6 ms·

I don't live in the US (although I'm a citizen), I don't smoke pot, and never have. But I find this to be a completely fascinating set of circumstances, and on

by reuven 13y ago

I don't live in the US (although I'm a citizen), I don't smoke pot, and never have. But I find this to be a completely fascinating set of circumstances, and one which is leading to confusion and a lack of standardized rule of law. You basically have federal US laws outlawing anything having to do with marijuana, and many people serving jail time for having possessed, grown, or distributed it. You also have states that have said it is completely legal to possess, grow, and distribute it. Right there, that strikes me as a weird combination: Don't federal laws trump state ones? (And wasn't this sort of a central part of the Civil War, that states can't just make up their own laws that contradict federal ones?) The federal government is now saying, "Don't worry about those laws on our books. We won't prosecute you." They're even saying, in this article, that they won't prosecute banks. (Well, after the regulations are clarified.) But that strikes me as an extremely inconsistent message, and one which can change at any point in time. If everyone believes Holder, but then Holder changes his mind a year from now... well, then there's nothing you can do, because he is doing nothing more than enforcing the laws -- laws that have been around for many years, and didn't come as a surprise to anyone. Moreover, what happens when another president or attorney general comes into office, and decides to enforce these laws to the max? You'll have banks, growers, and others suddenly prosecuted for federal crimes just because someone else came into office. I think that these problems are likely to continue, until and unless marijuana use is decriminalized at the federal level. Which, given the state of US politics right now, doesn't strike me as very likely.

Daniel_Newby 13y ago
> You basically have federal US laws outlawing anything having to do with marijuana, ... On the theory that growing hemp in your garden is "interstate commerce". The laws are unconstitutional. It's all just vote whoring by the princes of Washington, D.C. Decriminilazation is inevitable. It will take the form of a constitutional amendment, just like the one that stripped the feds of control of alcoholic beverages.
- jpatokal 13y ago
  Unfortunately there's Supreme Court precedent that growing wheat in your own backyard for your own use is "interstate commerce". Why? Because by growing your own wheat, you're not buying somebody else's wheat, and that affects interstate commerce. boggle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
  - thaumasiotes 13y ago
    It seems difficult to apply that precedent to marijuana, as commerce in marijuana is banned (so the "you'd be buying it from someone else" step never kicks in).
    - ceejayoz 13y ago
      I think it was more of an example of the absurd legal gymnastics they're able to do to justify the desired conclusion of a case.
    - Daniel_Newby 13y ago
      "Indolence from marijuana use increases the unpurchased goods overhanging the interstate market."
  - Daniel_Newby 13y ago
    Actually if you read the case, they say that growing the wheat was OK. Harvesting it was OK. Using it as fodder would have been OK. The unlawful act was threshing the wheat. Ambrose Bierce was a sunny optimist.
chimeracoder 13y ago
> You also have states that have said it is completely legal to possess, grow, and distribute it. Right there, that strikes me as a weird combination: Don't federal laws trump state ones? (And wasn't this sort of a central part of the Civil War, that states can't just make up their own laws that contradict federal ones?) Sort of. But there's an argument to be made that the federal government doesn't have the constitutional authority to criminalize drugs. In fact, the very first laws restricting drug and alcohol use were phrased in terms of other language[0], specifically because the common perception was that the federal government couldn't simply prohibit the states from allowing sale of a substance, due to the Tenth Amendment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights#Tenth_Amendment[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights#T... I'd recommend reading the Federalist papers (they're long, but there are a few that serve as a nice summary of the whole work). It's fascinating to see how different the attitude towards government in the 18th century was compared to today. The Federalist Papers were essentially written as a "propaganda" (in the literal sense of the word) piece for the new form of government, directed at people who were concerned with the idea of a federal government and wanted the states to retain authority. This was especially true in large states (like New York), who feared losing control, and a lot of the papers are intended to assure those citizens that the Constitution, etc. should to limit federal power, not to grant it. [0] For example, taxes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marihuana_Tax_Act_of_1937 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marihuana_Tax_Act_of_1937 [1] Note that the 18th Amendment was exactly that - a Constitutional amendment, and not a simple bill passed by Congress or executive order.
TheCondor 13y ago
So enforcement is a executive thing. Next election could result in a very different attitude running federal law enforcement. This messiness is how it works. Give it a couple years one of two things will happen: it will be declared a mistake and repealed, or there will be more states where it is legal. Somewhere around twenty states, I predict it will stop being a federal issue, it will start with some official memos and take decades to be officially removed from the controlled lists just due to the nature of the dea and their reluctants to put themselves out of business. In the meantime, the entrepreneurs in that field are in the Wild West and face all sorts of very unique business challenges. The farce that has been mmj has really shown that all hell hasn't broke loose, the vast majority of mj users sem to be responsible and somewhat private about it.

by reuven 13y ago

Daniel_Newby 13y ago

> You basically have federal US laws outlawing anything having to do with marijuana, ... On the theory that growing hemp in your garden is "interstate commerce". The laws are unconstitutional. It's all just vote whoring by the princes of Washington, D.C. Decriminilazation is inevitable. It will take the form of a constitutional amendment, just like the one that stripped the feds of control of alcoholic beverages.

jpatokal 13y ago
Unfortunately there's Supreme Court precedent that growing wheat in your own backyard for your own use is "interstate commerce". Why? Because by growing your own wheat, you're not buying somebody else's wheat, and that affects interstate commerce. boggle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
- thaumasiotes 13y ago
  It seems difficult to apply that precedent to marijuana, as commerce in marijuana is banned (so the "you'd be buying it from someone else" step never kicks in).
  - ceejayoz 13y ago
    I think it was more of an example of the absurd legal gymnastics they're able to do to justify the desired conclusion of a case.
  - Daniel_Newby 13y ago
    "Indolence from marijuana use increases the unpurchased goods overhanging the interstate market."
- Daniel_Newby 13y ago
  Actually if you read the case, they say that growing the wheat was OK. Harvesting it was OK. Using it as fodder would have been OK. The unlawful act was threshing the wheat. Ambrose Bierce was a sunny optimist.

chimeracoder 13y ago

> You also have states that have said it is completely legal to possess, grow, and distribute it. Right there, that strikes me as a weird combination: Don't federal laws trump state ones? (And wasn't this sort of a central part of the Civil War, that states can't just make up their own laws that contradict federal ones?) Sort of. But there's an argument to be made that the federal government doesn't have the constitutional authority to criminalize drugs. In fact, the very first laws restricting drug and alcohol use were phrased in terms of other language[0], specifically because the common perception was that the federal government couldn't simply prohibit the states from allowing sale of a substance, due to the Tenth Amendment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights#Tenth_Amendment[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights#T... I'd recommend reading the Federalist papers (they're long, but there are a few that serve as a nice summary of the whole work). It's fascinating to see how different the attitude towards government in the 18th century was compared to today. The Federalist Papers were essentially written as a "propaganda" (in the literal sense of the word) piece for the new form of government, directed at people who were concerned with the idea of a federal government and wanted the states to retain authority. This was especially true in large states (like New York), who feared losing control, and a lot of the papers are intended to assure those citizens that the Constitution, etc. should to limit federal power, not to grant it. [0] For example, taxes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marihuana_Tax_Act_of_1937 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marihuana_Tax_Act_of_1937 [1] Note that the 18th Amendment was exactly that - a Constitutional amendment, and not a simple bill passed by Congress or executive order.

TheCondor 13y ago

So enforcement is a executive thing. Next election could result in a very different attitude running federal law enforcement. This messiness is how it works. Give it a couple years one of two things will happen: it will be declared a mistake and repealed, or there will be more states where it is legal. Somewhere around twenty states, I predict it will stop being a federal issue, it will start with some official memos and take decades to be officially removed from the controlled lists just due to the nature of the dea and their reluctants to put themselves out of business. In the meantime, the entrepreneurs in that field are in the Wild West and face all sorts of very unique business challenges. The farce that has been mmj has really shown that all hell hasn't broke loose, the vast majority of mj users sem to be responsible and somewhat private about it.