5 ms·

I suppose he knew it would just be reverted by the next president? It is disappointing. Are any cases on their way to the Supreme Court yet?

smt88 9y ago
The Supreme Court does not decide the legality of individual drugs.
- rhizome 9y ago
  And to be sure, neither does the president. The entire scheduling regime is under the DEA's power. http://www.npr.org/2016/08/10/489509471/dea-rejects-attempt-to-loosen-federal-restrictions-on-marijuana http://www.npr.org/2016/08/10/489509471/dea-rejects-attempt-... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Removal_of_cannabis_from_Schedule_I_of_the_Controlled_Substances_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Removal_of_cannabis_from_Sched...
  - bluejekyll 9y ago
    Isn't the DEA under the authority of the Executive branch, i.e. the President?
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - rhizome 9y ago
      https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/02/26/can-eric-holder-change-the-federal-drug-classification-of-marijuana/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/02/... explains the situation pretty well. Relevant commentary, I think: http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2009/04/have-you-ever-legalized-marijuana.html http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2009/04/have-you-ever-legali...
      - bluejekyll 9y ago
        Wow, they're hamstrung: > HHS determined that marijuana has a “high potential for abuse” and “no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States,” leading the DEA to reject the petition in 2011. The petition was filed nearly a decade earlier, in 2002. So based on a request from 2002, they decided in 2011 not to act, which continues to restrict research, which makes it harder to get evidence to support a new petition... Sometimes you gotta just love government's ability to tie itself in knots.
        rhizome 9y ago
        It's worse than that: HHS has to tell the DEA "there is a medical use for this" for the DEA to reschedule something at their command. The trick? Schedule I prohibits federal funds from being used for research, so how is HHS ever going to be able to do the work to conclude there is a medical use for a Schedule I substance?
- will_pseudonym 9y ago
  Gonzales v. Raich seems to me like exactly that. "Gonzales v. Raich (previously Ashcroft v. Raich), 545 U.S. 1 (2005), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court ruling that under the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution, Congress may criminalize the production and use of homegrown cannabis even if states approve its use for medicinal purposes." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich
  - amalcon 9y ago
    (I am not a lawyer, etc) Gonzalez vs. Raich was not a ruling on the specific drug. It was a ruling on whether or not Congress (and, by extension, the executive) can apply the interstate commerce clause to the regulation of drugs, even if they don't cross state lines. It's also a pretty straightforward consequence of Wickard v. Filburn, which is basically the same thing for wheat in the 1940s.
- bluejekyll 9y ago
  They decide law. The drug laws could be challenged, no?
  - smt88 9y ago
    No. SCOTUS cannot legislate. They could rule that all drug laws are illegal, but they couldn't change the schedule for marijuana. As far as I know, no US court would seriously consider a lawsuit that would invalidate drug regulation, so SCOTUS will never see such a case.
    - bluejekyll 9y ago
      Yes, I'm not actually debating that. But the issue that I think the Court will need to freshly weigh in on is the fact that state law and federal law are in direct oposition to each other in many states now. Now, of course the Supreme Court will come down and say federal government law supersedes state law, as the constitution specifies. I'm no lawyer, but I do think there would be a nuanced way to argue that the states should have the freedom to self-regulate, as long as they don't distribute across borders. I know there is case law that has already said that the Feds have jurisdiction even in this case, but it still could be argued.
0x00000000 9y ago
Would the next president really have the motivation to revert it? Aside from pharma lobbying I don't see why they would. I also have a very skewed concept of how the American public as a whole views marijuana but I can't imagine it is overwhelmingly negative
- mwfunk 9y ago
  Well, the current president's Attorney General believes marijuana is just barely less bad than heroin. Not an exaggeration, not putting words in his mouth. You're right that the American public in general is fine with it, but evangelicals (and social conservatives in general) have a much greater voice in our government than their numbers in the general population would merit.
  - bluejekyll 9y ago
    According to Gallup it wasn't until 2011 that more than 50% thought it should be legal: http://www.gallup.com/poll/196550/support-legal-marijuana.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/196550/support-legal-marijuana.as... That claims it's up to 60% now.

smt88 9y ago

The Supreme Court does not decide the legality of individual drugs.

rhizome 9y ago
And to be sure, neither does the president. The entire scheduling regime is under the DEA's power. http://www.npr.org/2016/08/10/489509471/dea-rejects-attempt-to-loosen-federal-restrictions-on-marijuana http://www.npr.org/2016/08/10/489509471/dea-rejects-attempt-... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Removal_of_cannabis_from_Schedule_I_of_the_Controlled_Substances_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Removal_of_cannabis_from_Sched...
- bluejekyll 9y ago
  Isn't the DEA under the authority of the Executive branch, i.e. the President?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - rhizome 9y ago
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/02/26/can-eric-holder-change-the-federal-drug-classification-of-marijuana/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/02/... explains the situation pretty well. Relevant commentary, I think: http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2009/04/have-you-ever-legalized-marijuana.html http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2009/04/have-you-ever-legali...
    - bluejekyll 9y ago
      Wow, they're hamstrung: > HHS determined that marijuana has a “high potential for abuse” and “no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States,” leading the DEA to reject the petition in 2011. The petition was filed nearly a decade earlier, in 2002. So based on a request from 2002, they decided in 2011 not to act, which continues to restrict research, which makes it harder to get evidence to support a new petition... Sometimes you gotta just love government's ability to tie itself in knots.
      - rhizome 9y ago
        It's worse than that: HHS has to tell the DEA "there is a medical use for this" for the DEA to reschedule something at their command. The trick? Schedule I prohibits federal funds from being used for research, so how is HHS ever going to be able to do the work to conclude there is a medical use for a Schedule I substance?
will_pseudonym 9y ago
Gonzales v. Raich seems to me like exactly that. "Gonzales v. Raich (previously Ashcroft v. Raich), 545 U.S. 1 (2005), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court ruling that under the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution, Congress may criminalize the production and use of homegrown cannabis even if states approve its use for medicinal purposes." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich
- amalcon 9y ago
  (I am not a lawyer, etc) Gonzalez vs. Raich was not a ruling on the specific drug. It was a ruling on whether or not Congress (and, by extension, the executive) can apply the interstate commerce clause to the regulation of drugs, even if they don't cross state lines. It's also a pretty straightforward consequence of Wickard v. Filburn, which is basically the same thing for wheat in the 1940s.
bluejekyll 9y ago
They decide law. The drug laws could be challenged, no?
- smt88 9y ago
  No. SCOTUS cannot legislate. They could rule that all drug laws are illegal, but they couldn't change the schedule for marijuana. As far as I know, no US court would seriously consider a lawsuit that would invalidate drug regulation, so SCOTUS will never see such a case.
  - bluejekyll 9y ago
    Yes, I'm not actually debating that. But the issue that I think the Court will need to freshly weigh in on is the fact that state law and federal law are in direct oposition to each other in many states now. Now, of course the Supreme Court will come down and say federal government law supersedes state law, as the constitution specifies. I'm no lawyer, but I do think there would be a nuanced way to argue that the states should have the freedom to self-regulate, as long as they don't distribute across borders. I know there is case law that has already said that the Feds have jurisdiction even in this case, but it still could be argued.

0x00000000 9y ago

Would the next president really have the motivation to revert it? Aside from pharma lobbying I don't see why they would. I also have a very skewed concept of how the American public as a whole views marijuana but I can't imagine it is overwhelmingly negative

mwfunk 9y ago
Well, the current president's Attorney General believes marijuana is just barely less bad than heroin. Not an exaggeration, not putting words in his mouth. You're right that the American public in general is fine with it, but evangelicals (and social conservatives in general) have a much greater voice in our government than their numbers in the general population would merit.
- bluejekyll 9y ago
  According to Gallup it wasn't until 2011 that more than 50% thought it should be legal: http://www.gallup.com/poll/196550/support-legal-marijuana.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/196550/support-legal-marijuana.as... That claims it's up to 60% now.