Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Marijuana was 100% legal until the early 20th century and was not federally banned until 1937. Both Jefferson and Washington grew the stuff.
Correct.
And the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act was declared unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court in US v. Leary (as in Timothy...)
The current Controlled Substances Act that forbids marijuana on the federal level depends upon Wickard v. Fillburn's overbroad interpretation of the Commerce Clause to be enforceable. If the SCOTUS strikes down Obamacare it may strike down Wickard in the process. Then the feds will have no authority to ban it.
And the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act was declared unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court in US v. Leary (as in Timothy...)
The current Controlled Substances Act that forbids marijuana on the federal level depends upon Wickard v. Fillburn's overbroad interpretation of the Commerce Clause to be enforceable. If the SCOTUS strikes down Obamacare it may strike down Wickard in the process. Then the feds will have no authority to ban it.
I doubt it. The court has already addressed the validity of the CSA in Gonzalez v. Raich. If the overturn the ACA it is because Scalia is a political hack who has a different view of the Constitution depending on if gays/drugs are involved. I would not put much a much deeper interpretation into it then that.
I doubt it the court has already addressed the validity of the CSA in Gonzalez v. Raich. If the overturn the ACA it is because Scalia is a political hack who has a different view of the constitution depending on if Gays/drugs are involved and I would not put much a much deeper interpretation into it then that.
Gonzales v. Raich is based on the interpretation of the commerce clause put forth in Wickard.
It's ironic that the feds' argument to defend Obamacare is based on Scalia's opinion in Gonzales v. Raich. If they overturn the ACA they'd also overturn Gonzales v. Raich as well
Gonzales v. Raich is based on the interpretation of the commerce clause put forth in Wickard.
It's ironic that the feds' argument to defend Obamacare is based on Scalia's opinion in Gonzales v. Raich. If they overturn the ACA they'd also overturn Gonzales v. Raich as well
I don't think so. Just like Gonzalez did not overturn Morrison or Lopez. As I said if the court overturns it I think they, and by they I mean Scalia, will find a BS way to distinguish it.
If income tax revenues keep falling, and the economy worsens, it will be. It is no coincidence support for the War on Drugs is weakening due to the current economy.
Supporters of legalization just ousted a veteran Texas Congressman and the Attorney General of Oregon for supporting the war on drugs. If more drug warriors lose their offices than politicians will change their tunes.
Correction. The guy who lost the AG race was, in fact, not the current attorney general. He's a federal prosecutor who went on a crusade against medical marijuana in the state. It was nice to see him soundly defeated, though!
All these burn-outs need to realize. They will never be able to go and buy this crap and smoke it legally.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.