1. We are currently experiencing issues with viewing and uploading images, our team is working on the issue.
    Dismiss Notice

The power of congress to regulate marijuana

Discussion in 'The Black Briefcase' started by Tom Tucker 313, Dec 21, 2017.

  1.  
    Tom Tucker 313

    Tom Tucker 313 Active Member

    California voters passed Proposition 215 in 1996, allowing qualified patients to cultivate and use marijuana for designated medical illnesses and conditions. Though this permits cannabis cultivation and use in California, anything related to cannabis remains illegal under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA).

    Angel Raich, a qualified medical cannabis patient, who was provided cannabis for medical use by two anonymous caregivers, used marijuana to treat her life-threatening chronic pain. Diane Monson cultivated six marijuana plants to treat her own chronic pain.

    On August 15, 2002, Butte County Sheriff’s officers and agents from the federal Drug Enforcement Administration destroyed all six of Ms. Monson’s marijuana plants and seized Raich’s medical cannabis. Monson and Angel Raich (and Raich’s two anonymous caregivers) then sued the DEA and U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft in federal district court for injunctive and declaratory relief, claiming that enforcing the CSA against them violated the Commerce Clause, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and the doctrine of medical necessity.

    The federal government first argued that the CSA preempted California state law and that making any exception for California would render the CSA unenforceable in practice. The government also contended that consuming one’s own locally grown marijuana for medical purposes substantially affects in aggregate the interstate commerce of marijuana, and that, pursuant to the Commerce Clause, the federal government may regulate and prohibit such consumption and manufacturing. The argument stemmed from the infamous New Deal case Wickard v. Filburn, which held that the federal government may regulate personal cultivation and consumption of crops (in that case, wheat) due to the aggregate effect of individual consumption on the government’s “legitimate statutory framework governing the interstate wheat market.” The federal district court ruled against Monson and Raich. Monson and Raich then appealed that decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

    On December 16, 2003, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Raich and Monson, issuing a preliminary injunction to prevent the government from interfering with their use and cultivation of marijuana for medical purposes. The Court ruled that “the appellants have demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on their claim that, as applied to them, the Controlled Substances Act is an unconstitutional exercise of Congress’ Commerce Clause authority. . . .” The Court reached this conclusion on narrow grounds, relying on United States v. Lopez and United States v. Morrison to find that enforcement of the CSA against intrastate medical marijuana commerce violated the Commerce Clause and that using medical marijuana did not “substantially affect” interstate commerce and therefore could not be regulated by Congress. The federal government appealed that decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ultimately ruled against Raich and Monson in a 6-3 decision.

    SCOTUS ruled that even individual use and/or cultivation of marijuana has an aggregate affect on interstate commerce, warranting enforcement of the CSA in California despite its state laws:

    The parallel concern making it appropriate to include marijuana grown for home consumption in the CSA is the likelihood that the high demand in the interstate market will draw such marijuana into that market. . . the diversion of homegrown marijuana tends to frustrate the federal interest in eliminating commercial transactions in the interstate market in their entirety. In both [Wickard and the present case], the regulation is squarely within Congress’ commerce power because production of the commodity meant for home consumption, be it wheat or marijuana, has a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market for that commodity
     
  2.  
    Rob Roy

    Rob Roy Well-Known Member

    If you fart near a state border it could affect commerce in air cleaning devices, therefore a license to fart is within the purview of the Federal government.

    If you DON'T fart near a state border, it could affect interstate commerce in air cleaning devices as sales could potentially drop. Therefore a license not to fart is within the purview of the Federal government.

    This why we need to create a new cabinet to control flatulence. A war on farting if you will. Mexican bean cartels may be behind this.
     
  3.  
    Tom Tucker 313

    Tom Tucker 313 Active Member


    https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/525
     
    Rob Roy likes this.
  4.  
    Colo MMJ

    Colo MMJ Well-Known Member

    All of this MMJ stuff should be a state rights issue. The only thing they federally should have any oversight is interstate commerce.
    They should be far more concerned with meth production and the PRESCRIBED (!) opioids that are legally prescribed and are poison.

    Speaking of states, the people of Calif should hang Jerry Brown for his lack of doing anything or doing anything preventative for the Calif fires. His response was essentially "get used to it."
     
    Rob Roy likes this.
  5.  
    Rob Roy

    Rob Roy Well-Known Member

    I think what people decide to do with their own body, is an INDIVIDUAL rights thing.

    If no individual has any right to control another peaceful persons body, how could a group of individuals, none of whom possess that right possibly aggregate all of their collective "zero right" to do anything?

    Answer - It is impossible.

    Yes, Fuck Jerry Brown.
     
    Colo MMJ likes this.
  6.  
    TrumpOG

    TrumpOG Member

    Jerry Brown is s a true communitst no doubt about about thå†
     
    Colo MMJ likes this.
  7.  
    Tom Tucker 313

    Tom Tucker 313 Active Member

    Have you ever heard of the social contract?
     
  8.  
    Rob Roy

    Rob Roy Well-Known Member

    Yes. It's a mythical "contract" which attempts to validate the use of offensive force as a means in order to protect people from offensive force. Which means it's born from contradiction.

    Curious why you ask?
     
    ChefKimbo, Instape and Colo MMJ like this.
  9.  
    Colo MMJ

    Colo MMJ Well-Known Member

    +100 - yes I agree that it should be up to the individual.
    As long as it does not hurt other people especially kids and I do not have to pay for it. Go for it. The real problems are meth, opiods and CIA-Afghanistan heroin flooding the world. Pot allows little people to put a few bucks in their pocket. They hate that. like the gold rush or oil booms. the little guys get squeezed out by big money.

    I know people near Santa Rosa and Santa Barbara who came really close to losing their houses. The whole fricking state from north to south burned in 2017 and this ass Jerry Brown said "get used to it." This was about all he did! They could have done a lot more water drops from planes. I know how crazy those winds are but with all the technology - those fires should have been stomped out on day one.

    I know in Colorado that if anyone sees a puff of smoke from a fire that everything converges as fast as possible to put the fire out.. I saw a tree catch on fire and some grass near I-25 near Colo Springs and a median on I-25 in pueblo. People were stopping in their own cars to put it out and fire crews were there in 2 minutes.

    Jerry and his dad and family have ruled Calif on and off for what? 40 years? Wasn't he going to be a Jesuit? The Jesuits are bad news. The Brown family ruling a state and the people are treated like serfs. F them.
     
  10.  
    greg nr

    greg nr Well-Known Member

    What gets me is the feds are in part claiming that cannabis laws are a federal issue because of interstate commerce. And that is the basis they are using to try to eliminate home growing. They argue that it has an indirect impact on the supply of cannabis and therefore on the price of the commodity, so they are within their rights to prohibit individuals from cultivating.

    While at the same time saying there can be NO interstate commerce because it is a banned product.

    How do they sleep at night. These ideas have to be the result of midnight delirium. They simply aren't the result of rational thought.
     
    Rob Roy and Colo MMJ like this.
  11.  
    Rob Roy

    Rob Roy Well-Known Member


    It's almost like they think they own you.
     
    ChefKimbo and Colo MMJ like this.
  12.  
    Colo MMJ

    Colo MMJ Well-Known Member

    My friend - they decide by who butters their bread. Both parties are the same. Yes they are evil.

    The Sackler family worth $14 billion due to opioids. Oxycontin
    http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a12775932/sackler-family-oxycontin/

    I do not cheerlead MMj usage but I can tell you with 100% certainty that MMJ is a far better and safer painkiller than opioids.
     
    NugHeuser and Rob Roy like this.
  13.  
    Wilksey

    Wilksey Well-Known Member

    The fed has been chipping away at the entire concept of "states rights" ever since the ink dried on the constitution.

    Grains can be grown and processed into a straight up lethal substance, alcohol, and yet the fed doesn't feel the same need to regulate it? The bottom line is that it's all about money, and our federal government is corrupt beyond repair and needs to be dismantled. States should band together, quit paying federal taxes, and reject federal mandates, while convening a new constitutional convention to empower the citizen and the states again.
     
    Colo MMJ likes this.
  14.  
    greg nr

    greg nr Well-Known Member

    BS comrade. Sure, the republicans have fucked things up beyond recognition, but that doesn't mean that government is bad or the country broken. We just need to clean up the mess on aisle's 12-19.

    But thanks for trying to destroy democracy.
     
  15.  
    Tom Tucker 313

    Tom Tucker 313 Active Member

    https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...a-states-rights-approach-to-marijuana/549707/

    https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1227/all-info

    https://www.usnews.com/opinion/civi...marijuana-laws-to-stop-jeff-sessions-drug-war
     

    Attached Files:

  16.  
    Tom Tucker 313

    Tom Tucker 313 Active Member


    https://www.crin.org/en/home/what-we-do/policy/bodily-integrity

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4662098/
     
    Instape likes this.
  17.  
    ChefKimbo

    ChefKimbo Well-Known Member

    Only way out is to remove yourself from this commercial jurisdiction.
     
  18.  
    ChefKimbo

    ChefKimbo Well-Known Member

    Its the Feds job to regulate commerce. On paper, a person caught without a license to consume/cultivate cannabis is an unregistered business entity doing business without a license or tax exemption. That alone is how personal use is regulated.
     
  19.  
    Rob Roy

    Rob Roy Well-Known Member

    Good people will always disobey bad laws.
     

Share This Page