3 ms·

Would be better off arguing any or all of the following: * Cannabis has demonstrated medicinal value, directly contradicting statute. Statue provides no eviden

Would be better off arguing any or all of the following: * Cannabis has demonstrated medicinal value, directly contradicting statute. Statue provides no evidence of, nor ability to verify, its claim that there is a lack of evidence of medical value. * Individual prohibition requires a constitutional amendment a la amendment 18. * Founding leaders of US grew hectares of cannabis. System is in gross hypocrisy.

lstyls 11y ago
No, one would not be better off making these arguments in court. > Cannabis has demonstrated medicinal value, directly contradicting statute. Statue provides no evidence of, nor ability to verify, its claim that there is a lack of evidence of medical value. Please cite a case of a law overturned in the US judicial system because of medical value. > Individual prohibition requires a constitutional amendment a la amendment 18. Again, please cite case law. I'm pretty sure you don't need a constitutional amendment to outlaw possession of a type of good. > Founding leaders of US grew hectares of cannabis. System is in gross hypocrisy. Seriously? It wasn't outlawed until the modern era. By your logic, should slavery still be legal since founding fathers owned slaves?
- jsprogrammer 11y ago
  Case law is largely irrelevant. You know what existed before 'case law'? I think the logic is sound: Party A (statute) argues a->x, b->y, c->z. Party B shows a, b, c don't actually hold in reality and therefore you cannot conclude x, y, or z based on a, b, or c. Statue is therefore meaningless. Amendment 18 & 21 set the precedent. Amendments 4, 9, & 10 provide huge cover. >By your logic, should slavery still be legal since founding fathers owned slaves? I didn't expound my whole logic, but the largest difference is that slaves are human beings and cannabis is a plant. Also note, slavery is outlawed by the US constitution. Cannabis is not.
  - ctdonath 11y ago
    SCOTUS has demonstrated, as I pointed to in Raich, a willingness to engage in staggering contortions to reach/justify/support a goal. Accepting your reasoning, however correct it may (or may not) be, would mean massive changes in what constitutes contraband and how it may be suppressed - a degree of change SCOTUS is rarely willing to cause (and certainly not over cannabis). Your reasoning has been tried, and failed. People are working very hard to make such reasoning work, and are making little progress.
dougddo 11y ago
You're thinking of arguments in the conventional, everyday sense. The legal system deals in legal arguments. The point ctdonath was making was that the Supreme Court has ruled that private, personal cultivation of marijuana, even when in accordance with state laws, has an effect on interstate commerce. The relevance of the effect on interstate commerce is that the activity - growing marijuana - falls under the purview of federal law and federal law enforcement agencies. To bring it back to your suggestions and the distinction between conventional and legal arguments, ask yourself this: for each suggested argument, think of two worlds with one being a world where your argument is absolutely correct and the other being a world where your argument is absolutely incorrect. Is there a difference between these two worlds in whether or how personal marijuana cultivation affects the illegal interstate marijuana market?
- jsprogrammer 11y ago
  Following your line of arguing (based on your characterization of the SC's logic), all activities can likely be shown to fall under the purview of federal law and federal law enforcement agencies as essentially all activities affect your local environment, and in turn all activities that interact with your local environment, which will include many activities directly or indirectly impacting commerce which will then impact interstate commerce. This line of argument can be used to justify federal involvement in anything. This makes it useless in drawing any interesting distinction, nor does it address any of my original arguments.
  - ctdonath 11y ago
    That is exactly, and insanely, what the Supreme Court ruled.
    - jsprogrammer 11y ago
      I do think there is some truth to the argument that individuals' actions have global consequences. However, I do not think the US Supreme Court has real claim to be the final, global arbiter. Usurping power is, however, the US Supreme Court's demonstrated prerogative. It's pretty much how the institution began its life.

lstyls 11y ago

No, one would not be better off making these arguments in court. > Cannabis has demonstrated medicinal value, directly contradicting statute. Statue provides no evidence of, nor ability to verify, its claim that there is a lack of evidence of medical value. Please cite a case of a law overturned in the US judicial system because of medical value. > Individual prohibition requires a constitutional amendment a la amendment 18. Again, please cite case law. I'm pretty sure you don't need a constitutional amendment to outlaw possession of a type of good. > Founding leaders of US grew hectares of cannabis. System is in gross hypocrisy. Seriously? It wasn't outlawed until the modern era. By your logic, should slavery still be legal since founding fathers owned slaves?

jsprogrammer 11y ago
Case law is largely irrelevant. You know what existed before 'case law'? I think the logic is sound: Party A (statute) argues a->x, b->y, c->z. Party B shows a, b, c don't actually hold in reality and therefore you cannot conclude x, y, or z based on a, b, or c. Statue is therefore meaningless. Amendment 18 & 21 set the precedent. Amendments 4, 9, & 10 provide huge cover. >By your logic, should slavery still be legal since founding fathers owned slaves? I didn't expound my whole logic, but the largest difference is that slaves are human beings and cannabis is a plant. Also note, slavery is outlawed by the US constitution. Cannabis is not.
- ctdonath 11y ago
  SCOTUS has demonstrated, as I pointed to in Raich, a willingness to engage in staggering contortions to reach/justify/support a goal. Accepting your reasoning, however correct it may (or may not) be, would mean massive changes in what constitutes contraband and how it may be suppressed - a degree of change SCOTUS is rarely willing to cause (and certainly not over cannabis). Your reasoning has been tried, and failed. People are working very hard to make such reasoning work, and are making little progress.

dougddo 11y ago

You're thinking of arguments in the conventional, everyday sense. The legal system deals in legal arguments. The point ctdonath was making was that the Supreme Court has ruled that private, personal cultivation of marijuana, even when in accordance with state laws, has an effect on interstate commerce. The relevance of the effect on interstate commerce is that the activity - growing marijuana - falls under the purview of federal law and federal law enforcement agencies. To bring it back to your suggestions and the distinction between conventional and legal arguments, ask yourself this: for each suggested argument, think of two worlds with one being a world where your argument is absolutely correct and the other being a world where your argument is absolutely incorrect. Is there a difference between these two worlds in whether or how personal marijuana cultivation affects the illegal interstate marijuana market?

jsprogrammer 11y ago
Following your line of arguing (based on your characterization of the SC's logic), all activities can likely be shown to fall under the purview of federal law and federal law enforcement agencies as essentially all activities affect your local environment, and in turn all activities that interact with your local environment, which will include many activities directly or indirectly impacting commerce which will then impact interstate commerce. This line of argument can be used to justify federal involvement in anything. This makes it useless in drawing any interesting distinction, nor does it address any of my original arguments.
- ctdonath 11y ago
  That is exactly, and insanely, what the Supreme Court ruled.
  - jsprogrammer 11y ago
    I do think there is some truth to the argument that individuals' actions have global consequences. However, I do not think the US Supreme Court has real claim to be the final, global arbiter. Usurping power is, however, the US Supreme Court's demonstrated prerogative. It's pretty much how the institution began its life.