3 ms·

There are enormous vested interest in marijuana being illegal. The biggest may be that most local police departments are funded largely by the seizure of asset

There are enormous vested interest in marijuana being illegal. The biggest may be that most local police departments are funded largely by the seizure of assets from minor drug offenders and innocents who they can get away with accusing of drugs. Other vested interests are the large number of government employees and private companies who benefit from the drug war, from drug detection to prisons. There are also political issues. Marijuana legalization is opposed by many swing voters, and neither party can afford to lose those. Leaving matters up to states allows states where the majority favors continued criminal prosecution of marijuana offenses to do as they wish. This is actually the way it should be constitutionally. I'm actually not sure how the federal government has the constitutional authority to enforce drug laws against the wishes of a state. If anyone can point me to a precedent, that would be helpful. The federal government has no authority to enforce laws against most crimes that occur entirely within a state's borders unless they violate international treaties. EDIT: It appears the authority was challenged and affirmed in Gonzales v Raich case, though I think the opinion is in error as it grants the federal government complete authority to regulate local activity, an opinion which the Constitution was written to prevent. Congress is limited to the power "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich

mschuster91 13y ago
> unless they violate international treaties Which they in fact do - there are multiple international treaties on drug crimes and enforcement.
- crystaln 13y ago
  Feel free to enumerate any that would require the federal government to enforce marijuana laws. If there were any, I would have expected them to be mentioned in Gonzales v Raich, but none were.
  - mschuster91 13y ago
    I know of the "Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs" and the "United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances", but I am no lawyer so I can't say whether these treaties have a legally binding effect which prevents more relaxed dealing with drugs.
    - noptic 13y ago
      For the lazy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Convention_on_Narcotic_Drugs#Influence_on_domestic_legislation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Convention_on_Narcotic_D...
- chimeracoder 13y ago
  Like the US really cares about international drug treaties. The reason that drug policy around the world is similar to drug policy in the US is specifically because the US has forced its approach on the rest of the world, not the other way around. Notice how many of the international anti-drug operations are carried out by the DEA. If the US suddenly decided overnight that it wanted to do things its own way, I have a hard time believing they'd face any real international resistance.
WildUtah 13y ago
The four Democratic justices in Raich are part of a block that has supported total federal jurisdiction over every aspect of American life since Wickard v. Filburn in 1942 [0]. The essential theory is that state governments are a barbarous relic of the founding and should be dissolved in fact, even if they still cannot yet be in theory. Even when Democratic Party opinion favors a state, the Democratic justices will always rule in favor of federal power, even in cases where the Constitution explicitly favors state power. The Republican justices avow a preference for textual interpretation and division between state and federal power. Justice Thomas actually appears to believe that, based on his support for Raich. Justice Rhenquist was dying from cancer and considering that he might want some medical marijuana himself and Justice O'Connor's husband was in a similar situation; they both voted with Thomas. Scalia and Kennedy are right wing culture warriors who hate the "dirty f* cking hippies" and don't care much for textual interpretation unless it's convenient to their agenda; they voted with their culture war preference. The decision was 6-3 against America. Today America would lose 8-1. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn * man fsck for details
- crystaln 13y ago
  Given that there were only two Democratic appointees on the Supreme Court at the time of this case, and four Republican appointees voted in the majority - including Scalia, this his hardly the work of "Democratic justices." Majority: Stevens - Republican (Ford) Souter - Republican (Bush) Ginsberg - Democrat (Clinton) Breyer - Democrat (Clinton) Kennedy - Republican (Reagan) Scalia - Republican (Reagan) And the dissenters: O'Conner - Republican (Reagan) Rehnquist - Republican (Nixon) Thomas - Republican (Bush)
  - WildUtah 13y ago
    Thanks for your comment about partisan appointments. Even though there were seven Republican appointees at the time and two Democratic, the court was widely seen as having five Republicans and four Democrats. Mostly this was based on long experience watching the justices on both sides vote their partisan preferences on issues instead of the law and the constitution. The same court had served for a decade together by the time of Raich, so we knew a lot about them. The classic example is Bush v. Gore where the court openly admitted that they were voting for a president instead of applying the law. The decision specifically disclaimed any precedential authority because it wasn't an application of law. Five Republicans voted for Bush and four Democrats for Gore. Another classic example is Justice O'Connor's public statement that she would retire voluntarily only when a Republican could choose her replacement. Justices Souter and Stevens, in spite of being Republican appointments, waited just long enough to ensure Obama would choose their replacements. Stevens held the same opinions for thirty-five years while partisan politics moved around him to make him a Democrat. Souter was specifically chosen by Bush as a cross-party appointment out of fear that the court would overturn Roe v. Wade with another Republican and destroy Bush's chances of reelection.
glaugh 13y ago
Small quibble: Democrats and independents (swing voters) support marijuana legalization at similar rates, according to General Social Survey data (which ends at 2012, but is otherwise pretty consistent on this finding). That said, it could certainly be the case that there's a perception of swing voters opposing marijuana legalization (or perhaps those who oppose it are more vociferous than those who support it or something). Source: http://blog.statwing.com/every-party-age-region-and-religion-is-moving-towards-marijuana-legalization-general-social-survey-analysis/ http://blog.statwing.com/every-party-age-region-and-religion...

mschuster91 13y ago

> unless they violate international treaties Which they in fact do - there are multiple international treaties on drug crimes and enforcement.

crystaln 13y ago
Feel free to enumerate any that would require the federal government to enforce marijuana laws. If there were any, I would have expected them to be mentioned in Gonzales v Raich, but none were.
- mschuster91 13y ago
  I know of the "Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs" and the "United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances", but I am no lawyer so I can't say whether these treaties have a legally binding effect which prevents more relaxed dealing with drugs.
  - noptic 13y ago
    For the lazy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Convention_on_Narcotic_Drugs#Influence_on_domestic_legislation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Convention_on_Narcotic_D...
chimeracoder 13y ago
Like the US really cares about international drug treaties. The reason that drug policy around the world is similar to drug policy in the US is specifically because the US has forced its approach on the rest of the world, not the other way around. Notice how many of the international anti-drug operations are carried out by the DEA. If the US suddenly decided overnight that it wanted to do things its own way, I have a hard time believing they'd face any real international resistance.

WildUtah 13y ago

The four Democratic justices in Raich are part of a block that has supported total federal jurisdiction over every aspect of American life since Wickard v. Filburn in 1942 [0]. The essential theory is that state governments are a barbarous relic of the founding and should be dissolved in fact, even if they still cannot yet be in theory. Even when Democratic Party opinion favors a state, the Democratic justices will always rule in favor of federal power, even in cases where the Constitution explicitly favors state power. The Republican justices avow a preference for textual interpretation and division between state and federal power. Justice Thomas actually appears to believe that, based on his support for Raich. Justice Rhenquist was dying from cancer and considering that he might want some medical marijuana himself and Justice O'Connor's husband was in a similar situation; they both voted with Thomas. Scalia and Kennedy are right wing culture warriors who hate the "dirty f* cking hippies" and don't care much for textual interpretation unless it's convenient to their agenda; they voted with their culture war preference. The decision was 6-3 against America. Today America would lose 8-1. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn * man fsck for details

crystaln 13y ago
Given that there were only two Democratic appointees on the Supreme Court at the time of this case, and four Republican appointees voted in the majority - including Scalia, this his hardly the work of "Democratic justices." Majority: Stevens - Republican (Ford) Souter - Republican (Bush) Ginsberg - Democrat (Clinton) Breyer - Democrat (Clinton) Kennedy - Republican (Reagan) Scalia - Republican (Reagan) And the dissenters: O'Conner - Republican (Reagan) Rehnquist - Republican (Nixon) Thomas - Republican (Bush)
- WildUtah 13y ago
  Thanks for your comment about partisan appointments. Even though there were seven Republican appointees at the time and two Democratic, the court was widely seen as having five Republicans and four Democrats. Mostly this was based on long experience watching the justices on both sides vote their partisan preferences on issues instead of the law and the constitution. The same court had served for a decade together by the time of Raich, so we knew a lot about them. The classic example is Bush v. Gore where the court openly admitted that they were voting for a president instead of applying the law. The decision specifically disclaimed any precedential authority because it wasn't an application of law. Five Republicans voted for Bush and four Democrats for Gore. Another classic example is Justice O'Connor's public statement that she would retire voluntarily only when a Republican could choose her replacement. Justices Souter and Stevens, in spite of being Republican appointments, waited just long enough to ensure Obama would choose their replacements. Stevens held the same opinions for thirty-five years while partisan politics moved around him to make him a Democrat. Souter was specifically chosen by Bush as a cross-party appointment out of fear that the court would overturn Roe v. Wade with another Republican and destroy Bush's chances of reelection.

glaugh 13y ago

Small quibble: Democrats and independents (swing voters) support marijuana legalization at similar rates, according to General Social Survey data (which ends at 2012, but is otherwise pretty consistent on this finding). That said, it could certainly be the case that there's a perception of swing voters opposing marijuana legalization (or perhaps those who oppose it are more vociferous than those who support it or something). Source: http://blog.statwing.com/every-party-age-region-and-religion-is-moving-towards-marijuana-legalization-general-social-survey-analysis/ http://blog.statwing.com/every-party-age-region-and-religion...