4 ms·

"There is nothing that stops the federal US government from throwing someone in jail for growing / transporting / using / processing payment for marijuana." I

"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.

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.