Marijuana Legalization will be on California Ballot

[Airhog]

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62O08U20100325

[JediKooter]

Whoa dude! Wait...what?

EDIT: If it passes, it won't really matter because of the federal issues concerning marijuana.

[molson]

I suppose in this instance, liberals are all about states' rights. And they won't be happy if the federal government decides to enforce federal marijuna laws in California.

I'm all for it, but I think the cost benefit is a little overblwon.

[MizzouRah]

Yeah baby!

I need to open some food delivery company in CA.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Jesus molson, is everything an example of liberal hypocrisy?

[molson]

Jesus molson, is everything an example of liberal hypocrisy?

I couldn't resist this classic example.

Edit: I don't think the federal government should be involved in local drug use/sales at all. In no state can marijuana be truly legal because of federal law. I think it should be up to the states, as I think it should be with a lot of things.

[Airhog]

Whoa dude! Wait...what?

EDIT: If it passes, it won't really matter because of the federal issues concerning marijuana.


Actually, It will matter a great deal. The majority of cases that this law would affect are prosecuted by the state courts, and the local PD, and not the federal courts.

Also, There is no law that forces the local law enforcement to cooperate with a federal investigation. If the State refuses to cooperate with the feds on cases involving marijuana, then the feds will have a much harder time.

And besides, its already decriminalized in California, and you don't see the feds busting people for half an ounce of the stuff

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

I couldn't resist this classic example.

Edit: I don't think the federal government should be involved in local drug use/sales at all. In no state can marijuana be truly legal because of federal law. I think it should be up to the states, as I think it should be with a lot of things.

I agree with you FWIW. Just that the page had barely loaded before partisan battle lines were being drawn.

[molson]

Actually, It will matter a great deal. The majority of cases that this law would affect are prosecuted by the state courts, and the local PD, and not the federal courts.

Also, There is no law that forces the local law enforcement to cooperate with a federal investigation. If the State refuses to cooperate with the feds on cases involving marijuana, then the feds will have a much harder time.



Though the risk there is that the fed will withdraw money for things (as happened when universities attempted to expell military recruiters from their campusses).

I agree that there isn't going to be a huge battle over this, at least now. It's not really a huge change. But it will become an issue, to some degree, eventually.

I would love to see someone take another shot at the overreach of the commerce clause and challenge the authority of the federal government to regulate marijuana that was grown, sold, and used all within California borders. That might be an ideal front to re-assert states' rights in other contexts.

[JediKooter]

Actually, It will matter a great deal. The majority of cases that this law would affect are prosecuted by the state courts, and the local PD, and not the federal courts.

Also, There is no law that forces the local law enforcement to cooperate with a federal investigation. If the State refuses to cooperate with the feds on cases involving marijuana, then the feds will have a much harder time.

And besides, its already decriminalized in California, and you don't see the feds busting people for half an ounce of the stuff

Agree with you on all of that. I'm just skeptical (if it passes) that there won't be any problems for people who are following the rules and someone in the fed gets a bug up their butt.

[albionmoonlight]

I can see state legalization as a move toward eventual federal legalization.

But folks are right that as long as the fed has criminalized the stuff, it is still illegal.

The feds are not knocking down people's doors b/c President Obama and AG Holder have decided not to prosecute for marijuana where it is legal under state law. But that can change overnight.

And, in case there was any doubt, the Supreme Court recently clarified that the federal government has power to prosecution possession of marijuana that has never crossed a state line and is legal under state law: Gonzales v. Raich - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich)

And I certainly would not want to be running a "legal" marijuana shop in CA for five years and have the feds come in one day and bust me for five years worth of distribution, using my own records as exhibit A against me when calculating the amount.

[Crapshoot]

Good. If physically addictive tobacco is legal, there's no reason weed shouldn't be.

[molson]

And, in case there was any doubt, the Supreme Court recently clarified that the federal government has power to prosecution possession of marijuana that has never crossed a state line and is legal under state law: Gonzales v. Raich - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich)


Ahh, didn't know about that.

It's just a bad situation. The federal government could indeed raid your state-legal marijuana store. Maybe that's not their general policy, but I'm sure if it was someone who they wanted on some other charge they couldn't necessarily prove, they wouldn't hesistate to do it this way. It's just way too much power, IMO.

[Airhog]

Ahh, didn't know about that.

It's just a bad situation. The federal government could indeed raid your state-legal marijuana store. Maybe that's not their general policy, but I'm sure if it was someone who they wanted on some other charge they couldn't necessarily prove, they wouldn't hesistate to do it this way. It's just way too much power, IMO.


Once difference though, is that this lady was suing the federal government. She was never charged with any crime from what I can tell from the article, she only had her plants destroyed.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Everybody.......must.......get........stoned.

[WVUFAN]

I would love to see someone take another shot at the overreach of the commerce clause and challenge the authority of the federal government to regulate marijuana that was grown, sold, and used all within California borders. That might be an ideal front to re-assert states' rights in other contexts.

I don't think this should be a state's issue, and the Federal Government should
withdraw moneys from states who act in ways like this. This shouldn't even be on the ballot -- state's rights should never, under any circumstances, supercede federal law.

On a complete aside, the feds should have removed all federal funding to any school that kicks out military recruiters. That sort of stuff just pisses me right off.

[molson]

I don't think this should be a state's issue, and the Federal Government should
withdraw moneys from states who act in ways like this. This shouldn't even be on the ballot -- state's rights should never, under any circumstances, supercede federal law.



State laws never supercede federal laws, but there is obviously (at least if the Constitution means anything) SOME restrictions to federal authority. Of course, these restrictions have being going away, piece by piece, since the country started.

The problem, on both sides, is just that people form their opinion about what should be a state issue based on the activity being regulated. When that happens, there's more and more "exceptions" to the constitution, until that distinction between what we want and what is legal is completely destroyed.

[Airhog]

I don't think this should be a state's issue, and the Federal Government should
withdraw moneys from states who act in ways like this. This shouldn't even be on the ballot -- state's rights should never, under any circumstances, supersede federal law.


While I do think you make an good point about state law superseding federal law, I think that this quote from the aforementioned supreme court case sums up why I feel that state have the right to now do so.

..Madison's assurance to the people of New York that the "powers delegated" to the Federal Government are "few and defined", while those of the States are "numerous and indefinite.

I don't think anyone could argue that the powers delegated to the Federal Government are "few and defined" at this point.

[Greyroofoo]

So what gives the federal government the constitutional right to ban marijuana anyways?

[JediKooter]

So what gives the federal government the constitutional right to ban marijuana anyways?

Stamps...

[albionmoonlight]

So what gives the federal government the constitutional right to ban marijuana anyways?

Short answer: The federal government can regulate interstate commerce. Which means that it can regulate things in interstate commerce, including by banning them.

Because intrastate things can have a substantial effect on interstate commerce--both by changing the price through market forces and through making it harder for police to, say, tell the difference between marijuana that has crossed state lines and marijuana that has not--the federal government can ban intrastate commodities if that ban is part of a larger regulation of interstate commerce.

Not everyone, including some members of the Supreme Court, agrees with this, but it is pretty settled law.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Rainbows? Check.
Puppies? Check.

Pot in every chicken? We're working on it.

[JediKooter]

Rainbows? Check.
Puppies? Check.

Pot in every chicken? We're working on it.

There's no rainbows here because it never rains! ;)

[JonInMiddleGA]

There's no rainbows here because it never rains! ;)

You haven't seen the bumper stickers? There's plenty of rainbows in Cali.
:D

[Dutch]

So, if weed is legalized, how much weed will the state say you can smoke and still operate a car?

[JediKooter]

You haven't seen the bumper stickers? There's plenty of rainbows in Cali.
:D

Ah, yes, there are those bumper stickers for sure.

[molson]

So, if weed is legalized, how much weed will the state say you can smoke and still operate a car?

It's illegal to drive while "impaired" by marijuana now.

You can't easily quantify use like alcohol, but you can still do the field sobriety, tets, etc. And some police departments have experts on call that can do an eval of you at the scene, and then testify about their conclusions.

[Bad-example]

Warning: Contents may make objects seem more appetizing than they actually are.

[larrymcg421]

While I do think you make an good point about state law superseding federal law, I think that this quote from the aforementioned supreme court case sums up why I feel that state have the right to now do so.

..Madison's assurance to the people of New York that the "powers delegated" to the Federal Government are "few and defined", while those of the States are "numerous and indefinite.

I don't think anyone could argue that the powers delegated to the Federal Government are "few and defined" at this point.

Chief Justice John Marshall has a somewhat different view, in the 1819 case McCulloch v. Maryland....

"But there is no phrase in the instrument which, like the articles of confederation, excludes incidental or implied powers; and which requires that everything granted shall be expressly and minutely described."

And supports that by comparing the texts to the articles of confederation, noting that the word 'expressly' was not in the text of the 10th Amendment.

"The men who drew and adopted this amendment had experienced the embarrassments resulting from the insertion of this word in the articles of confederation, and probably omitted it, to avoid those embarrassments."

[ace1914]

Watch everyone try to move BACK to California, now. Damn potheads.

[JediKooter]

I heard that 7-11 and Pizza Hut are going to sponsor this.

[Abe Sargent]

About time

[Abe Sargent]

Marijuana's legalization could really help Appalachia's poor regions by giving them a good cash crop/

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

the motivating force behind this isn't hippie liberals it's the mexican drug trade. i don't know how much the state and fed spend fighting it but i know it's a lot. and they've been losing, badly, for a long time.

[molson]

Chief Justice John Marshall has a somewhat different view, in the 1819 case McCulloch v. Maryland....

"But there is no phrase in the instrument which, like the articles of confederation, excludes incidental or implied powers; and which requires that everything granted shall be expressly and minutely described."

And supports that by comparing the texts to the articles of confederation, noting that the word 'expressly' was not in the text of the 10th Amendment.

"The men who drew and adopted this amendment had experienced the embarrassments resulting from the insertion of this word in the articles of confederation, and probably omitted it, to avoid those embarrassments."

I don't think necessarily the intention was that "everything granted shall be expressly and minutely described", but do you honestly think the commerce clause was intended to literally cover EVERYTHING (with what, 1 exception over the last 60 years?) Why didn't the framers just clearly give the federal government unlimited power, if that was the intention?

Even United States v. Morrison and United States v. Lopez were 5-4 votes The liberal justices wanted the Violence Against Women Act to apply to the commerce clause simply because that was desirable legislation. But anyway, I think it's clear that liberal appellate justices would literally NEVER strike down federal legislation because it didn't fall under the commerce clause. They would interpret it to apply to EVERYTHING. So what's the point? Has a liberal appellate judge (state or federal) ever struck down "just" legislation, consistent with liberal ideals, for constitutional reasons? And conservative judges can be just as flip floppy, I'm seeing that now in Idaho. The government is supposed to, by state constitution, maximize the revenue from these leased lakefront properties. Instead, they've allowed politically connected people to use the lots, and build million-dollar cabins on them, and lease them for well below market rate, and use them forever. Their reason for not re-doing the leases for market value - it would be unfair to people who had these lots for generations. Whatever. The same people who want to be strict constitionalists when it comes to abortion, or other things they don't like, suddenly develop a broad, expansive view of the constitution when it suits their purpose. The constitution says maximize revenue. That's what they're supposed to do, regardless of anyone's feelings (or political connections).

The appellate courts have completely abandoned their roles. We have a legislature, and then a super-legislature (the courts). Except the super-legislature is required to talk in legal code, in terms of constitutional interpretations, etc. But they're just voting on these bills, like a legislator would.

And what exactly does the 10th amendment mean?

[RainMaker]

It's pretty much legal there already so I don't think this changes much. A friend of mine moved out there last year and said it's really easy to find a doctor who will approve you for some card. His only complaint was that the card required a monthly fee or something which wasn't cheap.

[RainMaker]

I don't think this should be a state's issue, and the Federal Government should
withdraw moneys from states who act in ways like this. This shouldn't even be on the ballot -- state's rights should never, under any circumstances, supercede federal law.

On a complete aside, the feds should have removed all federal funding to any school that kicks out military recruiters. That sort of stuff just pisses me right off.
If the federal government is going to remove funding, they should also remove taking in revenue from that state.

[larrymcg421]

I don't think necessarily the intention was that "everything granted shall be expressly and minutely described", but do you honestly think the commerce clause was intended to literally cover EVERYTHING (with what, 1 exception over the last 60 years?) Why didn't the framers just clearly give the federal government unlimited power, if that was the intention?

Even United States v. Morrison and United States v. Lopez were 5-4 votes The liberal justices wanted the Violence Against Women Act to apply to the commerce clause simply because that was desirable legislation. But anyway, I think it's clear that liberal appellate justices would literally NEVER strike down federal legislation because it didn't fall under the commerce clause. They would interpret it to apply to EVERYTHING. So what's the point? Has a liberal appellate judge (state or federal) ever struck down "just" legislation, consistent with liberal ideals, for constitutional reasons? And conservative judges can be just as flip floppy, I'm seeing that now in Idaho. The government is supposed to, by state constitution, maximize the revenue from these leased lakefront properties. Instead, they've allowed politically connected people to use the lots, and build million-dollar cabins on them, and lease them for well below market rate, and use them forever. Their reason for not re-doing the leases for market value - it would be unfair to people who had these lots for generations. Whatever. The same people who want to be strict constitionalists when it comes to abortion, or other things they don't like, suddenly develop a broad, expansive view of the constitution when it suits their purpose. The constitution says maximize revenue. That's what they're supposed to do, regardless of anyone's feelings (or political connections).

The appellate courts have completely abandoned their roles. We have a legislature, and then a super-legislature (the courts). Except the super-legislature is required to talk in legal code, in terms of constitutional interpretations, etc. But they're just voting on these bills, like a legislator would.

And what exactly does the 10th amendment mean?

I think the exact debate we're having in this thread is interesting in regards to your claims. The seminal case on this matter is Gonzales vs. Raich, where the court upheld the federal government ban on cannabis in a broad interpretation of the commerce clause. In that case, it was the liberals who voted to upheld the fed ban over the dissent of three conservatives. If they were voting for what was desirable, you'd think it would be quite the opposite.

I've also pointed out in a 2nd Amendment discussion how there were conservatives arguing against incorporation, while liberal justices were arguing for it.

For another example, Scalia has often voted against what you'd expect his political ideology would be. He's very favorable to defendants in Confrontation Clause cases. He also voted to strike down a conviction in a notable death penalty case, Ring v. Arizona, because the jury hadn't considered the evidence that enhanced the sentence.

[lighthousekeeper]

It's pretty much legal there already so I don't think this changes much. A friend of mine moved out there last year and said it's really easy to find a doctor who will approve you for some card. His only complaint was that the card required a monthly fee or something which wasn't cheap.

the current medical marijuana laws seem like the most fucked up laws i ever heard of. instead of just legalizing it completely, allowing it only for medical purposes just breeds so much dishonesty/fraud/lying (or some other similar term). doctors are borderline committing fraud for writing scripts so freely, drug users are dishonest (either to themselves or others) by claiming "chronic pain" in order to get pot. pot shop owners are also lying (either to themselves or others) when they know they are selling to those who just claim to have "chronic pain".

Not to mention the psychological effects it probably has: if someone pretends to have chronic pain when talking to the doctor in order to get a pot 'script, and repeats this behavior for years, how long before he starts just believing that he does in fact have chronic pain, which may adversely affect his physical or emotional well-being?

How could people not foresee how easily and absolutely the medical marijuana system would get exploited like it has in CA & CO?

I don't really care if it's legal or illegal, I just hate a system that incentivizes dishonesty/cheating in so many otherwise honest individuals.

[Sgran]

I'm much more interested in what kind of industry its going to become rather than the legal implications. In the Netherlands, you still don't have any kind of branding as far as I can tell. It's more like ordering a chocolate shake rather than Pepsi vs Coke. "yes, I'd like a gram of skunk, please" rather than "give me a pack of Red Apples."

I'm actually expecting a paradigm more like alcohol than tobacco, where you've got the big producers, whose stuff you can get anywhere, versus the boutique growers who are like the micro-brewers.

It will also be interesting to see if some of the fringe delivery technologies become more popular as people no longer need to hide their paraphernalia. It could be that smoking out of a pipe or a bong becomes as rare as it is for tobacco, something like going to a Turkish restaurant and having the waiter bring the hooka at the end of the meal. I could also imagine that smoking it at all becomes rare, especially if the price drops the way it should.

One thing I would like to add, though, is that pirated cigarettes are a growing problem in Europe, where taxes are so high on tobacco, so it's not a done deal that taxing dope will solve all financial woes, especially in a country where home growers have so much experience.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

I'm much more interested in what kind of industry its going to become rather than the legal implications. In the Netherlands, you still don't have any kind of branding as far as I can tell. It's more like ordering a chocolate shake rather than Pepsi vs Coke. "yes, I'd like a gram of skunk, please" rather than "give me a pack of Red Apples."

I'm actually expecting a paradigm more like alcohol than tobacco, where you've got the big producers, whose stuff you can get anywhere, versus the boutique growers who are like the micro-brewers.

It will also be interesting to see if some of the fringe delivery technologies become more popular as people no longer need to hide their paraphernalia. It could be that smoking out of a pipe or a bong becomes as rare as it is for tobacco, something like going to a Turkish restaurant and having the waiter bring the hooka at the end of the meal. I could also imagine that smoking it at all becomes rare, especially if the price drops the way it should.

One thing I would like to add, though, is that pirated cigarettes are a growing problem in Europe, where taxes are so high on tobacco, so it's not a done deal that taxing dope will solve all financial woes, especially in a country where home growers have so much experience.

that's a really good question. i don't know how it's going to be regulated but if we're just talking about thc delivery they already make pot soda, lollipops, breath strips, etc. who would want to damage their respiratory system when you can just pop a breath mint.

[thesloppy]

that's a really good question. i don't know how it's going to be regulated but if we're just talking about thc delivery they already make pot soda, lollipops, breath strips, etc. who would want to damage their respiratory system when you can just pop a breath mint.

The main reason to smoke remains that it gets delivered to your system immediately. Ingesting THC can take around 30 minutes to feel the effects, and it's a lot harder to regulate. Another option that is picking up popularity is vaporizing, which claims to reduce tar and carcinogens by heating the weed up to a point that the THC vaporizes without actually lighting it on fire, so you're inhaling vapor rather than smoke. (I've got one of these: hxxp://silversurfervap.com/herbalvaporizer.htm). But vaporising typically takes a little more time and effort, both to set-up and to be effective, so even though it's the least 'graceful' option, smoking will likely always remain the most popular way to consume THC, just because it remains the quickest, simplest, cheapest and most effective.

[RainMaker]

the current medical marijuana laws seem like the most fucked up laws i ever heard of. instead of just legalizing it completely, allowing it only for medical purposes just breeds so much dishonesty/fraud/lying (or some other similar term). doctors are borderline committing fraud for writing scripts so freely, drug users are dishonest (either to themselves or others) by claiming "chronic pain" in order to get pot. pot shop owners are also lying (either to themselves or others) when they know they are selling to those who just claim to have "chronic pain".

Not to mention the psychological effects it probably has: if someone pretends to have chronic pain when talking to the doctor in order to get a pot 'script, and repeats this behavior for years, how long before he starts just believing that he does in fact have chronic pain, which may adversely affect his physical or emotional well-being?

How could people not foresee how easily and absolutely the medical marijuana system would get exploited like it has in CA & CO?

I don't really care if it's legal or illegal, I just hate a system that incentivizes dishonesty/cheating in so many otherwise honest individuals.
Yeah, they're pretty fucked up and the whole thing is a smoke screen. I'm just pointing out that this isn't some outrageous jump being made. If you want to smoke marijuana legally in California, you can do so rather easily.

[thesloppy]

the current medical marijuana laws seem like the most fucked up laws i ever heard of. instead of just legalizing it completely, allowing it only for medical purposes just breeds so much dishonesty/fraud/lying (or some other similar term). doctors are borderline committing fraud for writing scripts so freely, drug users are dishonest (either to themselves or others) by claiming "chronic pain" in order to get pot.

Even as a pretty regular marijuana user, and someone with an MMJ card, I agree with you about the disingenuous nature of MMJ laws. I imagine the states actually prefer it that way, as it may be easier to segregate and regulate when it's all under the auspices of medicine, rather than just being sold at the corner store. Likewise, it probably makes it a lot easier to repeal, should public or political favor turn, by deciding that marijuana doesn't have any medicinal value, which would likely be a lot easier than repealing any law that made it legal and widely available without reason. A lot of MMJ lobbyists obviously just like the system because it sounds a lot more sympathetic than "we wanna smoke weed".

On the other hand, the TV is jam packed with ads for prescription drugs that I apparently NEED to take for thicker fuller eyelashes, pills to counter the depression created by my anti-depression pills, and medicare-approved penis pumps. Considering the amount of carny-like hustling that goes on in the name of medicine these days, it's difficult to come down too hard on the world of MMJ.

[RainMaker]

Medical marijuana users risk job loss - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/03/24/michigan.medical.marijuana.fired/index.html?hpt=C1)