The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Down Range Cafe => Topic started by: billt on November 30, 2011, 03:21:14 AM
-
Federal Authorities Shut Down 'Legal' Medical Marijuana Providers In California | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/11/30/federal-authorities-shut-down-legal-medical-marijuana-providers-in-california/)
It was bound to happen. If anyone needs proof state issued "Medical Marijuana" cards aren't worth the paper they're printed on, here it is.
-
Well, there's definitely no reperosity with them ;)
-
Better reread the 10th A
-
It makes one wonder who is on drugs here.
FQ13
-
Better reread the 10th A
Already gone to SCOTUS, CA lost
Most recently, the Commerce Clause was cited in the 2005 decision Gonzales v. Raich. In this case, a California woman sued the Drug Enforcement Administration after her medical marijuana crop was seized and destroyed by federal agents. Medical marijuana was explicitly made legal under California state law by Proposition 215; however, marijuana is prohibited at the federal level by the Controlled Substances Act. Even though the woman grew the marijuana strictly for her own consumption and never sold any, the Supreme Court stated that growing one's own marijuana affects the interstate market of marijuana. The theory was that the marijuana could enter the stream of interstate commerce, even if it clearly wasn't grown for that purpose and it was unlikely ever to happen (the same reasoning as in the Wickard v. Filburn decision). It therefore ruled that this practice may be regulated by the federal government under the authority of the Commerce Clause.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution)
-
Already gone to SCOTUS, CA lost. Marijuana is prohibited at the federal level by the Controlled Substances Act.
Correct.
http://www.ehow.com/about_6301148_federal-law-supersede-state-law_.html
-
I would still like to see Moon Beam make a stink over it. Maybe get other Governors to repudiate the Court's ruling (which really was about as absurd as Dredd Scott) and insist on the 10A being respected. Maybe send another case up to see if the Court might reconsider. We do have new justices now.
FQ13
-
Already gone to SCOTUS, CA lost
Most recently, the Commerce Clause was cited in the 2005 decision Gonzales v. Raich. In this case, a California woman sued the Drug Enforcement Administration after her medical marijuana crop was seized and destroyed by federal agents. Medical marijuana was explicitly made legal under California state law by Proposition 215; however, marijuana is prohibited at the federal level by the Controlled Substances Act. Even though the woman grew the marijuana strictly for her own consumption and never sold any, the Supreme Court stated that growing one's own marijuana affects the interstate market of marijuana. The theory was that the marijuana could enter the stream of interstate commerce, even if it clearly wasn't grown for that purpose and it was unlikely ever to happen (the same reasoning as in the Wickard v. Filburn decision). It therefore ruled that this practice may be regulated by the federal government under the authority of the Commerce Clause.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution)
That does not matter, the law it's self is illegal since it is based on usurpation of authority not specifically granted by the Constitution.
-
That does not matter, the law it's self is illegal since it is based on usurpation of authority not specifically granted by the Constitution.
Good luck finding a fed to agree with you. Look in the "Honest Politician" aisle of the local Crooks 'R Us.
Even though the woman grew the marijuana strictly for her own consumption and never sold any, the Supreme Court stated that growing one's own marijuana affects the interstate market of marijuana.
The mind boggles....
-
Why is this even an issue in todays society?
Are people still convinced that smoking a little pot leads to cocaine, heroin, acid, meth, prostitution and child molestation?
Give me a break.....the war on drugs has failed to the tune of several trillion wasted tax dollars. I think Momma Moon Beam should get reimbursed for someone confiscating her buds!
-
Why is this even an issue in todays society?
Are people still convinced that smoking a little pot leads to cocaine, heroin, acid, meth, prostitution and child molestation?
Give me a break.....the war on drugs has failed to the tune of several trillion wasted tax dollars. I think Momma Moon Beam should get reimbursed for someone confiscating her buds!
Geez, didn't you see "Reefer madness" one joint and you're an instant ax murderer.
Especially if you are "darker in skin tone".
There are only 4 groups who support the "war on Drugs" Cops and judges who owe their jobs and pay offs to it, politicians who trot it out to make you think they are actually serving a purpose, (they are, but it's not the one they want you to think of ) Crooks who are making $ billions from it, and stupid people who blame the object for the acts of irresponsible people, (the same genius's that gave us "Prohibition )
-
Why is this even an issue in todays society?
Are people still convinced that smoking a little pot leads to cocaine, heroin, acid, meth, prostitution and child molestation?
Give me a break.....the war on drugs has failed to the tune of several trillion wasted tax dollars. I think Momma Moon Beam should get reimbursed for someone confiscating her buds!
True, but until the law is changed, repealed, or declared unconstitutional, it will stand, and people will be arrested and prosecuted if they violate it..
-
True, but until the law is changed, repealed, or declared unconstitutional, it will stand, and people will be arrested and prosecuted if they violate it..
Well, on the bright side, it continues to serve its purpose of letting them lock up blacks and Mexicans.
-
I think I just had a shift in my opinion of Medicinal Marijuana, my libertarian roots are showing. I don't know that legalizing it would help the industry though, the Feds would be all over it for tax revenue.
-
Well, on the bright side, it continues to serve its purpose of letting them lock up blacks and Mexicans.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Magoo, look back on the changes in the booze industry between 1929 when it was banned and 1934 when it was legal.
Yes, the feds taxed the crap out of it, so what ? ever hear of a quality brewer or distiller going broke due to lack of demand ?
-
Good luck finding a fed to agree with you. Look in the "Honest Politician" aisle of the local Crooks 'R Us.
Even though the woman grew the marijuana strictly for her own consumption and never sold any, the Supreme Court stated that growing one's own marijuana affects the interstate market of marijuana.
The mind boggles....
From the SCOTUS ruling:
Banning the growing of marijuana for medical use, the Court reasoned, was a permissible way of preventing or limiting access to marijuana for other uses:
"Even respondents acknowledge the existence of an illicit market in marijuana; indeed, Raich has personally participated in that market, and Monson expresses a willingness to do so in the future. More concretely, one concern prompting inclusion of wheat grown for home consumption in the 1938 Act was that rising market prices could draw such wheat into the interstate market, resulting in lower market prices. Wickard, 317 U.S., at 128. 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. While the diversion of homegrown wheat tended to frustrate the federal interest in stabilizing prices by regulating the volume of commercial transactions in the interstate 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 cases, 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"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich)
-
From the SCOTUS ruling:
Banning the growing of marijuana for medical use, the Court reasoned, was a permissible way of preventing or limiting access to marijuana for other uses:
"Even respondents acknowledge the existence of an illicit market in marijuana; indeed, Raich has personally participated in that market, and Monson expresses a willingness to do so in the future. More concretely, one concern prompting inclusion of wheat grown for home consumption in the 1938 Act was that rising market prices could draw such wheat into the interstate market, resulting in lower market prices. Wickard, 317 U.S., at 128. 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. While the diversion of homegrown wheat tended to frustrate the federal interest in stabilizing prices by regulating the volume of commercial transactions in the interstate 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 cases, 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"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich)
Now THAT is freaking classic! The Court is saying two things. The first is that Congress can ban or tax your vegetable garden because it means you aren't buying food at the store. Therefore, you are engaed in interstate commerse by not engaing in it. :o :o ???
But, wait, there's more, and its better than a bamboo steamer!
.They go on to say that Congress can regulate interstate commerce that it has banned., So basically, even though selling pot is illegal, by growing your own you are effecting interstate commerce by not patronizing your local dealer, which, by the way is a felony. WTF? :o :o :o
Tell me the justices weren't smoking something a lot more potent than pot.
-
Any one who tolerates this crap deserves to ride the cattle cars for "resettlement".
As for me, if a reasonable leader came forward and said "It's time to start killing these A holes, let the revolution begin", I might not be the first to join, but I damn sure would join.
-
I remember discovering the "liberty" that was taken with the interpretation of the Commerce clause when Rush Limbaugh touched on it and sent me searching. It sounded alot like FQ13....
WHOA! Now I'm scared! ;D
-
I'm currently reading "Unintended Consequences" by John Ross
(for more info http://www.downrange.tv/forum/index.php?topic=18237.0 )
There is one part where a Professional hunter who left the US in 1963 returns from Africa in 1993.
The individually small changes we have experienced in our lives hit him all at once.
It's to long to go into here and could spoil it for some.
If you have not read the book you must.
If you get 1/2 way through it with out being ready to kill every bastard in Washington and all state Capitals you are not really worthy of America.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez
Background
Alfonso Lopez, Jr. was a 12th grade student at Edison High School in San Antonio, Texas. On March 10, 1992 he carried a concealed .38 caliber revolver, along with five cartridges,[1] into the school. He was confronted by school authorities[2] and admitted to having the weapon. The next day, he was charged with violation of the federal[3] Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 (the "Act"), 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)[4]
Lopez moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that §922(q) of the Act was "unconstitutional as it is beyond the power of Congress to legislate control over our public schools." The trial court denied the motion, ruling that §922(q) was "a constitutional exercise of Congress' well defined power to regulate activities in and affecting commerce, and the 'business' of elementary, middle and high schools . . . affects interstate commerce."
Lopez was tried and convicted. He appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, claiming that §922(q) exceeded Congress' power to legislate under the Commerce Clause. The Fifth Circuit agreed and reversed his conviction, holding that "section 922(q), in the full reach of its terms, is invalid as beyond the power of Congress[5] under the Commerce Clause."
The Government petitioned[6] for Supreme Court review and the Court accepted the case.
To sustain the Act, the Government was obligated[7] to show that §922(q) was a valid exercise of the Congressional Commerce Clause power, i.e. that the section regulated a matter which "affected" (or "substantially affected"[8]) interstate commerce.[9]
The Government's principal argument was that the possession of a firearm in an educational environment would most likely lead to a violent crime, which in turn would affect the general economic condition in two ways. First, because violent crime causes harm and creates expense, it raises insurance costs, which are spread throughout the economy; and second, by limiting the willingness to travel in the area perceived to be unsafe. The Government also argued that the presence of firearms within a school would be seen as dangerous, resulting in students' being scared and disturbed; this would, in turn, inhibit learning; and this, in turn, would lead to a weaker national economy since education is clearly a crucial element of the nation's financial health.
The Court, however, found these arguments to create a dangerous slippery slope: what would prevent the federal government from then regulating any activity that might lead to violent crime, regardless of its connection to interstate commerce, because it imposed social costs? What would prevent Congress from regulating any activity that might bear on a person's economic productivity?[10]
[edit] Supreme Court decision
In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. It held that while Congress had broad lawmaking authority under the Commerce Clause, the power was limited, and did not extend so far from "commerce" as to authorize the regulation of the carrying of handguns, especially when there was no evidence that carrying them affected the economy on a massive scale.[11]
Chief Justice Rehnquist, delivering the opinion of the Court, identified the three broad categories of activity that Congress could regulate under the Commerce Clause:
the channels of interstate commerce,
the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce,[12] and
activities that substantially affect or substantially relate to interstate commerce[13]
The Court summarily dismissed any consideration of the first two categories and concluded that the resolution of the case depended only on consideration of the third category—regulation of activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. The Court essentially concluded that in no way was the carrying of handguns a commercial activity or even related to any sort of economic enterprise, even under the most extravagant definitions.[14]
The opinion rejected the government's argument that because crime negatively impacted education Congress might have reasonably concluded that crime in schools substantially affects commerce.
The Court reasoned that if Congress could regulate something so far removed from commerce, then it could regulate anything, and since the Constitution clearly creates Congress as a body with enumerated powers, this could not be so. Rehnquist concluded:
To uphold the Government's contentions here, we have to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort retained by the States. Admittedly, some of our prior cases have taken long steps down that road, giving great deference to congressional action. The broad language in these opinions has suggested the possibility of additional expansion, but we decline here to proceed any further. To do so would require us to conclude that the Constitution's enumeration of powers does not presuppose something not enumerated, and that there never will be a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local. This we are unwilling to do.
The Court specifically looked to four factors in determining whether legislation represents a valid effort to use the Commerce Clause power to regulate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce:
Whether the activity was non-economic as opposed to economic activity; previous cases involved economic activity.
Jurisdictional element: whether the gun had moved in interstate commerce.
Whether there had been Congressional findings of an economic link between guns and education.
How attenuated the link was between the regulated activity and interstate commerce.
It is important to note that although the ruling stopped a decades-long trend of inclusiveness under the commerce clause, it did not reverse any past ruling about the meaning of the clause. Later, Rehnquist stated that the Court had the duty to prevent the legislative branch from usurping state powers over policing the conduct of their citizens. He admitted that the Supreme Court had upheld certain governmental steps towards taking power away from the states, and cited Lopez as a decision that finally stepped in to check the government's authority by defining clearly between state and federal powers.[15]
MORE AT LINK
-
Well, on the bright side, it continues to serve its purpose of letting them lock up blacks and Mexicans.
keyboard warning would of been nice
now I have to go and clean the screens and my desk for spitting out FUIC all over them
hahah classic
-
keyboard warning would of been nice
now I have to go and clean the screens and my desk for spitting out FUIC all over them
hahah classic
That's no joke Phil.
Up until it was classed as a drug Farmers were paid a subsidy to grow hemp.
It was the middle of the Depression the only ones who smoked weed were blacks and Mexicans, so they criminalized that as well so they could lock up more of them and free up jobs for whites.
Like anti concealed carry laws it was nothing but another "Jim Crow Law".