5 ms·

> ...where does the government get the power to ban drugs. It likes to pretend that the interstate commerce clause gives them that power. _ie_ they're "regulat

by ehayes 7y ago

> ...where does the government get the power to ban drugs. It likes to pretend that the interstate commerce clause gives them that power. _ie_ they're "regulating commerce" by waging the drug war.

crooked-v 7y ago
See Wickard v. Filburn, whereby the Supreme Court decided that growing crops entirely for your own consumption while staying within the border of one state is still 'interstate commerce'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
- sova 7y ago
  Straddle two states with my farm ftw?
  - schoen 7y ago
    I think that will make your situation worse rather than better.
  - LocalH 7y ago
    That would technically put almost everything you do that doesn't stay on one side or other, under federal purview. Not recommended unless you're a masochist
- BurningFrog 7y ago
  This is a buddhistic "everything is connected" legal interpretation.
- wahern 7y ago
  A better, more modern citation would be Gonzales v. Raich (2005), which upheld federal power to prohibit homegrown cannabis, even in a situation where it was stipulated (IIRC) that Raich's marijuana would never leave her house. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich Notably, both Justice Kennedy and Justice Scalia voted in the majority. Chief Justice Rehnquist was as apoplectic about that vote as Kennedy and Scalia were when Chief Justice Roberts sided with the majority to uphold the Obamacare individual mandate. IMO, the liberal majority had the better argument on the individual mandate precisely because Scalia and Kennedy couldn't bring themselves to draw a line at homegrown cannabis. They were stuck relying on a ridiculous theory about affirmative obligations as they had already blew their chance at cabining the reach of interstate commerce, per se.
- gamblor956 7y ago
  People keep posting this case like its supposed to be wrong. But like the McDonalds Hot Coffee case, when you learn the facts about what actually happened, you realize the case was properly decided all along and those that say otherwise are just spreading ideologically based FUD. Wickard is not about the crops Filburn grew for personal consumption. It was about the extra crops he grew just cause. He didn't just grow a little bit extra. He grew hundreds of barrels of wheat extra, meaning several fields more than he was allowed. Filburn claims he was just going to use this excess wheat at home, despite having no means to consume such quantities. Clearly, unless he was actually going to let valuable quantities of crop go to waste, he was intending to sell them to someone. And if Filburn got away with it, then everyone else would try to do the same. And in a year or two, the national wheat restrictions intended to stabilize the price of wheat would fail as prices collapsed from hoarded inventory entering the market. And wheat farmers would go bankrupt and pull out of growing wheat during a war. So of course SCOTUS ruled against him. If Filburn hadn't completely blown past the wheat restrictions, there wouldn't be a SCOTUS case about him today.
  - conanbatt 7y ago
    Shouldn't it have been the state's burden to prove he was going to sell that to someone outside the state?
    - gamblor956 7y ago
      No. The fact that he harvested way too much was all they needed to prove. He needed to prove it was all for his own private consumption and could not. Interestingly enough, he won at the trial level on different grounds (challenging the process by which the limit was set) but lost at the appellate level.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]

by ehayes 7y ago

> ...where does the government get the power to ban drugs. It likes to pretend that the interstate commerce clause gives them that power. _ie_ they're "regulating commerce" by waging the drug war.

crooked-v 7y ago

See Wickard v. Filburn, whereby the Supreme Court decided that growing crops entirely for your own consumption while staying within the border of one state is still 'interstate commerce'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

sova 7y ago
Straddle two states with my farm ftw?
- schoen 7y ago
  I think that will make your situation worse rather than better.
- LocalH 7y ago
  That would technically put almost everything you do that doesn't stay on one side or other, under federal purview. Not recommended unless you're a masochist
BurningFrog 7y ago
This is a buddhistic "everything is connected" legal interpretation.
wahern 7y ago
A better, more modern citation would be Gonzales v. Raich (2005), which upheld federal power to prohibit homegrown cannabis, even in a situation where it was stipulated (IIRC) that Raich's marijuana would never leave her house. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich Notably, both Justice Kennedy and Justice Scalia voted in the majority. Chief Justice Rehnquist was as apoplectic about that vote as Kennedy and Scalia were when Chief Justice Roberts sided with the majority to uphold the Obamacare individual mandate. IMO, the liberal majority had the better argument on the individual mandate precisely because Scalia and Kennedy couldn't bring themselves to draw a line at homegrown cannabis. They were stuck relying on a ridiculous theory about affirmative obligations as they had already blew their chance at cabining the reach of interstate commerce, per se.
gamblor956 7y ago
People keep posting this case like its supposed to be wrong. But like the McDonalds Hot Coffee case, when you learn the facts about what actually happened, you realize the case was properly decided all along and those that say otherwise are just spreading ideologically based FUD. Wickard is not about the crops Filburn grew for personal consumption. It was about the extra crops he grew just cause. He didn't just grow a little bit extra. He grew hundreds of barrels of wheat extra, meaning several fields more than he was allowed. Filburn claims he was just going to use this excess wheat at home, despite having no means to consume such quantities. Clearly, unless he was actually going to let valuable quantities of crop go to waste, he was intending to sell them to someone. And if Filburn got away with it, then everyone else would try to do the same. And in a year or two, the national wheat restrictions intended to stabilize the price of wheat would fail as prices collapsed from hoarded inventory entering the market. And wheat farmers would go bankrupt and pull out of growing wheat during a war. So of course SCOTUS ruled against him. If Filburn hadn't completely blown past the wheat restrictions, there wouldn't be a SCOTUS case about him today.
- conanbatt 7y ago
  Shouldn't it have been the state's burden to prove he was going to sell that to someone outside the state?
  - gamblor956 7y ago
    No. The fact that he harvested way too much was all they needed to prove. He needed to prove it was all for his own private consumption and could not. Interestingly enough, he won at the trial level on different grounds (challenging the process by which the limit was set) but lost at the appellate level.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]