3 ms·
I agree. The cole memo was a real half-assed political approach in the first place, perhaps necessary at the time. This is a move coming at a time when this now
by drvdevd 9y ago
I agree. The cole memo was a real half-assed political approach in the first place, perhaps necessary at the time. This is a move coming at a time when this now state legal industry is gaining widespread popularity and acceptance and most importantly income.
It’s time to challenge the feds on the outdated CSA classification of marijuana as schedule one in general, in addition to forcing another states rights debate.
Also as I understand it, the only argument for the constitutional acceptance of the CSA is essentially the feds rights to govern interstate commerce. In this case they’re trying assert that right in an industry which is essentially operating within single states where the legality has been democratically assessed. IANAL, but I think this fact has some weight behind it in the states favor.
- didgeoridoo 9y agoReinterpreting “interstate commerce” to mean “commerce that actually involves money, goods, or services crossing state lines” would be a huge deal. It would essentially overturn Wickard v Filburn and put the brakes on a huge number of federal laws that exist to compel the states to do things. It seems very, very unlikely that the SC would make such a move, but it would be spectacularly welcome for us strict-constructionists.