4 ms·

There is no analogue in the Constitution because the Constitution enumerates the specific powers granted to the Federal Government. Drug prohibition is not one

There is no analogue in the Constitution because the Constitution enumerates the specific powers granted to the Federal Government. Drug prohibition is not one of them, and the entire Federal war on drugs is held up by the lynch-pin supreme court case Wickard v Filburn... where the Supreme Court decided that "interstate commerce" applies to goods literally not involved in any commerce whatsoever. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich

rayiner 11y ago
Wickard v. Filburn isn't the lynch-pin of the Federal war on drugs. It's a ridiculous case, but it's also a narrow one: does the Commerce Clause cover marijuana grown for personal use. That is obviously not interstate commerce within any sensible definition of the concept. However, the drug trade in general is archetypal interstate commerce. Almost nobody grows and processes their own weed or their own cocaine. It all happens through cross-border commercial transactions.
- dreamdu5t 11y ago
  Possession is illegal at the Federal level. All drug commerce that does not cross state lines is also illegal. There could be no federal war on drugs at all without the interstate commerce power the supreme court has derived. Going further, the purpose of the interstate commerce clause was to give the power to regulate tariffs (and other taxes) between the states, not make entire trades illegal because sometimes those goods are sold elsewhere.
  - johncolanduoni 11y ago
    > There could be no federal war on drugs at all without the interstate commerce power the supreme court has derived. For states where the state's laws agree that the drugs are illegal (i.e. most states now, and all states until relatively recently), there could be a (legal) federal war on drugs so long as the state government does not object. As to the practicality of the enforcement of such objections, we're seeing it play out right now with the states that have legalized it.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- duskwuff 11y ago
  > Almost nobody grows and processes their own weed... Er... really? In my experience, it's quite common.
- xacaxulu 11y ago
  I know more pot growers than pot buyers and I'm not even in a decriminalized state.
  - rayiner 11y ago
    I know one person who grows their own weed. But I live in the city. In any case, marijuana and possession generally are a small part of the federal drug war.
- oxide 11y ago
  weed is maybe a bad example. I think heroin would be more apt here, since that is usually grown and processed overseas before being imported. where I'm from, growing and processing (curing and trimming) your own weed is very common. this time of year is harvest season in fact. plenty of odd jobs trimming marijuana pop up seasonally around here because of it.

rayiner 11y ago

Wickard v. Filburn isn't the lynch-pin of the Federal war on drugs. It's a ridiculous case, but it's also a narrow one: does the Commerce Clause cover marijuana grown for personal use. That is obviously not interstate commerce within any sensible definition of the concept. However, the drug trade in general is archetypal interstate commerce. Almost nobody grows and processes their own weed or their own cocaine. It all happens through cross-border commercial transactions.

dreamdu5t 11y ago
Possession is illegal at the Federal level. All drug commerce that does not cross state lines is also illegal. There could be no federal war on drugs at all without the interstate commerce power the supreme court has derived. Going further, the purpose of the interstate commerce clause was to give the power to regulate tariffs (and other taxes) between the states, not make entire trades illegal because sometimes those goods are sold elsewhere.
- johncolanduoni 11y ago
  > There could be no federal war on drugs at all without the interstate commerce power the supreme court has derived. For states where the state's laws agree that the drugs are illegal (i.e. most states now, and all states until relatively recently), there could be a (legal) federal war on drugs so long as the state government does not object. As to the practicality of the enforcement of such objections, we're seeing it play out right now with the states that have legalized it.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
duskwuff 11y ago
> Almost nobody grows and processes their own weed... Er... really? In my experience, it's quite common.
xacaxulu 11y ago
I know more pot growers than pot buyers and I'm not even in a decriminalized state.
- rayiner 11y ago
  I know one person who grows their own weed. But I live in the city. In any case, marijuana and possession generally are a small part of the federal drug war.
oxide 11y ago
weed is maybe a bad example. I think heroin would be more apt here, since that is usually grown and processed overseas before being imported. where I'm from, growing and processing (curing and trimming) your own weed is very common. this time of year is harvest season in fact. plenty of odd jobs trimming marijuana pop up seasonally around here because of it.