3 ms·
This was a great decision. Such a monumental shift in drug policy should be enshrined in federal legislation, and not dictated by the courts.
by rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
This was a great decision. Such a monumental shift in drug policy should be enshrined in federal legislation, and not dictated by the courts.
- venomsnake 11y agoI think that the Supreme Court is just tired of sorting out the Congress' (and state governments) mess caused by action or inaction. My uneducated guess is that we will see a lot narrower decisions from the SCOTUS and probably some form of lesser engagement in the next couple of years.
- supergeek133 11y agoIt's literally not their job, if the Supreme Court got involved now... they'd have to tell the states they are not allowed to legalize pot, right?
- gozur88 11y agoThat is exactly what they did in Gonzales v Raich - reasserted the legality and primacy of federal drug laws. Wrongly, IMO, but that's the ruling.
- gizmo686 11y agoThe complaint is that that Colorado is acting in violation of federal law. If you feel that changes in drug policy should be pursued through federal legislation, then you should be in favor of the Supreme Court upholding existing federal law. Having said that, I agree with Colorado's assesment that the currect target of prosecution is the federal government for failing to enforce its laws (unless there is a specific provision compelling states to act in a certain way).
- Alex3917 11y ago> If you feel that changes in drug policy should be pursued through federal legislation, then you should be in favor of the Supreme Court upholding existing federal law. Personal possession of weed is already completely legal under federal law via the equal protection clause. Once they passed the law saying that it's legal in DC, that means that it's now legal everywhere, even if they haven't yet taken the time to strike the old language from the books. The only time federal charges are still pursued is if there is a firearm involved.
- alloyed 11y agoHave a source for that? That one's novel to me.
- Alex3917 11y agoSorry for the lack of a more credible source, but for what it's worth: http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2012/02/congress_oks_medical_marijuana_everywhere_with_dc.php http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2012/02/congress_oks_medical_ma...
- toomuchtodo 11y agoCan this be used as the basis for motions to dismiss in any state court outside of DC?
- Alex3917 11y agoIn theory, yes. In practice so few people are getting charged with personal possession under federal laws that a challenge is unlikely to happen before marijuana gets rescheduled.
- toomuchtodo 11y agoThank you for the reply!
- 11y ago
- abawany 11y agoAlso FTA: The Obama Justice Department urged the Supreme Court not to take the case. "Entertaining the type of dispute at issue here — essentially that one state's laws make it more likely that third parties will violate federal and state law in another state - would represent a substantial and unwarranted expansion of" of the Supreme Court's jurisdiction.
- gozur88 11y agoIt wasn't a decision, per se. The court has simply refused to hear the case, which is what it does with most cases. They can always decide to hear a similar case later, or even change their minds about this one. I wish they would have heard the case and explicitly found for Colorado. Under the plaintiff's logic, states would have a veto on anything their neighbors decided to do.