6 ms·

> What bothers me the most about this story is how marijuana is supposedly 'legal' yet some locals seem Hell-bent on treating it like an illegal and necessarily

> What bothers me the most about this story is how marijuana is supposedly 'legal' yet some locals seem Hell-bent on treating it like an illegal and necessarily dangerous. It is still illegal at the federal level. There is nothing that stops the federal US government from throwing someone in jail for growing / transporting / using / processing payment for marijuana. I cannot think of anything else that is illegal at the federal but legal at the state level, and has weird hand wavy aspects in front of it.

BenjiWiebe 8y ago
Just pointing out that the GP is referring to Canada, not the US.
- 0x4d464d48 8y ago
  In that context no I meant California. But the commenter is right about it being illegal at the federal level... and as a Schedule I drug on par with Heroine no less but more dangerous than Hydromorphone (HA!).
0x4d464d48 8y ago
"There is nothing that stops the federal US government from throwing someone in jail for growing / transporting / using / processing payment for marijuana." I always wondered about that. Has there been any chatter about someone trying to get a federal court to nullify the law? I have no idea how that can work.
- ceejayoz 8y ago
  There'd be no legal basis for that. Federal drug law trumps state ones if there's a conflict. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause
  - int_19h 8y ago
    Federal laws can't be arbitrary, though - they need to fall under one of the enumerated federal powers. Problem is, ever since Wickard v. Filburn decision, all that the federal government needs to do is to add "... in interstate commerce" in the text of the law, and it is magically constitutional. The words themselves have practically no meaning - in Wickard, the Supreme Court ruled that a person growing food for personal consumption is still "participating in interstate commerce", on the basis that they'd have to buy that food otherwise, and therefore affect market prices on it.
- greenleafjacob 8y ago
  On what grounds? It was already conclusively decided in Gonzales vs Raich.
  - wl 8y ago
    2/3rds of the membership of the Supreme Court has changed since Gonzales vs. Raich. There might be more skepticism about applying Wickard here given that the majority of Americans now support legalization. It shouldn't matter in theory, but it it probably does to some extent. I could see RBG changing her vote from last time and possibly Souter as well, especially if the case could be distinguished from Wickard in such a way that doesn't call into question large swaths of the modern federal government.
- jcranmer 8y ago
  > Has there been any chatter about someone trying to get a federal court to nullify the law? I have no idea how that can work. The US has signed up to a treaty that requires us to treat marijuana as an illegal controlled substance. That requires an explicit act of Congress to abrogate, and no court is going to find otherwise.
  - solidsnack9000 8y ago
    Which treaty is that?
    - barry-cotter 8y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Convention_on_Narcotic_Drugs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Convention_on_Narcotic_... This was the first result for both “drugs treaty” and “Narcotics treaty”.
      - fromthestart 8y ago
        That page doesn't mention marijuana. I don't think marijuana is classified as a narcotic, despite the vagueness of the definition.
        jcranmer 8y ago
        Cannabis is explicitly listed as a Schedule I drug on that page.
      - katbyte 8y ago
        Is canada not a signatory on that treaty then?
      - solidsnack9000 8y ago
        Although the treaty does seem to be pretty clearly prohibitionist, there is some debate (covered under "Possession for personal use", https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Convention_on_Narcotic_Drugs#Possession_for_personal_use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Convention_on_Narcotic_...) as to whether or not the treaty requires member states to prohibit possession for personal use.
Nasrudith 8y ago
You are right it is an outlier and some would say not ideal. It is transparently a breakdown of rule of law into realpolitik given constraints and the redundant levels of powers - from what is fundamentally bad law and consistent failure to respond to facts on the ground. It brings to mind the old bit of legal philosophy about unenforceable laws breeding contempt for the law in general. The Federal government can technically roll up and enforce the laws federally at any location they please but they don't have the budget or manpower for it. Unfunded mandates can't be enforced upon the lower levels of enforcement and they depend upon them for cooperation. They could technically have thrown the bulk of their enforcement budget into an early adopter but that would be playing whack-a-mole as others could crop up and openly defy them while they are busy there - all while 49 other states are complaining about there being way better uses of their resources than replacing every vice squad in California. The federal government caused the problem in the first place in their adamant refusal to acknowledge reality with Schedule 1 classification - not just in assigning it to marijuana which trivially has medical uses but in that the very category is a tautology. We don't know if something has medicinal use until we try it in every application. For all we know even something horrific like krododil may be very good chemotherapy for treating specific kinds of tumors. Weaning off of heroin may well be the best approach to beating addiction - it is already accepted for nicotine in general practice! The specifics don't matter so much as the general point that Schedule 1's very existence is an outright tautology and illogical dogma. They could have avoided the massive backlash and much of legalization movement's momentum being a serious thing by making Marijuana schedule 2. This isn't even something radical, not even decades ago - you have been able to find cocaine in ENT applications throughout the country perfectly legally given that there really is no better substance despite the known downsides. The whole thing is fundamentally a failure state on the law. It is technically a solution in that it prevents enforcement of bad laws but it really highlights the systemic dysfunction and creates greater inconsistency. It is a matter of debate if being able to have this is a good thing or not. I can think of one similar issue as well however that is even lower. The Sanctuary City "issue" (an emergent solution that some don't like) is a similar disconnect of high-level dogma colliding with and failing to respond to low-level reality - any significant urban police force knows they would have to be extremely stupid to have a zero-tolerance deportation policy when they depend upon the population for witnesses and crime reporting. It is beyond a matter of even demagogic politics locally while many above consider its state unacceptable. TL;DR version - the law refused to bend so it broke instead.
namlem 8y ago
Technically the federal government can only impose penalties for recreational cannabis. Medicinal cannabis is also federally illegal, but congress has prohibited any resources from being allocated to enforcing prohibition against medical marijuana businesses or users who are in compliance with state law.

BenjiWiebe 8y ago

Just pointing out that the GP is referring to Canada, not the US.

0x4d464d48 8y ago
In that context no I meant California. But the commenter is right about it being illegal at the federal level... and as a Schedule I drug on par with Heroine no less but more dangerous than Hydromorphone (HA!).

0x4d464d48 8y ago

"There is nothing that stops the federal US government from throwing someone in jail for growing / transporting / using / processing payment for marijuana." I always wondered about that. Has there been any chatter about someone trying to get a federal court to nullify the law? I have no idea how that can work.

ceejayoz 8y ago
There'd be no legal basis for that. Federal drug law trumps state ones if there's a conflict. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause
- int_19h 8y ago
  Federal laws can't be arbitrary, though - they need to fall under one of the enumerated federal powers. Problem is, ever since Wickard v. Filburn decision, all that the federal government needs to do is to add "... in interstate commerce" in the text of the law, and it is magically constitutional. The words themselves have practically no meaning - in Wickard, the Supreme Court ruled that a person growing food for personal consumption is still "participating in interstate commerce", on the basis that they'd have to buy that food otherwise, and therefore affect market prices on it.
greenleafjacob 8y ago
On what grounds? It was already conclusively decided in Gonzales vs Raich.
- wl 8y ago
  2/3rds of the membership of the Supreme Court has changed since Gonzales vs. Raich. There might be more skepticism about applying Wickard here given that the majority of Americans now support legalization. It shouldn't matter in theory, but it it probably does to some extent. I could see RBG changing her vote from last time and possibly Souter as well, especially if the case could be distinguished from Wickard in such a way that doesn't call into question large swaths of the modern federal government.
jcranmer 8y ago
> Has there been any chatter about someone trying to get a federal court to nullify the law? I have no idea how that can work. The US has signed up to a treaty that requires us to treat marijuana as an illegal controlled substance. That requires an explicit act of Congress to abrogate, and no court is going to find otherwise.
- solidsnack9000 8y ago
  Which treaty is that?
  - barry-cotter 8y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Convention_on_Narcotic_Drugs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Convention_on_Narcotic_... This was the first result for both “drugs treaty” and “Narcotics treaty”.
    - fromthestart 8y ago
      That page doesn't mention marijuana. I don't think marijuana is classified as a narcotic, despite the vagueness of the definition.
      - jcranmer 8y ago
        Cannabis is explicitly listed as a Schedule I drug on that page.
    - katbyte 8y ago
      Is canada not a signatory on that treaty then?
    - solidsnack9000 8y ago
      Although the treaty does seem to be pretty clearly prohibitionist, there is some debate (covered under "Possession for personal use", https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Convention_on_Narcotic_Drugs#Possession_for_personal_use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Convention_on_Narcotic_...) as to whether or not the treaty requires member states to prohibit possession for personal use.

Nasrudith 8y ago

You are right it is an outlier and some would say not ideal. It is transparently a breakdown of rule of law into realpolitik given constraints and the redundant levels of powers - from what is fundamentally bad law and consistent failure to respond to facts on the ground. It brings to mind the old bit of legal philosophy about unenforceable laws breeding contempt for the law in general. The Federal government can technically roll up and enforce the laws federally at any location they please but they don't have the budget or manpower for it. Unfunded mandates can't be enforced upon the lower levels of enforcement and they depend upon them for cooperation. They could technically have thrown the bulk of their enforcement budget into an early adopter but that would be playing whack-a-mole as others could crop up and openly defy them while they are busy there - all while 49 other states are complaining about there being way better uses of their resources than replacing every vice squad in California. The federal government caused the problem in the first place in their adamant refusal to acknowledge reality with Schedule 1 classification - not just in assigning it to marijuana which trivially has medical uses but in that the very category is a tautology. We don't know if something has medicinal use until we try it in every application. For all we know even something horrific like krododil may be very good chemotherapy for treating specific kinds of tumors. Weaning off of heroin may well be the best approach to beating addiction - it is already accepted for nicotine in general practice! The specifics don't matter so much as the general point that Schedule 1's very existence is an outright tautology and illogical dogma. They could have avoided the massive backlash and much of legalization movement's momentum being a serious thing by making Marijuana schedule 2. This isn't even something radical, not even decades ago - you have been able to find cocaine in ENT applications throughout the country perfectly legally given that there really is no better substance despite the known downsides. The whole thing is fundamentally a failure state on the law. It is technically a solution in that it prevents enforcement of bad laws but it really highlights the systemic dysfunction and creates greater inconsistency. It is a matter of debate if being able to have this is a good thing or not. I can think of one similar issue as well however that is even lower. The Sanctuary City "issue" (an emergent solution that some don't like) is a similar disconnect of high-level dogma colliding with and failing to respond to low-level reality - any significant urban police force knows they would have to be extremely stupid to have a zero-tolerance deportation policy when they depend upon the population for witnesses and crime reporting. It is beyond a matter of even demagogic politics locally while many above consider its state unacceptable. TL;DR version - the law refused to bend so it broke instead.

namlem 8y ago

Technically the federal government can only impose penalties for recreational cannabis. Medicinal cannabis is also federally illegal, but congress has prohibited any resources from being allocated to enforcing prohibition against medical marijuana businesses or users who are in compliance with state law.