What right do states have to ban certain substances?

  • News
  • Thread starter cronxeh
  • Start date
  • Tags
    States
In summary: It doesn't pose any health risks to human beings, it just has a psychoactive effect. I think it would make a lot more sense for it to be on Schedule II, which would allow for research and development on the substance.In summary, I am angry at the politicians in this country for scheduling Salvia Divinorum without considering the health risks it poses to human beings. I think that Nicotine should be on Schedule I, as it poses the same health risks, and I think that the states should be allowed to make recommendations as to which substances are to be or not to be used.
  • #1
cronxeh
Gold Member
1,007
11
As I'm reading http://www.erowid.org/plants/salvia/salvia_law2.shtml

I become more and more.. how should I say it.. pissed off at the politicians in this country. I can understand the Australian governments hasty ban of Salvia Divinorum - them being down under the rock and all that. But here we have a certain substance, which poses no health risks to human beings, and yet it gets scheduled.

Now run this riddle by me instead: why can't the United States put Nicotine on Schedule I ? I would personally like to file that to either a local DA or directly write to DEA and have Nicotine added to Schedule I list. It qualifies perfectly to be on that list and I would really like it to be there, as well as about a few dozens of million people in this country as I'm sure
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I have never understood how this works either. Does no one here know?
 
  • #3
God i can't even read that webpage right now. I'll get back to this when I'm not exausted and caughing up my lungs.

And no, i don't smoke.
 
  • #4
This is rather off topic but it should help anyone interested in discussing the topic; if you hold the control key on your keyboard and roll your mouse wheel down the text in your web browser should get bigger. :wink:
 
  • #5
over regulation of natural substances, many use medicinely by herbalist and naturalist is...of course a state right. I don't believe that in situations where it is not crossing state borders that it should be something that the federal government can intervene with. That being said..I don't believe salvia..or maryjane should be regulated, but until public outrage becomes loud enough or mainstream enough to force change...
 
  • #6
I don't understand how it would be a state right? I mean, is such right expressed or enumerated in state constitutions somehow? If so, I'm interested in seeing an example of such.
 
  • #7
I think states have a right to regulate any commerce taking place within them, such as the sale of any substance. I'm not too sure where they get the right to keep a person from using, though. It could just be a very broad interpretation of the commerce regulation. It's an extremely broad interpretation of the interstate commerce clause that allows the federal government most of its rights to regulate different activities.
 
  • #8
loseyourname said:
I think states have a right to regulate any commerce taking place within them...
So, for example sake; if my state happened to have a legislature controlled by atheists and they wanted to ban the sale of the Bible, they could do so?

And what about the giving away of salvia mentioned in the law, that wouldn't fall under commerce, would it?
 
  • #9
loseyourname said:
I think states have a right to regulate any commerce taking place within them, such as the sale of any substance. I'm not too sure where they get the right to keep a person from using, though. It could just be a very broad interpretation of the commerce regulation. It's an extremely broad interpretation of the interstate commerce clause that allows the federal government most of its rights to regulate different activities.

The federal government is limited by the constitution to what actions it can take within the states, and frequently bases its action on the Commerce Clause - the stated right of the feds to regulate interstate commerce. But the states have, by the 10th amendment, all the powers that haven't been allocated to the people by the Bill of Rights or to the federal government (except as modified by later amendments). That's an enormous recognition of powers. If a state wants to declare sarsaparilla illegal it has the right to do so.
 
  • #10
Here is what I have a problem with. The states should be allowed to make recommendations as to which substances are to be or not to be used, and since FDA is nowhere near being competent enough to make such recommendations, they should instead reroute their money from DEA and into restructuring FDA. Why should the tax payers pay for having their liberties limited??

Since when is it that those people somehow know what's better for you? If there was no cloud of incompetence surrounding most of the federal government, perhaps they'd have a good recommendation, but until they do I think the Nixon's federal drug schedule should be revised and terminated as it is simply unconstitutional.
 
  • #11
cronxeh said:
Here is what I have a problem with. The states should be allowed to make recommendations as to which substances are to be or not to be used, and since FDA is nowhere near being competent enough to make such recommendations, they should instead reroute their money from DEA and into restructuring FDA. Why should the tax payers pay for having their liberties limited??

I have no idea why anyone would want more government regulation but for some reason people think that the government knows what is best...seems like a truly retard concept if you ask me.

Since when is it that those people somehow know what's better for you? If there was no cloud of incompetence surrounding most of the federal government, perhaps they'd have a good recommendation, but until they do I think the Nixon's federal drug schedule should be revised and terminated as it is simply unconstitutional.

I don't think in the history of the world there has ever been a competent government. The less the government gets involved the better in just about every case...
 
  • #12
Yes, it should be illegal to take advantage of other people - to rape them through the use of drugs or etc. But it is until you are doing drugs and killing people that you are innocent - its that fine line between the good and bad

I think if the today's laws weren't so deeply rooted in money rather than common sense, perhaps we'd have a happier society. If Heroin is banned - I want Nicotine to be right next to it. And heroin used to be an analgetic, while nicotine? practically no uses. I want the justice and I want it soon.
 
  • #13
cronxeh said:
I want the justice and I want it soon.

You might as well just relax because making any real change takes a lot of money and time. That doesn't mean it can't happen, it just takes some perseverance.
 

1. What is the legal basis for states to ban certain substances?

The legal basis for states to ban certain substances is rooted in their police powers, which give them the authority to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens. This includes the power to regulate and prohibit the use of certain substances that are deemed harmful to individuals or society as a whole.

2. Can states ban substances that are legal at the federal level?

Yes, states have the right to ban substances that are legal at the federal level. This is known as state primacy, which allows states to have their own laws and regulations that may differ from federal laws. As long as the state's laws do not conflict with federal laws, they are valid and enforceable.

3. How do states determine which substances to ban?

States typically rely on scientific evidence and research to determine which substances to ban. This may include studies on the potential health risks and societal impact of the substance, as well as input from experts in the field. The decision to ban a substance also takes into account the availability of alternative treatments and the potential for abuse or addiction.

4. Are there any limitations to a state's power to ban substances?

Yes, there are limitations to a state's power to ban substances. States must adhere to the Constitution and cannot enact laws that violate individual rights, such as the right to privacy. Additionally, states must ensure that their laws and regulations are not discriminatory or disproportionately affecting certain groups of people.

5. Can states lift a ban on a previously banned substance?

Yes, states have the authority to lift a ban on a previously banned substance. This may occur if new evidence or research shows that the substance is no longer as harmful as previously thought, or if there is a change in public opinion or societal norms. However, this process may vary depending on the state's laws and regulations.

Similar threads

Replies
109
Views
53K
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
65
Views
8K
Back
Top