Federal government already fighting state's rights in marijuana legalization

[TrulyX]

(09-11-2012 04:46 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  

Quote:Then again the cigarette company would probably lower the THC to the
point you had to smoke two packs a day to get a little buzz going.

Fucking capitalism...

No they wouldn't.
They don't do it for ciggs, quite the opposite in fact.
If they were to sell a product with half the potency someone would just create a stronger product that would then out sell the weaker product.
Look at Frank Lucas (The guy 'American Gangster' was filmed about), he sold heroin at far stronger potency then his competitors and was able to run them out of business because of it.

Yeah, but it's different.

And Nicky Barnes would call bullshit.

[Erxomai]

Reading this made me happy tonight. Well, the last line, in particular.

In regards to Washington and Colorado legalizing the pot:

Both states are holding off on plans to regulate and tax the drug while waiting to see whether the Justice Department would assert federal authority over drug law.

Meanwhile,
prosecutors in Washington's largest counties dropped all pending
misdemeanor cases of marijuana possession Friday in response to that
state's vote to legalize the drug.

[Filox]

Finally, ears makes sense concerning weed. Great thinking ears, I would love to smoke some Marlboro Green and I would be happy and proud to pay taxes for that pack and to get a receipt for it...



But what's this about state laws and federal laws? This shit has been going on for years in USA. How is it possible that one state can have a law that is not passed on the federal level? Does anyone here see some very strange illogical stupidity? For years the feds are attacking the medicinal centers in California, yet they have a legal right to be there and sell weed on prescription. This is just SOOOOOOO fucking retarded. But as usual, I have a theory! They (the feds) do it on purpose. First they say it is legal, then they send in the feds to catch you and give you a god-damn-high-fine and filled their empty cash register. The fed cash register. You see, they ran out of money, so these are the only methods to fill up the register again, they tried everything else and it all failed.

[Chas]

(12-11-2012 05:18 AM)Filox Wrote:  Finally, ears makes sense concerning weed. Great thinking ears, I would love to smoke some Marlboro Green and I would be happy and proud to pay taxes for that pack and to get a receipt for it...



But what's this about state laws and federal laws? This shit has been going on for years in USA. How is it possible that one state can have a law that is not passed on the federal level? Does anyone here see some very strange illogical stupidity? For years the feds are attacking the medicinal centers in California, yet they have a legal right to be there and sell weed on prescription. This is just SOOOOOOO fucking retarded. But as usual, I have a theory! They (the feds) do it on purpose. First they say it is legal, then they send in the feds to catch you and give you a god-damn-high-fine and filled their empty cash register. The fed cash register. You see, they ran out of money, so these are the only methods to fill up the register again, they tried everything else and it all failed.

The root of this is in the continuing difference in political views of federalism vs. states' rights. There have always been forces for more centralized government and the opposing view of limited federal power, usually by those who strictly interpret the Constitution.

Those who favor stronger states' rights often make the argument that the states are laboratories for democracy, that the citizens of each state come up with what works for them. While this made some sense in the 18th and 19th centuries, it makes less sense now. Mobility and communication make differences between states much more problematic than in a society where people stayed put.

The answer, of course, is that the Constitution needs some amending to bring it more in line with the realities of the 21st century.

[TrulyX]

(12-11-2012 07:39 AM)Chas Wrote:  

(12-11-2012 05:18 AM)Filox Wrote:  Finally, ears makes sense concerning weed. Great thinking ears, I would love to smoke some Marlboro Green and I would be happy and proud to pay taxes for that pack and to get a receipt for it...

But what's this about state laws and federal laws? This shit has been going on for years in USA. How is it possible that one state can have a law that is not passed on the federal level?

The root of this is in the continuing difference in political views of federalism vs. states' rights. There have always been forces for more centralized government and the opposing view of limited federal power, usually by those who strictly interpret the Constitution.

Those who favor stronger states' rights often make the argument that the states are laboratories for democracy, that the citizens of each state come up with what works for them. While this made some sense in the 18th and 19th centuries, it makes less sense now. Mobility and communication make differences between states much more problematic than in a society where people stayed put.

The answer, of course, is that the Constitution needs some amending to bring it more in line with the realities of the 21st century.

Personally, I don't see any problems. Our Constitution is pretty clear, or at least purposefully unclear, with good reason.

The state level versus federal level, I doubt was ever an argument that was actually about state level versus federal level, but people randomly bring up state versus federal, one way or the other, in support of a separate ideology and/or in argument for something separate.

As far as this state legalization goes, it was a state bringing up a vote on something that, if it passed, they knew would cause violations of federal law, and the same applies for previous cases and medical marijuana.

You can argue good or bad, in terms of forcing federal action on the issue, and it's not like there hasn't been any activity, legislation and effort on the federal level to remove marijuana from the federal ban and kick back power to the states, but until then, the federal, executive branch has a duty to enforce federal law to the extent they feel necessary and they will.

[Chas]

(12-11-2012 11:26 AM)TrulyX Wrote:  

(12-11-2012 07:39 AM)Chas Wrote:  The root of this is in the continuing difference in political views of federalism vs. states' rights. There have always been forces for more centralized government and the opposing view of limited federal power, usually by those who strictly interpret the Constitution.

Those who favor stronger states' rights often make the argument that the states are laboratories for democracy, that the citizens of each state come up with what works for them. While this made some sense in the 18th and 19th centuries, it makes less sense now. Mobility and communication make differences between states much more problematic than in a society where people stayed put.

The answer, of course, is that the Constitution needs some amending to bring it more in line with the realities of the 21st century.

Personally, I don't see any problems. Our Constitution is pretty clear, or at least purposefully unclear, with good reason.

The state level versus federal level, I doubt was ever an argument that was actually about state level versus federal level, but people randomly bring up state versus federal, one way or the other, in support of a separate ideology and/or in argument for something separate.

As far as this state legalization goes, it was a state bringing up a vote on something that, if it passed, they knew would cause violations of federal law, and the same applies for previous cases and medical marijuana.

You can argue good or bad, in terms of forcing federal action on the issue, and it's not like there hasn't been any activity, legislation and effort on the federal level to remove marijuana from the federal ban and kick back power to the states, but until then, the federal, executive branch has a duty to enforce federal law to the extent they feel necessary and they will.

The enforcement of drug laws, marijuana in particular, is a very heated state vs. federal jurisdiction issue.

The U.S. Constitution certainly contains nothing that would allow the federal government to enact legislation to ban marijuana, or any other drug. An amendment was required to ban alcoholic beverages.

[TrulyX]

(12-11-2012 03:37 PM)Chas Wrote:  The enforcement of drug laws, marijuana in particular, is a very heated state vs. federal jurisdiction issue.

The U.S. Constitution certainly contains nothing that would allow the federal government to enact legislation to ban marijuana, or any other drug. An amendment was required to ban alcoholic beverages.

That would be incorrect, and that's also why I previously pointed out that most state versus federal arguments, have absolutely nothing to do with the matter at all.

But, the Constitution does clearly give the federal government authority, and I'm also sure there is Supreme Court precedent in the matter as well.

The amendment for prohibition was unnecessary. They could have, if they wanted to, taken regulative authority to effectively do the same thing, as they do with basically every drug they want to place bans or restrictions on today.

There was actually legitimate disagreement and argument over state versus federal powers during the framing of our Constitution. That is why there was compromise, and it is written basically as the federal laws and responsibilities cover everything, and state laws and responsibilities cover everything else, expect where otherwise stated. As of right now, that stands. Any argument for state power, if you want it to be legitimate, better come with a proposed amendment to our Constitution, specifically outlining restrictions to the federal power. If you think that there already is a restriction or limitation in the Constitution, make a legitimate argument in front of the Supreme Court; if that fails, back to square one.

My favorite part of our Constitution is an implicit rule, called the 'no bullshit' rule. This disallows any random idiot or collective of idiots, in state or local levels, to come up with any bullshit idea for law that could potentially bring harm to others or minorities. You must go through a legitimate processes, and have reasoned argument. You have to pass law that challenges and/or take it to the courts yourself, eventually the Supreme Court; or you have to work to change the law legislatively through Congress or an amendment if needed. Ultimately, 'no bullshit'.

[Chas]

(12-11-2012 05:41 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  

(12-11-2012 03:37 PM)Chas Wrote:  The enforcement of drug laws, marijuana in particular, is a very heated state vs. federal jurisdiction issue.

The U.S. Constitution certainly contains nothing that would allow the federal government to enact legislation to ban marijuana, or any other drug. An amendment was required to ban alcoholic beverages.

That would be incorrect, and that's also why I previously pointed out that most state versus federal arguments, have absolutely nothing to do with the matter at all.

But, the Constitution does clearly give the federal government authority, and I'm also sure there is Supreme Court precedent in the matter as well.

The amendment for prohibition was unnecessary. They could have, if they wanted to, taken regulative authority to effectively do the same thing, as they do with basically every drug they want to place bans or restrictions on today.

There was actually legitimate disagreement and argument over state versus federal powers during the framing of our Constitution. That is why there was compromise, and it is written basically as the federal laws and responsibilities cover everything, and state laws and responsibilities cover everything else, expect where otherwise stated. As of right now, that stands. Any argument for state power, if you want it to be legitimate, better come with a proposed amendment to our Constitution, specifically outlining restrictions to the federal power. If you think that there already is a restriction or limitation in the Constitution, make a legitimate argument in front of the Supreme Court; if that fails, back to square one.

My favorite part of our Constitution is an implicit rule, called the 'no bullshit' rule. This disallows any random idiot or collective of idiots, in state or local levels, to come up with any bullshit idea for law that could potentially bring harm to others or minorities. You must go through a legitimate processes, and have reasoned argument. You have to pass law that challenges and/or take it to the courts yourself, eventually the Supreme Court; or you have to work to change the law legislatively through Congress or an amendment if needed. Ultimately, 'no bullshit'.

I think your understanding of the Constitution is interesting.

Please cite the section or amendment that 'clearly' gives the federal government the authority.

As for the separation of powers, Amendment X:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

[TrulyX]

(12-11-2012 06:00 PM)Chas Wrote:  I think your understanding of the Constitution is interesting.

Please cite the section or amendment that 'clearly' gives the federal government the authority.

As for the separation of powers, Amendment X:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Well, the 9th, 10th and part of the 5th, really the entire Bill of Rights, are there to give states powers and people rights and protections from the federal level overstepping authority, but those are there, specifically and purposefully, to be counter to Article 1, Section 8, which is also written broadly, specifically and purposefully, to be interpreted to give the federal level an extreme amount of authority in making laws.

The way the Controlled Substance Act is written and enforced, it is using the General Welfare, Commerce and Necessary and Proper, clauses: "The Congress shall have Power To...provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States....To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States...To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers".

Now, you can take it to court and say that the federal law and enforcement of the law is overstepping the authority given to the federal level by those clauses in our Constitution, but until that's done and you get a decision ruling it unconstitutional, an amendment is passed disallowing federal regulation of drugs, or Congress passes a bill that repeals the act, or defines marijuana like alcohol and tobacco currently are, that's just the law.

[Chas]

(12-11-2012 07:20 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  

(12-11-2012 06:00 PM)Chas Wrote:  I think your understanding of the Constitution is interesting.

Please cite the section or amendment that 'clearly' gives the federal government the authority.

As for the separation of powers, Amendment X:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Well, the 9th, 10th and part of the 5th, really the entire Bill of Rights, are there to give states powers and people rights and protections from the federal level overstepping authority, but those are there, specifically and purposefully, to be counter to Article 1, Section 8, which is also written broadly, specifically and purposefully, to be interpreted to give the federal level an extreme amount of authority in making laws.

The way the Controlled Substance Act is written and enforced, it is using the General Welfare, Commerce and Necessary and Proper, clauses: "The Congress shall have Power To...provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States....To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States...To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers".

Now, you can take it to court and say that the federal law and enforcement of the law is overstepping the authority given to the federal level by those clauses in our Constitution, but until that's done and you get a decision ruling it unconstitutional, an amendment is passed disallowing federal regulation of drugs, or Congress passes a bill that repeals the act, or defines marijuana like alcohol and tobacco currently are, that's just the law.

Yes, it needs a Constitutional test. Strict constructionists would say that this is over-stepping, more federalist interpretation would invoke the general welfare. And strict constructionists would disagree with your statement that any of it was written broadly.

As more states legalize medical use and decriminalize simple possession, there will likely be enough friction to create a suit in federal court that will go to the Supreme Court.

However, why did banning alcohol require an amendment and banning marijuana does not?