Marijuana
Strongmagnetsbreak
15-02-2008, 04:36
The federal govt justifies the federal ban on marijuana under the Commerce clause which states that congress has the right to regulate INTERSTATE commerce. My question is why do they have the right to arrest an individual that grew and used marijuana that was neither bought nor sold or crossed state lines? If you think the law is justified under the Necessary and Proper Clause then how is arresting the aforementioned individual necessary and proper to carry out the law?
Cannot think of a name
15-02-2008, 05:21
I don't know. naked bump
The reasons for its ban were at first, racial. The Governments of the southwest US, thought that all Mexicans smoked weed. So they thought that by banning pot, all the Mexicans would leave. When this didn't work, they made up stories of Pot crazed Mexicans raping and murdering white women and told DC about it so they decide to create a Marijuana Stamp. You needed one to possess it, buy and sell it. The catch was that they only printed a few and they were used in press confrences.
Acta Sanctorum
15-02-2008, 06:22
Originally the federal government didn't regulate any substances.
Pepe Dominguez
15-02-2008, 06:26
My question is why do they have the right to arrest an individual that grew and used marijuana that was neither bought nor sold or crossed state lines?
Doesn't matter. The interstate commerce clause covers basically any and all human activity in this country. If you don't sell your weed across state lines, you still might have customers who came in from out of state, or who may go someplace else, etc. There's basically no limit to how far a reach the government has under interstate commerce. Desegregation was helped by the interstate commerce clause, for example, when it was ruled that refusing service to minority customers has an effect on their ability to travel through your state, since people need food and supplies and so on to travel. In that case, something good came of it, but if the government wants to abuse its power, it'll probably take the same path.
all that I know is the pot is bad. m'kay?
Cannot think of a name
15-02-2008, 07:18
Doesn't matter. The interstate commerce clause covers basically any and all human activity in this country. If you don't sell your weed across state lines, you still might have customers who came in from out of state, or who may go someplace else, etc. There's basically no limit to how far a reach the government has under interstate commerce. Desegregation was helped by the interstate commerce clause, for example, when it was ruled that refusing service to minority customers has an effect on their ability to travel through your state, since people need food and supplies and so on to travel. In that case, something good came of it, but if the government wants to abuse its power, it'll probably take the same path.
I don't know why that doesn't apply to things like ferrets, then. Since they're illegal in California but not Nevada.
HSH Prince Eric
15-02-2008, 07:23
All drugs should be legal.
The Commerce Clause allows the Federal Government to regulate intra-state (in one state) affairs that may effect inter-state commerce I.E. Texas wanted to restrict semi-haulers with trailers over a certain length from using certain highways in the state. The Feds said that that would restrict interstate commerce (by having two, incompatible standards for semi-truck/trailer length) and over-ruled the law.
The marijuana case however would without exception be tried at the state or local level and the commerce clause would never enter into it.
The so called 'federal marijuana ban' is actually a set of grants and regulations that restrict much needed federal funding to states that don't pass and enforce anti-marijuana legislature, this is usually enforced (such as in the case of the federally 'enforced' drinking age) by taking away funding for highway maintenance granted under the Commerce clause (Louisiana was noncompliant with the federal drinking age for years and their highways are still shit-terrible because of it.)
Binaria:
That story is hilarious but untrue, racial tension was a factor in banning marijuana, but it was one of many (equally false) causes for the federal ban, I don't believe anyone sold stories of weed crazed mexicans raping white women to the feds though.
Cannot think of a name
15-02-2008, 07:59
The Commerce Clause allows the Federal Government to regulate intra-state (in one state) affairs that may effect inter-state commerce I.E. Texas wanted to restrict semi-haulers with trailers over a certain length from using certain highways in the state. The Feds said that that would restrict interstate commerce (by having two, incompatible standards for semi-truck/trailer length) and over-ruled the law.
The marijuana case however would without exception be tried at the state or local level and the commerce clause would never enter into it.
The so called 'federal marijuana ban' is actually a set of grants and regulations that restrict much needed federal funding to states that don't pass and enforce anti-marijuana legislature, this is usually enforced (such as in the case of the federally 'enforced' drinking age) by taking away funding for highway maintenance granted under the Commerce clause (Louisiana was noncompliant with the federal drinking age for years and their highways are still shit-terrible because of it.)
Binaria:
That story is hilarious but untrue, racial tension was a factor in banning marijuana, but it was one of many (equally false) causes for the federal ban, I don't believe anyone sold stories of weed crazed mexicans raping white women to the feds though.
But wait, here in California we have legalized medical marijuana. In accordance with that state officials have refused to enforce marijuana enforcement provided they have a patient card. HOWEVER federal officials come in and periodically raid medical marijuana establishments without the support of state officials. Many counties in California have also lowered marijuana enforcement to lowest priority, in other words they don't investigate or actively go after marijuana users-to get arrested in San Francisco or Santa Cruz for marijuana you have to either be doing something else or smoking in public like an idiot.
So how does that work? They didn't cut off our funding (we put in more money than we get out anyway), they come in and enforce it on their own because we won't.
Pepe Dominguez
15-02-2008, 08:56
I don't know why that doesn't apply to things like ferrets, then. Since they're illegal in California but not Nevada.
I believe the term is "federalism concerns." Nah, there's probably a more technical reason for it, but when the Supreme Court wants to say something like "well, we could let the government kick your ass, but we're not in the mood," then it's federalism concerns. Heh.
Lunatic Goofballs
15-02-2008, 09:06
The reasons for its ban were at first, racial. The Governments of the southwest US, thought that all Mexicans smoked weed. So they thought that by banning pot, all the Mexicans would leave. When this didn't work, they made up stories of Pot crazed Mexicans raping and murdering white women and told DC about it so they decide to create a Marijuana Stamp. You needed one to possess it, buy and sell it. The catch was that they only printed a few and they were used in press confrences.
I've never heard that. I've heard that Marijuana was banned due to lobbying pressure brought on by the lumber and tobacco industries who feared the effect that pot and hemp(which was also banned despite being less than 1/10th as potent) would have on their business.
But wait, here in California we have legalized medical marijuana. In accordance with that state officials have refused to enforce marijuana enforcement provided they have a patient card. HOWEVER federal officials come in and periodically raid medical marijuana establishments without the support of state officials. Many counties in California have also lowered marijuana enforcement to lowest priority, in other words they don't investigate or actively go after marijuana users-to get arrested in San Francisco or Santa Cruz for marijuana you have to either be doing something else or smoking in public like an idiot.
So how does that work? They didn't cut off our funding (we put in more money than we get out anyway), they come in and enforce it on their own because we won't.
If You're really giving more in than taking out, then that's probably why you're getting fed-raids. The Feds need to prove how big their dick is somehow and if cutting funding won't work then they'll try sending in the fuzz.
welcome to the layer cake son. It's fucking crazy in here.
I've never heard that. I've heard that Marijuana was banned due to lobbying pressure brought on by the lumber and tobacco industries who feared the effect that pot and hemp(which was also banned despite being less than 1/10th as potent) would have on their business.
almost everyone has this kind of story for the pot ban "But I heard it was racial tension, I heard it was because factories where workers were high on weed were going under etc. etc." And every one of them is at least marginally true, there was no ONE REASON for the Marijuana ban, just a lot of little bullshit ones. A huge number of people got together to lobby for the Marijuana ban, any handful of them probably wouldn't have succeeded but together the feds couldn't ignore it.
Pepe Dominguez
15-02-2008, 09:14
I've never heard that. I've heard that Marijuana was banned due to lobbying pressure brought on by the lumber and tobacco industries who feared the effect that pot and hemp(which was also banned despite being less than 1/10th as potent) would have on their business.
The History Channel's recent series on drugs supports the racism argument to a degree, with the exception that while Mexicans brought the stuff in, it was the blacks who were targetted with the ban, in the early 20s, and on the East coast, rather than in the Southwest, if I can remember right. It replays a few times a week or so, if anyone's interested.
I do think that I'm remembering it right though, since the number of Mexicans in the U.S. in the 1920s was very small, even if the explosion in their numbers occurred first at about that time owing to the civil war that was wrecking the southern Mexican provinces around then. It's more likely that the ban was intended to protect the middle class from black vice.
As to hemp, I've heard those arguments, but about why hemp is still illegal, rather than why it was outlawed to begin with.
Pepe Dominguez
15-02-2008, 09:17
If You're really giving more in than taking out, then that's probably why you're getting fed-raids. The Feds need to prove how big their dick is somehow and if cutting funding won't work then they'll try sending in the fuzz.
welcome to the layer cake son. It's fucking crazy in here.
California produces basically all of the pot grown domestically in the U.S., I think. Could be the feds hit us with the raids to create the illusion of enforcement. Sounds right, even if I'm way off.
Devil Tundra
15-02-2008, 09:22
America is a free country. If you want to buy, sell, smoke or trade pot, that's your choice. Just be prepared to face the consequences of your actions as are administered by the court of law, that, contrary to popular belief, is needed to maintain a free country.
A long with the other misconceptions, such as that RIGHT to bear arms UNINFRINGED. Which means if I want to buy an automatic firearm out of a magazine with a money order and no paperwork involved, that is MY RIGHT.
Gone now, I s'pose.
Lunatic Goofballs
15-02-2008, 09:25
California produces basically all of the pot grown domestically in the U.S., I think. Could be the feds hit us with the raids to create the illusion of enforcement. Sounds right, even if I'm way off.
When I think of California's interaction with the federal government, I think of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqSM2rfeWD8
Guess which character is California. :D
California produces basically all of the pot grown domestically in the U.S., I think. Could be the feds hit us with the raids to create the illusion of enforcement. Sounds right, even if I'm way off.
8.6 million pounds of marijuana were cultivated in California in 2006.
The national total was about 22 million pounds...so California produced about 1/3rd, not "basically all".
One must remember that much of California is capable of supporting outdoor growth year round, unlike most other states.
Top ten states...
1. California
2. Tennessee
3. Kentucky
4. Hawaii
5. Washington
6. North Carolina
7. Florida
8. Alabama
9. West Virginia
10. Oregon.
EDIT: Source (http://www.drugscience.org/Archive/bcr2/MJCropReport_2006.pdf)
Pepe Dominguez
15-02-2008, 09:33
When I think of California's interaction with the federal government, I think of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqSM2rfeWD8
Guess which character is California. :D
I think I can guess. :D I forgot how tiny Rob Schneider was. Old SNL > New by about 30 miles, too.
Cannot think of a name
15-02-2008, 09:37
8.6 million pounds of marijuana were cultivated in California in 2006.
The national total was about 22 million pounds...so California produced about 1/3rd, not "basically all".
One must remember that much of California is capable of supporting outdoor growth year round, unlike most other states.
Top ten states...
1. California
2. Tennessee
3. Kentucky
4. Hawaii
5. Washington
6. North Carolina
7. Florida
8. Alabama
9. West Virginia
10. Oregon.
EDIT: Source (http://www.drugscience.org/Archive/bcr2/MJCropReport_2006.pdf)
Yeah, but you know...ours is the best. Well, Northern California, I don't know if you can call what they smoke down in SoCal weed...
Pepe Dominguez
15-02-2008, 09:37
8.6 million pounds of marijuana were cultivated in California in 2006.
The national total was about 22 million pounds...so California produced about 1/3rd, not "basically all".
One must remember that much of California is capable of supporting outdoor growth year round, unlike most other states.
Top ten states...
1. California
2. Tennessee
3. Kentucky
4. Hawaii
5. Washington
6. North Carolina
7. Florida
8. Alabama
9. West Virginia
10. Oregon.
EDIT: Source (http://www.drugscience.org/Archive/bcr2/MJCropReport_2006.pdf)
Huh. Okay then, my error. I remembered it being a lot more, but admittedly it's been at least five years since I studied it (hooray "Drugs and Society" for easy G.E. credit). Hehe.
Also, credit should probably go to the large number of virtually deserted wilderness areas we have in California. No one can touch them (they must legally be kept "pristine") and the small-to-medium sized grower takes full advantage.
Also, credit should probably go to the large number of virtually deserted wilderness areas we have in California. No one can touch them (they must legally be kept "pristine") and the small-to-medium sized grower takes full advantage.
True enough! :p
Although I find it odd that California leads in indoor cultivation as well. One would think that the cold-weather states where year-round outdoor cultivation is not possible would have a substantial lead in that area.
Pepe Dominguez
15-02-2008, 09:49
True enough! :p
Although I find it odd that California leads in indoor cultivation as well. One would think that the cold-weather states where year-round outdoor cultivation is not possible would have a substantial lead in that area.
I can only imagine what a decline in the housing market out here would do to those numbers. It's a longstanding pattern that the police periodically find houses in my area that are completely vacant save for thousands of pounds of marijuana and some growlights, bought by an owner with a false identity. If you could get a 5-bedroom for half the price, well...
Cannot think of a name
15-02-2008, 09:49
You know, I'm reading the Supreme Court Decision (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=00-151) and I don't think that it says what this thread says it does. While I'm not really good at getting through the language, it seems that it hinges on there being no bases for medical exception to the restriction of Class 1 drugs.
Cannot think of a name
15-02-2008, 23:34
http://www.dopesmoke.com/gallery2/d/206-3/legalize-cannabis.jpg
Sel Appa
16-02-2008, 00:08
The federal govt justifies the federal ban on marijuana under the Commerce clause which states that congress has the right to regulate INTERSTATE commerce. My question is why do they have the right to arrest an individual that grew and used marijuana that was neither bought nor sold or crossed state lines? If you think the law is justified under the Necessary and Proper Clause then how is arresting the aforementioned individual necessary and proper to carry out the law?
So, the states regulate it inside themselves. Marijuana possession is a state crime, not a federal one.
Originally the federal government didn't regulate any substances.
Originally, there weren't any substances to regulate.
Whereyouthinkyougoing
16-02-2008, 00:11
What do you know, this is a really interesting thread. Just thought I'd say that. <<
America is a free country. If you want to buy, sell, smoke or trade pot, that's your choice. Just be prepared to face the consequences of your actions as are administered by the court of law, that, contrary to popular belief, is needed to maintain a free country.
A long with the other misconceptions, such as that RIGHT to bear arms UNINFRINGED. Which means if I want to buy an automatic firearm out of a magazine with a money order and no paperwork involved, that is MY RIGHT.
Gone now, I s'pose.
...
Posts like this stymie me every time. "Yeah man, we're the most free country EVER, you can do ANYTHING and, get this, all that will happen is that you'll be punished when you do something illegal! Isn't that awesome?!"
The hell?
Cannot think of a name
16-02-2008, 00:27
What do you know, this is a really interesting thread. Just thought I'd say that. <<
...
Posts like this stymie me every time. "Yeah man, we're the most free country EVER, you can do ANYTHING and, get this, all that will happen is that you'll be punished when you do something illegal! Isn't that awesome?!"
The hell?
Doesn't make sense to me and I live here...
Whereyouthinkyougoing
16-02-2008, 00:35
Doesn't make sense to me and I live here...
Meh, it's not about the US (although posters who post that usually are from the US) it's just that it's so insanely illogical. By their logic, even the most totalitarian police state is free - and call me crazy but somehow I don't think that's what they're trying to say.
Gah. Pet peeve. But very, very rightfully so, if I say so myself. Hrmph.
IL Ruffino
16-02-2008, 00:53
Oh man, I'd love to smoke some pot right now..