Serious question here: by what authority does the federal government pass laws to say marijuana use is illegal? <quick google> Is it the "Necessary and Proper" clause?
More federal stupidity...
- Thread starter LogGrad98
- Start date
Serious question here: by what authority does the federal government pass laws to say marijuana use is illegal? <quick google> Is it the "Necessary and Proper" clause?
Most likely the commerce clause.
First a quibble: My comment was in response to LG's (apparently incredulous) comment re: "if a state votes it legal for medical dispensing, the federal government not only still considers it entirely illegal ..." I don't think the notion that federal law supercedes state law when the two conflict is exactly controversial assuming both laws are valid. Your comment goes to a different issue entirely.
Second: The Necessary and Proper clause is never sufficient to give independant authority for federal government action. N&P merely expands other government powers. One Brow is right in saying that it's under the interstate commerce clause.
Third: There's actually a pretty recent Supreme Court case describing Marijuana regulation under the Commerce Clause. It was (I believe) a 6-3 with Scalia writing the opinion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich
SaltyDawg
Well-Known Member
FYI, this is nothing new:
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/05/dea-led-by-bush-continues-pot-raids/
It was happening all the time under Bush, and Obama promised to stop it. The fact that there are dispensaries in plain sight in many states, shows that Obama has actually cut way down on the federal raids.
We're not where we should be, but we're a lot closer than we used to be.
And to answer a question- I stopped smoking weed because I got married and started having kids. I probably would smoke at least every now and then if it was legal to do so. I honestly have no idea why it isn't legal.
If I am driving at night and some other driver sharing the road with me is not sober, I would much prefer that intoxicated driver be high on weed rather than drunk on alcohol.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/05/dea-led-by-bush-continues-pot-raids/
It was happening all the time under Bush, and Obama promised to stop it. The fact that there are dispensaries in plain sight in many states, shows that Obama has actually cut way down on the federal raids.
We're not where we should be, but we're a lot closer than we used to be.
And to answer a question- I stopped smoking weed because I got married and started having kids. I probably would smoke at least every now and then if it was legal to do so. I honestly have no idea why it isn't legal.
If I am driving at night and some other driver sharing the road with me is not sober, I would much prefer that intoxicated driver be high on weed rather than drunk on alcohol.
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
My statement was in response to the idea that this is a big enough issue for the federal government to threaten full-blown "war on drug" actions rather than taking it through congress to get the state law repealed or whatever the mechanism is. Is it really the best route to stage federal raids on state-licensed facilities? Is that really the best method they can come up with to get a state to enforce a federal law? It is ludicrous to me all the ways the government finds to blow money on nothing.
Kicky, what is the legal method the federal government should follow to bring a "rogue" state into line?
Kicky, what is the legal method the federal government should follow to bring a "rogue" state into line?
A court has to find that the state law is pre-empted and therefore invalid. That requires a test case.
Given how open these things are I doubt a real raid is necessary but it does require that they prosecute someone and then have a hearing/briefing schedule on the preemption issue.
I think the direction of your question (and the title of your thread) is revealing about your political proclivities. The conflict (and thus the cost) is caused by states drafting laws that are obviously invalid. Why aren't you bemoaning state-level stupidity?
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
What's really jacked up is that Arizona has a law on illegal immigrant enforcement that mirrors the federal law, and they WANT TO ENFORCE FEDERAL LAW in their state but then they get sued for the attempt.
The commerce clause has been molested by libs from its infancy.
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
Can't they both be stupid? Oh I forget, you are a lawyer...
Right now, imo, the lion's share of the stupidity in this is on the federal side. Deal with it, end it, put the baby to bed, and stop dragging it out and burning cash *****-footing around. Then the burden shifts entirely back to the state for starting the whole mess to begin with.
It smacks too much of politics. The issue is only worth pursuing when it nears election time, and that is why they won't just end it, so it can be used as a chip when it is needed. Worried you look soft on drugs? Raid or sue Californian state-licensed marijuana farms to show everyone you are tough. Worried you look too hard and cold? Make sure everyone knows you left the marijuana farms alone so they can keep helping the ill while you study the issue since it is so complicated.
The state should not have gone down that road to begin with, but since they did the federal government has a responsiblity to the tax payers to take care of it quickly and efficiently, not drag it out.
Interesting. Are the feds then prosecuting people that they caught in the raid? Would that then be the test case?
No.
I'm not closely following what they're doing with each person they catch in the raid but there are a variety of reasons they might not be a test case.
For example, if a person caught in a raid decides to do a plea deal rather than fight it they'll simply plead guilty to some offense and do their time. As a result, there was no "case" where the conflict between state and federal law was actually litigated.
Another person could choose to strategically NOT assert that state law made their activities legal for a variety of reasons (for example, they want to preserve the business and don't want a federal court ruling strking down the state law). As a result, the conflict between the laws would never be at issue in their case.
In order for a proper test case in the true criminal litigation sense to exist someone would have to both be prosecuted under the federal law and assert the state law as a defense to the prosecution.
The other alternative is that some entity could sue the state for a declaratory judgment. That's frankly probably a lot cleaner and easier but it comes with its own set of complications and a variety of standing issues.
Not a commerce clause issue.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
2 separate thoughts which was why I didn't include them in the same paragraph
Silly me. Obviously it was not predictable in any way that someone would think that two thoughts following one another would be related.
Some people are frankly morons and shouldn't be tolerated.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
I know what you mean.
Well obviously I wasn't talking about you Millsapa. You see, those were two separate thoughts which was why I didn't include them in the same paragraph.
SaltyDawg
Well-Known Member
lol!
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
I didn't claim you were talking about me; I just agreed with it.
Last edited:
sktwstdfrk
Member
On 4th of July there was a guy skateboarding down the street holding a sign to legalize medical marijuana. Based on his skateboarding abilities, he didn't look as if he needed something to help take the edge off the pain.
Refer to line one in your signature.