3 ms·

The Supremacy Clause does not mean that "Prop 19 is unconstitutional" it means that Prop 19 would not protect people from prosecution under federal law. For e

by dasht 16y ago

The Supremacy Clause does not mean that "Prop 19 is unconstitutional" it means that Prop 19 would not protect people from prosecution under federal law. For example, if I have a warehouse full of pot and the feds bust me, I can't point to Prop 19 (if it had passed) to get out of the bust. You are sort of right that the federal gov't can kind of use the commerce clause to (in my view) over-reach (e.g., threats of withholding various forms of funding). As a question of realpolitik, it's not so obvious how far that would have gotten.

kingkilr 16y ago
FTR the relevant supreme court case is Gonzales v Raich, which says the commerce clause covers marijuana grown in California, sold in California, and consumed in California. Passed by a conservative SCOTUS no less :).
- GFischer 16y ago
  Thanks, I looked it up and it's very relevant to the discussion so I'll link it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich "The Controlled Substances Act does not recognize the medical use of marijuana." "The government also contended that consuming one's locally grown marijuana for medical purposes affects the interstate market of marijuana, and hence that the federal government may regulate and prohibit such consumption. This argument stems from the landmark New Deal case Wickard v. Filburn, which held that the government may regulate personal cultivation and consumption of crops, due to the effect of that consumption on interstate commerce, however minute it may be."
  - chopsueyar 16y ago
    It's fungible (according to the Court).
- dasht 16y ago
  Re the commerce clause covers [intra-state marijuana production, distribution, and use]. Sure. As I recall the court's main reasoning was that as a fungible commodity, there is no such thing as purely "intra-state pot". That's sensible. For example, suppose that 19 had passed and everyone played by the rules: lots and lots of marijuana were produced and consumed strictly within California. That will nevertheless have enormous impact on inter-state price, production, and distribution patterns throughout the US for a substance in whose trade Congress asserts there is a strong public regulatory interest. That decision did not overturn California's medical marijuana laws. Those are still operative. They are the authority by which, for example, dispensaries are owned and operated that do not violate any California laws. From time to time the federal government does take action against the medical marijuana industry but, mostly they leave it alone. One suspect that part of the reason for that is because the last time they cracked down heavily, they gave rise to medical marijuana laws like California's. The original distribution co-ops / businesses were not authorized under state law. They were in defiance of both state and federal law. They largely arose out of the AIDS crisis after it was realized that marijuana had both palliative and therapeutic benefits for many patients (with no lawful substitute coming even close). The feds tried hard to shut down those scoff-laws and parts of state law enforcement helped. In response, first many other wholly unlawful medical distribution efforts sprung up (like mushrooms overnight). Second, the state-level medical marijuana law went on the ballot and won soundly. The feds toned it down rather a lot, after that.
- jrockway 16y ago
  Passed by a conservative SCOTUS no less Of course. States' rights are very important when a state wants to make it mandatory to pray before attending school, but less important when a state wants to make it legal to grow and vaporize certain plants. I mean, c'mon, someone might enjoy smoking pot, and we can't allow that. The Bible says that anything enjoyable is wrong, and it's the duty of the Supreme Court to enforce that. This differs slightly from the wording in the Constitution, but who cares, those mofos are dead...

by dasht 16y ago

kingkilr 16y ago

FTR the relevant supreme court case is Gonzales v Raich, which says the commerce clause covers marijuana grown in California, sold in California, and consumed in California. Passed by a conservative SCOTUS no less :).

GFischer 16y ago
Thanks, I looked it up and it's very relevant to the discussion so I'll link it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich "The Controlled Substances Act does not recognize the medical use of marijuana." "The government also contended that consuming one's locally grown marijuana for medical purposes affects the interstate market of marijuana, and hence that the federal government may regulate and prohibit such consumption. This argument stems from the landmark New Deal case Wickard v. Filburn, which held that the government may regulate personal cultivation and consumption of crops, due to the effect of that consumption on interstate commerce, however minute it may be."
- chopsueyar 16y ago
  It's fungible (according to the Court).
dasht 16y ago
Re the commerce clause covers [intra-state marijuana production, distribution, and use]. Sure. As I recall the court's main reasoning was that as a fungible commodity, there is no such thing as purely "intra-state pot". That's sensible. For example, suppose that 19 had passed and everyone played by the rules: lots and lots of marijuana were produced and consumed strictly within California. That will nevertheless have enormous impact on inter-state price, production, and distribution patterns throughout the US for a substance in whose trade Congress asserts there is a strong public regulatory interest. That decision did not overturn California's medical marijuana laws. Those are still operative. They are the authority by which, for example, dispensaries are owned and operated that do not violate any California laws. From time to time the federal government does take action against the medical marijuana industry but, mostly they leave it alone. One suspect that part of the reason for that is because the last time they cracked down heavily, they gave rise to medical marijuana laws like California's. The original distribution co-ops / businesses were not authorized under state law. They were in defiance of both state and federal law. They largely arose out of the AIDS crisis after it was realized that marijuana had both palliative and therapeutic benefits for many patients (with no lawful substitute coming even close). The feds tried hard to shut down those scoff-laws and parts of state law enforcement helped. In response, first many other wholly unlawful medical distribution efforts sprung up (like mushrooms overnight). Second, the state-level medical marijuana law went on the ballot and won soundly. The feds toned it down rather a lot, after that.
jrockway 16y ago
Passed by a conservative SCOTUS no less Of course. States' rights are very important when a state wants to make it mandatory to pray before attending school, but less important when a state wants to make it legal to grow and vaporize certain plants. I mean, c'mon, someone might enjoy smoking pot, and we can't allow that. The Bible says that anything enjoyable is wrong, and it's the duty of the Supreme Court to enforce that. This differs slightly from the wording in the Constitution, but who cares, those mofos are dead...