Answer:
It would apply if the pot in question was to cross state lines.
Explanation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich
In reality and under the enumerated powers article 1 of the constitution there is no basis for the regulation of marajuana that is not part of interstate commerce.
However, in the US we have a supreme court that has one job, to backstop the constitution against usurpation by the executive, legislative and lower courts. It has utterly failed. We have two members of the court today who have openly admitted that they think it should be scrapped in favor of a more progressive model. That means it doesn't encumber or restrict the government at all. Progressives have been chippng away at your rights for years. Progressives are actually communists, ( advocating policies that can only be enacted under a communist system or that would lead to such a system) most are too stupid to realize it.
There are several points in history where progressives have made big strides. 1937 is considered my many to be a milestone, Roosevelt with the judicial reform act which led to the elevation of the general welfare clause, Bush with Agenda 21/30 Bush Jr. with the Patriot act and of course the judicial appointments by carter, obama, bush 1&2 and of course the clintons.
The bottom line is that there is no law it's a farce. Get yourself elected convince a few stooges to play ball and you can get whatever you wnat.
This is a great question with various for and against points so i shall just give you a few that come to mind.
FOR
-conditions can be below to basic living standards, which is immoral and a violation of human rights
-People wouldn't voluntarily pay money to maintain the living conditions of convicts due to the atrocities of their crime.
-Statistics support the fact 'it doesn't work' as rehabilitation is in the minority
-it does not reduce crime rate in the slightest
-corruption
AGAINST
-what is the question suggesting should happen to convicts instead?
-wrongfully convicted
apologies im running out of time, so i can write appropriate against. hope this helps though
Answer:
DTS
Explanation:
CTO AMENDMENT: Identifies that a travel document has been changed after it has been approved.
DTS AMENDMENT: It is a change made to a travel document any time after APPROVED
Answer:
C
Explanation:
To avoid any accidents since it is smaller than a car
