4 ms·

This, and Obama's recent admission that cannabis is not dangerous is a hint from the administration that the Feds will cave sooner rather than later (in politic

by pstuart 13y ago

This, and Obama's recent admission that cannabis is not dangerous is a hint from the administration that the Feds will cave sooner rather than later (in political time, that is). Once enough states go legal they will have no choice in the matter.

csense 13y ago
> Once enough states go legal [the federal government] will have no choice in the matter. I beg to differ. If the federal government doesn't like what's going on in these states, they can prosecute individuals and businesses involved in the marijuana business on the federal level. Even if successful, defendants would face months or years of uncertainty and hefty legal bills. Moreover, the prospect of success looks dim: The Supreme Court has already ruled that the infamous universal loophole in the Constitution known as the interstate commerce clause applies even to growing your own food on your own property for your own consumption [1] and that this ruling applies to marijuana even for medicinal purposes [2]. EDIT: Given that the Supreme Court is at least theoretically bound by precedent, and given that precedent apparently allows federal policy to trump state policy in this area even for strictly intra-state activities, the court isn't the right place to address this anyway. If the President is amenable to the idea, having the executive branch proclaim a policy of non-enforcement of federal marijuana statutes in states that have legalized marijuana is certainly a good place to start -- but the next President could unmake such a policy just as easily as this President can make it. Legislation would be a more permanent fix. The most permanent fix of all would be a Constitutional amendment which altered the balance of power between state and federal governments, perhaps explicitly narrowing the scope of the commerce clause. Some of the reasons why this might desirable are given in the O'Connor / Rehnquist dissent [2]. Unfortunately, due to historical events in the US, the notion that the federal government has too much power and states have too little is inexorably tied in political rhetoric to slavery, repression of African-Americans, and Southern right-wing conservatives. Which means that for the foreseeable future, the balance of power between state and federal governments will continue to tilt toward the latter. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich
- mtgx 13y ago
  How does that work exactly? If federal laws are above state laws, then what's the point of state laws?
  - joe5150 13y ago
    This is the subject of the Tenth Amendment. There are enumerated powers, duties, etc. of the federal government, enumerated proscriptions for the states, and everything else is up to the states.
  - cstejerean 13y ago
    Some matters are designated by the constitution as belong to the federal government, and any powers not granted to the federal government are granted to the states. However, within the context of powers given to the federal government by the constitution, federal laws trump state laws when there is a conflict. For the most part these divisions between state and federal responsibilities, but the commerce clause, which gives the federal government to regulate commerce between the states, has been interpreted very broadly to give the federal government broad powers even over issues that are only tangentially related to interstate commerce. The courts have gone back and forth a few times over how broad the commerce clause should be interpreted. If you are interested in the details including some interesting court cases, Wikipedia has a pretty good summary http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause
  - csense 13y ago
    Originally, the United States consisted of thirteen British colonies that saw themselves as culturally similar neighboring individual countries in a military alliance against their faraway British overlords. After the war, the former colonies decided that sticking together militarily and speaking with one voice on foreign policy had worked out pretty well for them -- they'd fought a war against the world's number one superpower and won -- so they ought to continue to do so, and the new government ought to set up uniform rules for the way states trade with each other, and establish a single place to register scientific inventions, etc. Sort of like the European Union today, or maybe the European Community that preceded it. The states had just thrown off the shackles of one overlord and weren't about to put themselves under another. After these concerns resulted in an initial agreement so weak as to border on totally ineffective [1], their diplomats tried again [2] [3], and the states agreed but quickly demanded more limitations on federal power [4]. The ideological divide between states that allowed slavery and states that did not was a crisis on slow boil for the better part of the next century, resulting in various political compromises [5] [6] but eventually leading to a major civil war [7]. After the war was won by the side that favored a stronger national government, one of the side effects of the event was setting a precedent of the federal government imposing its policies on unwilling states at gunpoint [8]. (It's not a typo in that reference when it notes the Republicans pushed for radical expansions of African-American rights; both parties basically completely switched sides with respect to racial issues after World War 2 [9]). The sense of national unity was strengthened through the outcome of the war, increased interstate commerce due to the inventions of the Industrial Revolution, and the crises of the Great Depression and the world wars. All of these events gave the federal government reasons to expand its powers [10] [11] [12], in ways which seemed like good ideas at the time but ended up resulting in a much more powerful federal government, and much weaker state governments, than anyone had envisioned. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_confederation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_confederation [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphia_Convention http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphia_Convention [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights [5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_fifths_compromise http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_fifths_compromise [6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_compromise http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_compromise [7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_civil_war http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_civil_war [8] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_civil_war#Reconstruction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_civil_war#Reconstructi... [9] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy [10] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Ri... [11] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_Unit... [12] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_deal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_deal
rdl 13y ago
I wonder if we will see a change before the midterm elections. If it doesn't happen very soon, it will become an election issue. The failed drug war causes enough pain that I'd probably vote single issue to get it changed, above virtually any other congressional issue right now (an exception might be reigning in NSA or election/campaign finance reforms); above immigration, taxes, IP reform, the war in Afghanistan, or guns.
spindritf 13y ago
I know this is frowned upon but it seems fair to say that we're brushing against reddit when the top story about marijuana is accompanied by a top comment that starts with "this."
- icebraining 13y ago
  It wasn't "This.", it was "This [statement] and ..."
rhizome 13y ago
My theory is that they will cave almost-last.

by pstuart 13y ago

csense 13y ago

> Once enough states go legal [the federal government] will have no choice in the matter. I beg to differ. If the federal government doesn't like what's going on in these states, they can prosecute individuals and businesses involved in the marijuana business on the federal level. Even if successful, defendants would face months or years of uncertainty and hefty legal bills. Moreover, the prospect of success looks dim: The Supreme Court has already ruled that the infamous universal loophole in the Constitution known as the interstate commerce clause applies even to growing your own food on your own property for your own consumption [1] and that this ruling applies to marijuana even for medicinal purposes [2]. EDIT: Given that the Supreme Court is at least theoretically bound by precedent, and given that precedent apparently allows federal policy to trump state policy in this area even for strictly intra-state activities, the court isn't the right place to address this anyway. If the President is amenable to the idea, having the executive branch proclaim a policy of non-enforcement of federal marijuana statutes in states that have legalized marijuana is certainly a good place to start -- but the next President could unmake such a policy just as easily as this President can make it. Legislation would be a more permanent fix. The most permanent fix of all would be a Constitutional amendment which altered the balance of power between state and federal governments, perhaps explicitly narrowing the scope of the commerce clause. Some of the reasons why this might desirable are given in the O'Connor / Rehnquist dissent [2]. Unfortunately, due to historical events in the US, the notion that the federal government has too much power and states have too little is inexorably tied in political rhetoric to slavery, repression of African-Americans, and Southern right-wing conservatives. Which means that for the foreseeable future, the balance of power between state and federal governments will continue to tilt toward the latter. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich

mtgx 13y ago
How does that work exactly? If federal laws are above state laws, then what's the point of state laws?
- joe5150 13y ago
  This is the subject of the Tenth Amendment. There are enumerated powers, duties, etc. of the federal government, enumerated proscriptions for the states, and everything else is up to the states.
- cstejerean 13y ago
  Some matters are designated by the constitution as belong to the federal government, and any powers not granted to the federal government are granted to the states. However, within the context of powers given to the federal government by the constitution, federal laws trump state laws when there is a conflict. For the most part these divisions between state and federal responsibilities, but the commerce clause, which gives the federal government to regulate commerce between the states, has been interpreted very broadly to give the federal government broad powers even over issues that are only tangentially related to interstate commerce. The courts have gone back and forth a few times over how broad the commerce clause should be interpreted. If you are interested in the details including some interesting court cases, Wikipedia has a pretty good summary http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause
- csense 13y ago
  Originally, the United States consisted of thirteen British colonies that saw themselves as culturally similar neighboring individual countries in a military alliance against their faraway British overlords. After the war, the former colonies decided that sticking together militarily and speaking with one voice on foreign policy had worked out pretty well for them -- they'd fought a war against the world's number one superpower and won -- so they ought to continue to do so, and the new government ought to set up uniform rules for the way states trade with each other, and establish a single place to register scientific inventions, etc. Sort of like the European Union today, or maybe the European Community that preceded it. The states had just thrown off the shackles of one overlord and weren't about to put themselves under another. After these concerns resulted in an initial agreement so weak as to border on totally ineffective [1], their diplomats tried again [2] [3], and the states agreed but quickly demanded more limitations on federal power [4]. The ideological divide between states that allowed slavery and states that did not was a crisis on slow boil for the better part of the next century, resulting in various political compromises [5] [6] but eventually leading to a major civil war [7]. After the war was won by the side that favored a stronger national government, one of the side effects of the event was setting a precedent of the federal government imposing its policies on unwilling states at gunpoint [8]. (It's not a typo in that reference when it notes the Republicans pushed for radical expansions of African-American rights; both parties basically completely switched sides with respect to racial issues after World War 2 [9]). The sense of national unity was strengthened through the outcome of the war, increased interstate commerce due to the inventions of the Industrial Revolution, and the crises of the Great Depression and the world wars. All of these events gave the federal government reasons to expand its powers [10] [11] [12], in ways which seemed like good ideas at the time but ended up resulting in a much more powerful federal government, and much weaker state governments, than anyone had envisioned. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_confederation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_confederation [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphia_Convention http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphia_Convention [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights [5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_fifths_compromise http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_fifths_compromise [6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_compromise http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_compromise [7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_civil_war http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_civil_war [8] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_civil_war#Reconstruction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_civil_war#Reconstructi... [9] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy [10] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Ri... [11] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_Unit... [12] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_deal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_deal

rdl 13y ago

I wonder if we will see a change before the midterm elections. If it doesn't happen very soon, it will become an election issue. The failed drug war causes enough pain that I'd probably vote single issue to get it changed, above virtually any other congressional issue right now (an exception might be reigning in NSA or election/campaign finance reforms); above immigration, taxes, IP reform, the war in Afghanistan, or guns.

spindritf 13y ago

I know this is frowned upon but it seems fair to say that we're brushing against reddit when the top story about marijuana is accompanied by a top comment that starts with "this."

icebraining 13y ago
It wasn't "This.", it was "This [statement] and ..."

rhizome 13y ago

My theory is that they will cave almost-last.