6 ms·

> the Supreme Court found that growing wheat on your own land to feed to your own chickens was interstate commerce ONLY because it affected the sale of other g

by tinix 7y ago

> the Supreme Court found that growing wheat on your own land to feed to your own chickens was interstate commerce ONLY because it affected the sale of other grains... in theory, because instead of buying grain off the market to feed your chickens, you used your own grain, which not only deprived the market of your purchase, it also took grains away from the market also... since you didn't sell them. there is no competition for cannabis or psilocybin. i'd love to see this argued in court. > or whether modern jurisprudence has abandoned the true meaning of the text mhmmmmmmmmmmm

Lazare 7y ago
> there is no competition for cannabis or psilocybin. > i'd love to see this argued in court. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich > In both cases, the regulation is squarely within Congress' commerce power because production of the commodity meant for home consumption, be it wheat or marijuana, has a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market for that commodity. (To be clear, I disagree strongly with the decision, which I think was deeply misguided.)
- tinix 7y ago
  Recent... and interesting... > Respondents in this case do not dispute that passage of the CSA, as part of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act, was well within Congress' commerce power. Nor do they contend that any provision or section of the CSA amounts to an unconstitutional exercise of congressional authority. Rather, respondents' challenge is actually quite limited; they argue that the CSA's categorical prohibition of the manufacture and possession of marijuana as applied to the intrastate manufacture and possession of marijuana for medical purposes pursuant to California law exceeds Congress' authority under the Commerce Clause. Seems to me that this is actually arguing against the federal government. But then... > the diversion of homegrown marijuana tends to frustrate the federal interest in eliminating commercial transactions in the interstate market in their entirety. In both cases, the regulation is squarely within Congress' commerce power because production of the commodity meant for home consumption, be it wheat or marijuana, has a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market for that commodity. I will have to dig into this to understand the nuance, but... it seems that it might be slightly different.
  - tinix 7y ago
    the funny thing is, technically, if they did legalize cannabis and psilicybin, federally, THEN, it actually would fall under the commerce clause and they could regulate it as they see fit. checkmate.
- mindslight 7y ago
  > our understanding of the commerce clause had changed. Today we would say that everything is interstate commerce ... > (To be clear, I disagree strongly with the decision, which I think was deeply misguided.) A worthwhile step on the path of disagreement is to separate your perspective from the Supreme Court's. "Our understanding" has not changed - the Supreme Court has merely crafted a tenuous justification for more government power. Which is not surprising given that the Supreme Court is part of the government, thus directly benefiting from increasing that power.
dragonwriter 7y ago
> there is no competition for cannabis or psilocybin. The idea that neither cannabis nor psilocybin trade has any impact on demand for any other good is somewhat implausible.

by tinix 7y ago

Lazare 7y ago

> there is no competition for cannabis or psilocybin. > i'd love to see this argued in court. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich > In both cases, the regulation is squarely within Congress' commerce power because production of the commodity meant for home consumption, be it wheat or marijuana, has a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market for that commodity. (To be clear, I disagree strongly with the decision, which I think was deeply misguided.)

tinix 7y ago
Recent... and interesting... > Respondents in this case do not dispute that passage of the CSA, as part of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act, was well within Congress' commerce power. Nor do they contend that any provision or section of the CSA amounts to an unconstitutional exercise of congressional authority. Rather, respondents' challenge is actually quite limited; they argue that the CSA's categorical prohibition of the manufacture and possession of marijuana as applied to the intrastate manufacture and possession of marijuana for medical purposes pursuant to California law exceeds Congress' authority under the Commerce Clause. Seems to me that this is actually arguing against the federal government. But then... > the diversion of homegrown marijuana tends to frustrate the federal interest in eliminating commercial transactions in the interstate market in their entirety. In both cases, the regulation is squarely within Congress' commerce power because production of the commodity meant for home consumption, be it wheat or marijuana, has a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market for that commodity. I will have to dig into this to understand the nuance, but... it seems that it might be slightly different.
- tinix 7y ago
  the funny thing is, technically, if they did legalize cannabis and psilicybin, federally, THEN, it actually would fall under the commerce clause and they could regulate it as they see fit. checkmate.
mindslight 7y ago
> our understanding of the commerce clause had changed. Today we would say that everything is interstate commerce ... > (To be clear, I disagree strongly with the decision, which I think was deeply misguided.) A worthwhile step on the path of disagreement is to separate your perspective from the Supreme Court's. "Our understanding" has not changed - the Supreme Court has merely crafted a tenuous justification for more government power. Which is not surprising given that the Supreme Court is part of the government, thus directly benefiting from increasing that power.

dragonwriter 7y ago

> there is no competition for cannabis or psilocybin. The idea that neither cannabis nor psilocybin trade has any impact on demand for any other good is somewhat implausible.