5 ms·

Are you thinking sanctions for states who prohibit cannabis trade?

by jupp0r 5y ago

sneak 5y ago
Marijuana trade is already federally illegal in all 50 states and territories while many states have majorly unrestricted it, so that would be the opposite of what I'm talking about. In this case, California is restricting trade in pork not raised to their opinions of what constitutes humane treatment. Federal standards are obviously less restrictive. It's within federal jurisdiction to override the California law to permit California people to buy non-CA-compliant pork from Iowa. It will be interesting to see how this plays out if California continues on its "ban everything" trajectory. Bacon may not be the hill to die on, but food trade in general is possibly one of the things that could trigger federal intervention if enough leaf nodes get perturbed.
- throwawaycities 5y ago
  > Marijuana trade is already federally illegal in all 50 states and territories… Interesting fact, the Federal government doesn’t have the power to make marijuana illegal, so instead the federal government taxes it, you just don’t see them offer very many tax stamps for it. That said the federal government does in fact grow and distribute marijuana to select individuals they approved under a compassionate care program. Few patients under the program are still alive, but one patient I knew received 300 pre-rolled joints from the federal government every month for over 3 decades. >It's within federal jurisdiction to override the California law to permit California people to buy non-CA-compliant pork from Iowa. That is a big legal “maybe”. The federal government can usually set regulatory minimums and the states usually have the right to set higher standards. If the federal government can show California’s law effects interstate commerce then the federal government might have supremacy under the commerce clause, but these cases are typically always decided 5-4 by the Supreme Court (and if the learned Justices can’t agree it is unlikely we would make much progress here on HN). Not coincidentally the commerce clause is how the federal government finds its power to regulate marijuana too.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > the Federal government doesn’t have the power to make marijuana illegal It does and it has, under the Controlled Substances Act (or, at least manufacturing, distribution, moving across state lines, selling, etc., or possession for any of those purposes.) > so instead the federal government taxes it It used to under the Marijuana Tax Act, which the Controlled Substances Act replaced. But that was motivated more by leveraging propaganda about marijuana as an excuse to destroy the hemp industry than as a backdoor ban on marijuana (though it was also that.)

Are you thinking sanctions for states who prohibit cannabis trade?

by jupp0r 5y ago

Are you thinking sanctions for states who prohibit cannabis trade?

Marijuana trade is already federally illegal in all 50 states and territories while many states have majorly unrestricted it, so that would be the opposite of what I'm talking about. In this case, California is restricting trade in pork not raised to their opinions of what constitutes humane treatment. Federal standards are obviously less restrictive. It's within federal jurisdiction to override the California law to permit California people to buy non-CA-compliant pork from Iowa. It will be interesting to see how this plays out if California continues on its "ban everything" trajectory. Bacon may not be the hill to die on, but food trade in general is possibly one of the things that could trigger federal intervention if enough leaf nodes get perturbed.

throwawaycities 5y ago
> Marijuana trade is already federally illegal in all 50 states and territories… Interesting fact, the Federal government doesn’t have the power to make marijuana illegal, so instead the federal government taxes it, you just don’t see them offer very many tax stamps for it. That said the federal government does in fact grow and distribute marijuana to select individuals they approved under a compassionate care program. Few patients under the program are still alive, but one patient I knew received 300 pre-rolled joints from the federal government every month for over 3 decades. >It's within federal jurisdiction to override the California law to permit California people to buy non-CA-compliant pork from Iowa. That is a big legal “maybe”. The federal government can usually set regulatory minimums and the states usually have the right to set higher standards. If the federal government can show California’s law effects interstate commerce then the federal government might have supremacy under the commerce clause, but these cases are typically always decided 5-4 by the Supreme Court (and if the learned Justices can’t agree it is unlikely we would make much progress here on HN). Not coincidentally the commerce clause is how the federal government finds its power to regulate marijuana too.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > the Federal government doesn’t have the power to make marijuana illegal It does and it has, under the Controlled Substances Act (or, at least manufacturing, distribution, moving across state lines, selling, etc., or possession for any of those purposes.) > so instead the federal government taxes it It used to under the Marijuana Tax Act, which the Controlled Substances Act replaced. But that was motivated more by leveraging propaganda about marijuana as an excuse to destroy the hemp industry than as a backdoor ban on marijuana (though it was also that.)