4 ms·
> In a state with legal medical marijuana umm.. not familiar with this case, but: from a federal position there is no such thing as legal marijuana, and from
by cat199 8y ago
> In a state with legal medical marijuana
umm.. not familiar with this case, but:
from a federal position there is no such thing as legal marijuana, and from a constitutional position federal law trumps state law -
which is not to say i disagree about the sheer human folly of regulating the existence of plants via legislation.
- int_19h 8y agoFederal law trumps state law when they're in conflict. There's no conflict between federal law saying that it's illegal, and state law not saying that it's illegal. And when state legalizes it, all that means is that they're repealing state laws making it illegal. The case itself wasn't about whether federal law trumps state law, though. It was about whether the federal law in question is constitutional in the first place - i.e. that the federal government has authority granted to it by the Constitution to prohibit a person growing marijuana plants for their own private consumption (i.e. not for sale, and especially not for sale across state lines, which would then obviously be "interstate commerce"). The plaintiff was arguing that since it's personal use and not interstate commerce, it's out of scope of the federal law. The reason why state law was relevant is to show the exact nature of harm suffered - if not for federal law, the plaintiff would have access to medical marijuana to alleviate his pain. SCOTUS upheld an earlier decision from Wickard v. Filburn, which basically states that any production and consumption is "interstate commerce", because it affects market prices - if you grow something for your own use, you're not buying that something on the market, the reasoning went. I suggest reading about both decisions, just to see how ridiculous some of our legal reasoning is. And then keep in mind that those decisions are the only thing that makes many federal laws constitutional - it's not just drug prohibitions, but e.g. the Civil Rights Acts. So both the left and the right have a stake in maintaining this interpretation - both want to be have broad regulatory authority on the federal level, just for different reasons. It doesn't make it any less flawed or ridiculous, but I wouldn't consider it an example of partisan court bias.
- cat199 8y agoyou definately sound informed on this case for sure and i'm certainly not but it seems like there are 2/3 threads being comingled in the case: a) illegality of marijuana itself b) interstate commerce-related issues pertaining to private growth the 'b' parts you mention definately seem like flawed, unconstitutional reasoning (e.g. expanding the definition of commercial and therefore regulated to include things that actually arent) as for 'a' - "And when state legalizes it, all that means is that they're repealing state laws making it illegal." this can't be true true - otherwise there would be no regulation/taxes on dispensaries, etc. in legalization states, which there certainly is.. so it's not like there is a federal law and a 'blank' at the state.. there are contradicting state laws treating it as legal, and federal ones which say it is illegal..
- darkarmani 8y agoThe federal law requires b or it isn't valid. The only reason the Feds are allowed to regulate drugs at all is through 'b' and the ICC.