Obama Justice Department Set to Overrule any State that Legalizes mar1juana

You're nothing but a hypocrite. You've been around CF.net for a long time and I never saw you scolding the liberals for doing the same thing to Bush.

 

I just do not understand why this is a federal, rather than a state issue. Alcohol is regulated at the state level. The only reason the drinking age is 21 in Louisiana is because the Feds tied highway money to the state passing the drinking age.

Why this is done differently is odd at best.

 

You can thank the Controlled Substances Act, and Justice Scalia (and admittedly, the liberal justices of the bench) for broadening this to even home-grown medical mar1juana.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich

yeah, but no.

HUH? homegrown medical mar1juana falls under the category of interstate commerce?

to be fair, some liberal justices have come out hating this (to my memory, Stevens cited this as a case he applied the law and hated doing it), but who wants to stop expansion of the Commerce Clause?

Scalia is more curious.

so since there already is interstate commerce regulation for mar1juana, you might as well apply it to non-commercial intrastate trade, since---something about just having medical mar1juana around undercuts the ability of the DEA to kick your ass in for dealing recreational mar1juana. or something.

 

Plus one, nice post.

Unfortunately, I have to spread the lettuce or I would have repped you for this one.

 

90% of all people who use illicit drugs only use mar1juana. If it was legal, the war on drugs is even more of a fraud than it was when we found out the CIA is a major player in the international drug trade.

Also, if mar1juana were legalized, they would finally have to legalize hemp. Hemp alone could revive the economy of this country, but the multi-national monopoly men corporations who can't compete with hemp will do anything to keep hemp illegal. Hemp has no psychoactive properties, but it has an incredible amount of practical uses...especially oil. The government forced American farmers to grow hemp during WWII. Hemp for Victory! Let's get back to that.

And I agree this is a 10th amendment issue. The feds will eventually lose all these battles as we learn more about our constitutional rights of nullification on the state level. The federal government was created to have only a handful of duties. The rest of the issues we argue with each other about all the time should be decided on the state level.

 

Nope. I feel your position from a policy point of view, but this is simply not true from the legal perspective.

 

All it was and ever will be all about. Industry v Agriculture. Industry won.

Ironically, I have 4 cartons of hemp milk in my fridge. **** dairy.

 

Without those "dirtbags" the economies of States like California would be generating even more unemployment due to barriers to non-violent trade. From an economic standpoint, criminalization is a disincentive to production, economic growth, and greater income equality. The federal government has no right to criminalize non-violent acts like growing and trading a plant.

 

Yes, it is legal to buy hemp in America.

It is legal to sell hemp in America.

But, it is illegal to grow hemp in America.



lolok

 

Story of interest in one of my local OR papers:

In short, they were dirtbags committing criminal acts for personal profit and not some hippie farmer just trying to grow enough to make life easier for suffering people.

 

I've always wondered in situations like this - are the profits seized? Or is this guy essentially accepting 18 months in prison as the cost of making $700,000 or whatever?

 

Bad apples in every bunch. Imagine the taxes that could be levied and collected if operations were legal.

 

Necro bump lol


I don't understand what the ****ing debate is.


This is not a federal issue, its a state one...anyway to curb the laws against it is disingenuous.

The Fed can't do anything legally, they will do exactly what they have been doing to keep the legal drinking age as 21 in all states (Yes a state has the ability to decide what drinking age they want...they can set it at 16). The Fed gov. just pulls the grants and says that they have to keep it at 21 if they want benefits.
They will pull the same bull**** with this but I think substantial taxing can make up for revenue loss in grants over the short term till the Fed realizes its not their ****ing problem.

 

You don't think an interstate black market drug ring is a federal issue?