Federal laws do trump state laws, of course, but the federal govt. generally lacks authority under the Constitution to regulate a state's internal affairs, including but not limited to, its criminal code and matters of intrastate commerce. Its only where interstate commerce or some other federal interest is involved that the feds can intervene.

 

But EVERYTHING is interstate commerce.

 

"The government also contended that consuming one's locally grown marijuana for medical purposes affects the interstate market of marijuana, and hence that the federal government may regulate—and prohibit—such consumption."

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

 

 

Federal laws will apply.

 

Generally the Fed needs state police to help enforce the laws because the Federal govt just doesnt have enough agents to be tracking down nickel and dime bags.

 

Thus if a state makes it legal, it would cost the Fed a ton of money to try and enforce the federal laws, therefore it likely would go unenforced.

Federal laws do trump state laws, of course, but the federal govt. generally lacks authority under the Constitution to regulate a state's internal affairs, including but not limited to, its criminal code and matters of intrastate commerce. Its only where interstate commerce or some other federal interest is involved that the feds can intervene. That's the only reason Congress could prohibit discrimination at Southern lunch counters; i.e., by exercising (some said stretching) its powers under the "Commerce Clause." Again, I believe that's why a Constitutional amendment was necessarry for the prohibition of alcohol on a federal level, even if the sale and manufacture was confined within a state.

 

If California "legalized" marijuana, I don't believe the DEA would have any jurisdiction to make arrests for MJ that was grown and sold wholly within state borders, unless, again, the seeds or equipment used to grow it moved across the state lines in interstate commerce.

 

Its like kidnapping; the FBI only gets involved when an abducted person is moved across state lines. Otherwise, its just a state crime investigated by local police and tried in a state criminal court. Another example is murder; its only outlawed as a federal offense where the federal government has Constitutional authority to criminalize it; i.e., assasination of a president, in the context of a hijacking, on federal propery, etc. Without that connection, its solely a matter of local law and jursidiction.

 

This may be an accurate reading of the law, but this is not what happens in practice. The Federal Government can stretch the Commerce Clause quite a bit to show that something is affecting interstate commerce, and the SCOTUS has backed them up when challenged quite frequently. In this day and age of globalism, it is almost ALWAYS possible to show at least a tenuous link (or as the SCOTUS so often likes to say, "a slender reed") to interstate commerce, and therefore, to clear the way for their own intervention.

 

Marijuana might be an interesting case because it is a product that could be produced and consumed locally, but all the feds would have to do is show proof of the first burnouts traveling to California across state lines to purchase marijuana for federal intervention to follow.

 

Even under those circumstances, my guess is the government could also claim that federal law occupies the same field as the state law, and therefore, preempts the state laws.

 

The real question would come down to whether the feds decided they wanted to try and enforce the criminalization or not.

 

This may be an accurate reading of the law, but this is not what happens in practice. The Federal Government can stretch the Commerce Clause quite a bit to show that something is affecting interstate commerce, and the SCOTUS has backed them up when challenged quite frequently. In this day and age of globalism, it is almost ALWAYS possible to show at least a tenuous link (or as the SCOTUS so often likes to say, "a slender reed") to interstate commerce, and therefore, to clear the way for their own intervention.

And do we really think the Roberts court will step up to protect the rights of marijuana users?

And do we really think the Roberts court will step up to protect the rights of marijuana users?

Honestly, it wouldn't matter if it was the most noble cause in the world, the Federal Government can establish nearly ANYTHING as affecting interstate commerce.

 

The real question here is what the Federal Government would do. Sandra Day O'Conner used to like to say that the states are laboratories for policy changes, and perhaps, under the perfect storm, the feds would back off and see just how such an experiment might play out.

It's official. Legalization is on the CA Ballot.

If approved, the initiative would allow those 21 years and older to possess up to one ounce of marijuana, enough to roll several marijuana cigarettes

 

Geez, what kind of joints do Californians roll? An ounce only gets you several?

Edited March 25, 201016 yr by Jenksismybitch

I think this is a big victory for drug reform no matter if it passes or not. The fact that it's on the ballot is big.

It's official. Legalization is on the CA Ballot.

 

oh wow. i hope it wins.

It may save money, but I don't see it generating that much. If they tax it too high, people will just continue to buy illegally. You will also have to hire more people to inforce the tax laws for it to generate the taxes. remember, this can be grown at home. Perhaps the revenue will coem in from the lazy people who would rather buy prerolled joints than grow your own.

 

Plus, how much will commercial growers have to add for liability insurance and other hiden costs that your local supplier doesn't deal with?

It may save money, but I don't see it generating that much. If they tax it too high, people will just continue to buy illegally. You will also have to hire more people to inforce the tax laws for it to generate the taxes. remember, this can be grown at home. Perhaps the revenue will coem in from the lazy people who would rather buy prerolled joints than grow your own.

 

Plus, how much will commercial growers have to add for liability insurance and other hiden costs that your local supplier doesn't deal with?

Like they do now with illegal cigarettes and liquor?

Please, dealers are so annoying. I'd much rather go to white hen.

Like they do now with illegal cigarettes and liquor?

 

There is a huge difference in quality between most homemade brew and liquor and the commercial product. The difference between commercially grown pot and home grown will not be that different. Growing tobacco is almost impossible for most of the country. Finally, there just isn't the distribution channels developed for illegal liquor and cigarettes as there is for pot.

There is a huge difference in quality between most homemade brew and liquor and the commercial product. The difference between commercially grown pot and home grown will not be that different. Growing tobacco is almost impossible for most of the country. Finally, there just isn't the distribution channels developed for illegal liquor and cigarettes as there is for pot.

But...is growing it at a reasonable quality at home a cheap thing or an expensive thing?

But...is growing it at a reasonable quality at home a cheap thing or an expensive thing?

Good point, I don't know. But will the home growers cover worker's comp insurance? Product liability insurance? It is fairly easy to grow from self collected seeds. I just am not confident of this as a major revenue stream. I believe the bulk of the monetary gains will come in the reduction of arresting, prosecuting, and even sending people to prison.

It may save money, but I don't see it generating that much. If they tax it too high, people will just continue to buy illegally. You will also have to hire more people to inforce the tax laws for it to generate the taxes. remember, this can be grown at home. Perhaps the revenue will coem in from the lazy people who would rather buy prerolled joints than grow your own.

 

Plus, how much will commercial growers have to add for liability insurance and other hiden costs that your local supplier doesn't deal with?

 

Why? It'd just be another sales tax item and regulation would fall under something like the ATF. There would certainly be orders of magnitude less people required to enforce basic taxation versus what we do now.

 

I can grow my own food at home. I can make beer at home. I can make wine at home. I can do all sorts of things at home, but I, like most other people, still go to the store and purchase it instead. Even with taxes added on.

I live in a townhouse, I have a small garden but not enough to reliably grow weed year-round. I guess I could if I wanted to but even still, if it's January I'm gonna need to go to Walgreen's and pick up a pack of joints

Why? It'd just be another sales tax item and regulation would fall under something like the ATF. There would certainly be orders of magnitude less people required to enforce basic taxation versus what we do now.

 

I can grow my own food at home. I can make beer at home. I can make wine at home. I can do all sorts of things at home, but I, like most other people, still go to the store and purchase it instead. Even with taxes added on.

 

If you have a $10 a week habit that will now cost you $20 a week, will you continue to buy from your regular place or go buy the new legal stuff?

 

And the beer you brew or the wine you make, will probably not be as good as commercial stuff. Also, there isn't a widespread, convenient, source for illegal beer and wine.

 

And for the tax to work there will have to be someone busting people to check for tax stamps or whatever. Those will not be ATF agents, they would have to be local police. Are we really going to keep that level of police action up?

I don't think you can necessarily assume that the homegrown product will be as good as commercially available ones. The latter will have a profit-maximizing corporation behind it (and thus incentive to do some research so it can at the very least compete with the homegrown stuff), and thus a standardized level of quality can be established. Meanwhile those relying on homegrown stuff will be at the mercy of whatever their dealer happen to has.

But...is growing it at a reasonable quality at home a cheap thing or an expensive thing?

Please...as if you don't know...

 

 

to make the point about paying more $ for the product because of the tax vs the underground guy...

 

i guess they'll have to enforce the law just like with gambling.

 

if i go to the boat in elgin, i'm ok. if i go to a back room bar in elgin, i'm not.

If you have a $10 a week habit that will now cost you $20 a week, will you continue to buy from your regular place or go buy the new legal stuff?

 

And the beer you brew or the wine you make, will probably not be as good as commercial stuff. Also, there isn't a widespread, convenient, source for illegal beer and wine.

 

And for the tax to work there will have to be someone busting people to check for tax stamps or whatever. Those will not be ATF agents, they would have to be local police. Are we really going to keep that level of police action up?

I think it is the other way around...

 

One can buy a pack of cigarettes for $5-7 bucks most places these days, and those have the f' taxed out of them. How much would it cost to buy 20 illegally procured joints? $100 bucks? Seems like the government could cut down on that quite a bit and still make a hefty profit.

Please...as if you don't know...

Actually, with my lung quality...I have enough difficulty just processing air. I don't put other things into that air.

BALTA'S A SQUARE

Measure fails in an Illinois House vote.

 

EDIT: And where are all the Tea Party libertarians on this issue?

Edited November 30, 201015 yr by BigSqwert