Marijuana: States Rights vs Federal rights (Harry Reid, Iraq, middle east, enemy)

[jwm1964]

Originally Posted by Pretzelogik

Of all the "states rights" that the Feds have tromped upon over the decades, MJ smoking would be way down my list priorities.

I tend to agree with you but I mention this one as it is the current issue that has been thrown down as a gauntlet. There is currently a contest going on between Congress and the Administration over this issue.

Ron Paul and Barney Frank (A Rep & Dem) co-sponsored a bill to decriminalize marijuana at the Federal Level further paving the way for States to legalize and regulate marijuana.

The Administration reply was to reverse it's position of not legally pursuing state legalization/regulation of marijuana to make it a priority to begin targetting medical marijuana dispensaries for prosecution.

So yes, I agree in the grand scheme of things this issue may not be the most critical however it is the current issue in which this battle is being played out.

[saganista]

Originally Posted by jwm1964

What is the rationale for the Power to Regulate Commerce?

Evidently, a better one than that for not regulating trade. The Commerce Clause merely extends and generalizes language from the Articles of Confederation confirming the federal role as sole and exlusive adjudicator of disputes between the states and establishing the federal government as properly occupied in the setting of standards and limits related to trade. In their own words, the rationale for that was to help "secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this Union".

[saganista]

Originally Posted by jwm1964

I tend to agree with you but I mention this one as it is the current issue that has been thrown down as a gauntlet. There is currently a contest going on between Congress and the Administration over this issue. Ron Paul and Barney Frank (A Rep & Dem) co-sponsored a bill to decriminalize marijuana at the Federal Level further paving the way for States to legalize and regulate marijuana. The Administration reply was to reverse it's position of not legally pursuing state legalization/regulation of marijuana to make it a priority to begin targetting medical marijuana dispensaries for prosecution. So yes, I agree in the grand scheme of things this issue may not be the most critical however it is the current issue in which this battle is being played out.

Over-reaction to propaganda? Obama's original policy was to instruct US attorneys not to focus investigative resources on patients and health care providers of medical marijuana. As more states have passed medical marijuana laws, some have sought to license commercial production of such marijuana on a scale of millions of dollars worth, theoretically much more than what the state's legitimate medical users could possibly consume. Such activity has never been covered by any previous policy and is illegal under federal law. The bill sponsored by Paul and Frank has been under discussion for some time, but it was introduced just last month. Letters from DOJ to state AG's have been going out since last year, all but once in response to a state's request for clarification of federal policy, and each time noting that individuals involved in such large-sclae commercial production might be liable to criminal prosecution. Not patients. Not health care providers. Just those involved in the sort of large-scale cultivation and distribution schemes that some state laws seem to have engendered proposals for.

[jwm1964]

Originally Posted by saganista

Evidently, a better one than that for not regulating trade. The Commerce Clause merely extends and generalizes language from the Articles of Confederation confirming the federal role as sole and exlusive adjudicator of disputes between the states and establishing the federal government as properly occupied in the setting of standards and limits related to trade. In their own words, the rationale for that was to help "secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this Union".

This sounds more like an intent to facilitate and arbitrate rather than to supercede and micro-manage. Another example of Federalism taking whatever opportunity it can to expand it's role and power.

[jwm1964]

Originally Posted by saganista

Over-reaction to propaganda? Obama's original policy was to instruct US attorneys not to focus investigative resources on patients and health care providers of medical marijuana. As more states have passed medical marijuana laws, some have sought to license commercial production of such marijuana on a scale of millions of dollars worth, theoretically much more than what the state's legitimate medical users could possibly consume. Such activity has never been covered by any previous policy and is illegal under federal law. The bill sponsored by Paul and Frank has been under discussion for some time, but it was introduced just last month. Letters from DOJ to state AG's have been going out since last year, all but once in response to a state's request for clarification of federal policy, and each time noting that individuals involved in such large-sclae commercial production might be liable to criminal prosecution. Not patients. Not health care providers. Just those involved in the sort of large-scale cultivation and distribution schemes that some state laws seem to have engendered proposals for.

You state over reaction to propoganda then postulate that medicinal users are not targets of prosecution. Could you please explain this to medicinal users who are currently incarcerated? And as far as producers, as long as they are abiding by State Regulation, why should the Federal Government intervene unless of course they wish to determine how much money people should or shouldn't be able to make.

[saganista]

Originally Posted by jwm1964

This sounds more like an intent to facilitate and arbitrate rather than to supercede and micro-manage. Another example of Federalism taking whatever opportunity it can to expand it's role and power.

LOL. If so, it happend in the 18th century and was accomplished among the men we revere today as our founding fathers. Quite obviously, one of the major hallmarks of any political union is the leveling of trade barriers and policy disharmonies between members. You don't want New Jersey placing tariffs on goods imported from New York, and you don't want Charleston trying to sink ships that are headed for Baltimore. You prevent that by making the federal government responsible for regulating foreign and interstate commerce, which is what the founders did.

[jwm1964]

Originally Posted by saganista

LOL. If so, it happend in the 18th century and was accomplished among the men we revere today as our founding fathers. Quite obviously, one of the major hallmarks of any political union is the leveling of trade barriers and policy disharmonies between members. You don't want New Jersey placing tariffs on goods imported from New York, and you don't want Charleston trying to sink ships that are headed for Baltimore. You prevent that by making the federal government responsible for regulating foreign and interstate commerce, which is what the founders did.

so it originally did work to facilitate and arbitrate disputes between states.
nice.

[saganista]

Originally Posted by jwm1964

You state over reaction to propoganda then postulate that medicinal users are not targets of prosecution. Could you please explain this to medicinal users who are currently incarcerated?

I am aware of several cases of legitimate medical marijuana users and providers having been jailed, sometimes through unscrupulous prosecution, but none since 2009, which is when Obama -- the apparent focus of your present anger -- took office. There has been no change in the existing policy related to non-prosecution of patients and health-care providers in response to the Frank-Paul bill, or in response to anything else. All there has been is letters to state and local law enforcement officials who had sought clarification of federal policy regarding potential state and local licensing of commercial producers of medical marijuana. End of story.

Originally Posted by jwm1964

And as far as producers, as long as they are abiding by State Regulation, why should the Federal Government intervene unless of course they wish to determine how much money people should or shouldn't be able to make.

The Supremacy Clause makes federal law in general superior to state law. States are not permitted to act in subversion of legitimate federal law. What Raich decided was that federal efforts to control trade in marijuana were legitimate, and that even though the cultivation and distribution of the marijuana considered in that case was purely intrastate, it compromised federal ability to carry out its legitimate purposes, and the state law that permitted it therefore could not stand. You may disagree on the facts of the case, but the law is pretty clear.

[saganista]

Originally Posted by jwm1964

so it originally did work to facilitate and arbitrate disputes between states. nice.

Just "other words" for "regulating commerce between the several states". That power is vested by the Constitution in the Congress, as it was by the Articles of Confederation, as it would have been by any sensible group of people trying to organize a nation from a bunch of sometimes disputatious colonies.

[jwm1964]

Originally Posted by saganista

Just "other words" for "regulating commerce between the several states". That power is vested by the Constitution in the Congress, as it was by the Articles of Confederation, as it would have been by any sensible group of people trying to organize a nation from a bunch of sometimes disputatious colonies.

I don't see where we disagree?