drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration, “dispensary marijuana” has no quality control, no standardized composition or dosage for specific medical conditions. It has no prescribing information or no high-quality studies of effectiveness or long-term safety. While the FDA is not averse to approving cannabinoids as medicines and has approved two cannabinoid medications, the decision to keep marijuana in Schedule I was reaffirmed in a 2015 federal court ruling. That ruling was correct. Data from 2015 indicate that 30 percent of current cannabis users harbor a use disorder — more Americans are dependent on cannabis than on any other illicit drug. Yet marijuana advocates have relentlessly pressured the federal government to shift marijuana from Schedule I — the most restrictive category of drug — to another schedule or to de-schedule it completely. Their rationale? “States have already approved medical marijuana”; “rescheduling will open the floodgates for research”; and “many people claim that marijuana alone alleviates their symptoms.”
Garlic has medicinal properties. Should it be banned? It has no quality control, no standardized composition or dosage for specific medical conditions!
I guarantee you that if honestly studied, we would discover that any direct inhalation of any burnt leaves directly into the lungs increases death risk and reduces longevity by about the same proportion, due to soot and lung damage. The current science has exhaustive statistics on tobacco, which has been studied extensively in large audiences long term routine use. Similar data does not exist for marijuana. If the number is showing as ZERO, and pretending that's REAL, it's self- evidently bullshit. Standing around a campfire breathing log fire soot every day reduces lifespan. Working in dark rooms lit by candles results in lung problems. Sitting around incense filled rooms does the same. There is no way on God's green earth that directly inhaling substantial amounts of marijuana smoke directly into the lungs does not do the same harm that any other soot does. If the science says "0", then the science is an ass, isn't real, and must be rejected as untrue. It is OBVIOUS that inhaling fresh soot will most certainly cause lung problems. We know that. Marijuana is not a magical unicorn. It's a burning leaf that puts off big plumes of smoke. The smoke doesn't stop being harmful because it's a treasured drug. And if the science says otherwise, the science itself is a lie, is false, is untrue, and must be disregarded as not being real. Get real scientists to really test it - hell, test it on live non-smokers in countries where it's legal. Take a bunch of non-smokers and then divide the group into a group that take up marijuana smoking, and a group that remains free of it. Track them through life. People who smoke ANYTHING will CERTAINLY not be as healthy, over time, as people who smoke nothing. We don't need scientists to tell us the obvious. And if scientists actually tell us something like that "0 harm" statistics, then they're still full of shit and obviously did the experiment wrong.
Looks like a 2016 Trick-or-Treater dressed up as a hippie. Way too clean. The hippies I grew up with were smelly, dirty-haired, hairy armpits, and stoned. More Joplin-like:
When a man kills his wife after eating garlic candy like the man did after he ate pot candy and when a teen leaps 4 stories to his death after eating garlic cookies like a teen did after eating pot cookies….then that possibility should be considered.
After wasting time reading this stupid fu*king thread, I'm just glad most of the people here are "Goofy old F*cks" not long for this world. This level of stupidity can't live on.
They've tried in the lab to establish a fatal dose of THC for larger mammals (dogs, monkeys) but were unable to kill any. Any claimed lethal dose of THC is an extrapolation from intravenous administration to mice. And as has already been pointed out - but bears repeating - a ban does not regulate but on the contrary removes the substance from the possibility of effective regulation. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. A 19-year-old boy shot those test results all to Hell after “he established a fatal dose of THC from eating six time the recommend dose of a marijuana cookie” and then jumping off a fourth-story balcony. Marijuana-related deaths happen, but not in the way you probably expect….not in lab tests on large mammals.
The Commerce Clause gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” President Jefferson used this power to prohibit trade with foreign nations (Jefferson's Embargo of 1807) and to prohibit the sale of alcohol to the Indian tribes (Trade and Intercourse Act of 1802). Keep in mind that James Madison -- the author of the Commerce Clause -- was Jefferson's Secretary of State and surely would have advised his President that "to regulate" did not include "to prohibit". But he didn't. But you're saying that "to regulate" -- used once in the clause to apply to all three areas -- means something totally different when it comes to the states?
[...] Marijuana-related deaths Move those goalposts. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. James Madison -- the author of the Commerce Clause -- was Jefferson's Secretary of State and surely would have advised his President that "to regulate" did not include "to prohibit". But he didn't. The point is not whether the authority to regulate includes the authority to prohibit, but whether prohibition advances or retards the goals that typically motivate regulation. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. You forget one thing. One joint can be for few people and effects can last for hours. On the other hand a heavy cigarette smoker can have 2 packs a day - 40 cigarettes together. So it could be 100x difference in inhaling smoke.
According to the link, the measures are leading everywhere but Arizona. And Trump and Clinton each say it's an issue for the states. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. My bad. I thought your argument was that a ban does not regulate. Oh, wait. Your argument was a ban does not regulate. Now it's about motivation. ''Congress can certainly regulate interstate commerce to the extent of forbidding and punishing the use of such commerce as an agency to promote immorality, dishonesty, or the spread of any evil or harm to the people of other States from the State of origin.''
If so, then who's responsible for keeping marijuana in the states?
-- Street marijuana can contain unknown impurities. Meaning, all this factors into any comparison to tobacco.
The Commerce Clause gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” President Jefferson used this power to prohibit trade with foreign nations (Jefferson's Embargo of 1807) and to prohibit the sale of alcohol to the Indian tribes (Trade and Intercourse Act of 1802). ------- But you're saying that "to regulate" -- used once in the clause to apply to all three areas -- means something totally different when it comes to the states? ---- misterwhite ''Congress can certainly regulate interstate commerce to the extent of forbidding and punishing the use of such commerce as an agency to promote immorality, dishonesty, or the spread of any evil or harm to the people of other States from the State of origin.'' -- Chief Justice Taft, Brooks v. United States ----- misterwhite posted President Jefferson used the commerce power to prohibit trade with BELLIGERENT foreign nations (Jefferson's Embargo of 1807) and to prohibit the sale of alcohol to the BELLIGERENT Indian tribes (Trade and Intercourse Act of 1802). ----- -- I'm saying "to regulate" -- used in the clause to apply to belligerent entities, (foreign or domestic), is something totally different when it comes to the states. ---- The people of our States are not evil, (despite the OPINION of Justice Taft) and are protected by the provisions of the 14th Amendment.
If you thought that, why did and do you respond with evidence about the different point that the authority to regulate includes the authority to prohibit? Are you that stupid? Or do you think other LFers are that stupid? More precisely, that as I said the result of a ban is to remove the substance from the possibility of effective regulation. You think regulation should have no particular motivation - that it should be done for the sheer sake of exercising force? A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. If so, then who's responsible for keeping marijuana in the states? Why, primarily the states that don't want it - just as responsibility for keeping alcohol out of dry jurisdictions lies primarily with those jurisdictions. Congress has the authority if it so chooses to act against such interstate movement, though not against intrastate commerce. Glad I could clear that up for you. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. Regulation includes prohibition, so your statement is gobbledygook. "You think regulation should have no particular motivation - that it should be done for the sheer sake of exercising force?" Motivation has nothing to do with it. Congress has the power to prohibit. It doesn't mean they have to.
Did that work with alcohol? I seem to recall that it didn't, and the "dry" states pressured Congress to pass the Webb-Kenyon Act, making it a federal crime. Naturally, that didn't work either, leading to Prohibition. Now you come along saying that it will work with recreational drugs. Or are you saying you know it won't work, but since the U.S. Constitution is a suicide pact, we have to do it?
Yes, they can. That is why they should be regulated. Even if were so, still you smoke them in minute amount comparing to cigarettes. More regulations and open competition could lower tar as it did with tobacco. Regulations, coming into open and competition will fix it. No reason not to add filter, other than maximizing effect of hard to get substance. OMG, how do you know?! Do you get munchies too? ;) Whitey the Pothead coming out of closet.
Who is BELLIGERENT here? War on Drugs warriors? Strange, fire water was bad to them. I would expect booze to be delivered to them BELLIGERENTS for FREE! Beside infected blankets of course.
Comments (82 - 181) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Alcohol was made illegal (for awhile) through an amendment to the Constitution. Since there's nothing in that document regarding plants, why wasn't another amendment required to make a plant illegal?
#42. To: A Pole (#33)
"so I said decriminalization could be a compromise."
#43. To: misterwhite (#13)
And how do you propose to legalize marijuana nationwide and not violate the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs international treaty?
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
#44. To: A Pole (#33)
You are a sadist.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
#45. To: Vicomte13 (#29)
"I don't. This is 'Murica. Fuck the treaty. Or rather, "abrogate" it."
#46. To: Operation 40 (#37)
Facts are difficult things for drug warriors. You can't admit to yourself that you were led down a rat-hole by despicable liars who would sell out their mothers for 2 bits of silver.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
#47. To: GrandIsland (#38)
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
#48. To: Operation 40 (#32)
"Alcohol was made illegal (for awhile) through an amendment to the Constitution. Since there's nothing in that document regarding plants, why wasn't another amendment required to make a plant illegal?"
#49. To: misterwhite (#45)
Hey. As long as you get your precious marijuana legalized, f**k everyone else, right?
#50. To: misterwhite, Operation 40 (#48)
"Alcohol was made illegal (for awhile) through an amendment to the Constitution. Since there's nothing in that document regarding plants, why wasn't another amendment required to make a plant illegal?"
New York State
Prohibited and Regulated
Invasive Plants
September 10, 2014 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
NYCRR Part 575 Invasive Species Regulations
Questions and Answers
#51. To: Vicomte13 (#49)
"You don't like marijuana, but you really HATE the idea of being FORCED off of a law that you agree with."
#52. To: Operation 40 (#37)
(Edited)
The use of Cannabis for medicinal purposes dates back to ancient times
#53. To: Deckard, misterwhite (#43)
And you wonder why you are despised by many posters here.
#54. To: Gatlin, Operation 40 (#52)
(Edited)
So have poisons also been used for medicinal purposes across the spectrum of human existence dating from before 4500 BC to present day.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
#55. To: Gatlin (#53)
And you wonder why you are despised by many posters here.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."
#56. To: misterwhite (#51)
I have yet to read one good reason why we should legalize yet another recreational drug.
#57. To: Deckard (#55)
#58. To: Vicomte13 (#49)
Marijuana kills people in about the same time that it takes cigarettes and beer to do it.
#59. To: Deckard (#54)
Not really poison when it is used in a medically beneficial way, is it sparky?
#60. To: Gatlin (#59)
Marijuana is really not a medicine since unlike drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration, “dispensary marijuana” has no quality control, no standardized composition or dosage for specific medical conditions.
#61. To: A Pole (#58)
#62. To: A Pole (#58)
#63. To: A Pole (#60)
Garlic has medicinal properties. Should it be banned?
#64. To: all (#0)
#65. To: Gatlin (#52)
The Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 mandated the EPA to protect the public from "unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment" by regulating the manufacture and sale of chemicals. Poisons are defined as chemicals.
#66. To: ConservingFreedom (#65)
They've tried in the lab to establish a fatal dose of THC for larger mammals (dogs, monkeys) but were unable to kill any. Any claimed lethal dose of THC is an extrapolation from intravenous administration to mice.
#67. To: ConservingFreedom (#65)
"And as has already been pointed out - but bears repeating - a ban does not regulate but on the contrary removes the substance from the possibility of effective regulation."
#68. To: Gatlin (#66)
The Toxic Substances Control Act
#69. To: misterwhite (#67)
"a ban does not regulate but on the contrary removes the substance from the possibility of effective regulation."
#70. To: Vicomte13 (#61)
I guarantee you that if honestly studied, we would discover that any direct inhalation of any burnt leaves directly into the lungs increases death risk and reduces longevity by about the same proportion, due to soot and lung damage.
#71. To: Deckard (#0)
Ballot measures could potentially legalize recreational use in varying degrees in California, Nevada, Massachusetts, Arizona, and Nevada — and although they aren’t all expected to pass, the segment of the population arguing against legalization shrinks seemingly by the month.
#72. To: ConservingFreedom (#69)
"The point is not whether the authority to regulate includes the authority to prohibit, but whether prohibition advances or retards the goals that typically motivate regulation."
-- Chief Justice Taft, Brooks v. United States
#73. To: ConservingFreedom (#71)
"it's an issue for the states."
#74. To: A Pole (#70)
"So it could be 100x difference in inhaling smoke."
-- Marijuana contains twice the carcinogens and four times the tar as cigarettes
-- Joints vary in size, so you can't compare them apples-to-apples with cigarettes.
-- Joints are smoked unfiltered
-- Users draw marijuana smoke deep into the lungs and hold it
-- Joints are smoked down to the last tar-and-carcinogen-soaked millimeter
#75. To: ConservingFreedom, y'all, -- even the anti-constiutionalistic misterwhite (#69)
ConservingFreedom (#65) ---- "And as has already been pointed out - but bears repeating - a ban does not regulate but on the contrary removes the substance from the possibility of effective regulation."
#76. To: misterwhite (#72)
"The point is not whether the authority to regulate includes the authority to prohibit, but whether prohibition advances or retards the goals that typically motivate regulation."
My bad. I thought your argument was that a ban does not regulate.
Oh, wait. Your argument was a ban does not regulate.
Now it's about motivation.
#77. To: misterwhite (#73)
"Trump and Clinton each say it's an issue for the states."
#78. To: ConservingFreedom (#76)
"More precisely, that as I said the result of a ban is to remove the substance from the possibility of effective regulation."
#79. To: ConservingFreedom (#77)
"Why, primarily the states that don't want it - just as responsibility for keeping alcohol out of dry jurisdictions lies primarily with those jurisdictions."
#80. To: misterwhite (#74)
-- Street marijuana can contain unknown impurities.
-- Marijuana contains twice the carcinogens and four times the tar as cigarettes
-- Joints vary in size, so you can't compare them apples-to-apples with cigarettes.
-- Joints are smoked unfiltered
-- Users draw marijuana smoke deep into the lungs and hold it
-- Joints are smoked down to the last tar-and-carcinogen-soaked millimeter 
#81. To: tpaine (#75)
President Jefferson used the commerce power to prohibit trade with BELLIGERENT foreign nations
and to prohibit the sale of alcohol to the BELLIGERENT Indian tribes
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]