Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz
Hell if I know; I am not a lawyer. But if the US Constitution is being shredded. somebody should have standing to do something about it. Otherwise why do we have a Constitution?
|
The Constitution was shredded when the Supreme Court upheld the federal government's contention that they could use the Commerce Clause to prohibit cannabis production, distribution, or even freely giving it away
within a state. The "logic" is that even if all the activity is within a state, and even if no money changes hands, that production, distribution, or give away, still affects the interstate market. How there can be an interstate market in an illegal substance was not addressed, as far as I know. There is no Constitutional Amendment that was ever passed that legitimizes the prohibition of cannabis federally.
I don't think Fife has a case in County Court (a state court), which is where this case is going to be tried, on the merits of the state regulation program, or the legality of cannabis in their state. They are trying to say that municipal statues can negate state law. They are also saying that Federal law negates state law. I don't think that will fly in a state court. The State Attorney General has said he is adding himself to these cases to make sure that state law is both, interpreted properly, and that the laws of the state, and the will of the people, are upheld, which he is required to do.
Some attorneys in the state have interpreted the law to mean that that local communities can restrict where a dispensary can be located, but can not ban it outright. The State Attorney General disagrees and says he believes cities and counties can ban dispensary locations. I don't think he is right, despite the fact that in Colorado, cities and towns do have that right (there it is expressly written in the law). If his opinion prevails, then theoretically, all the counties in the state could ban dispensary locations and the will of the people, who overwhelmingly voted for cannabis regulation, would have been negated.
The Federal Attorney General has stated in a letter that as long as states abide by federal priorities, such as keeping it out of the hands of minors, not allowing interstate distribution, etc., that the Feds will let states "experiment" with alternatives to the Drug War. However, the Feds, in the same letter say that should they see evidence that their priorities are not being met, that they reserve the possibility of intervention in any state, as the Federal Controlled Substances Act remains in full force.
There is precedent for this. During the Clinton Administration, before the federal welfare system was overhauled, several states were given permission to experiment with different models of welfare using federally allocated funds.
So Fife does have a case, but the only viable case they have is a zoning case. Opinion is mixed on whether they will win or lose.
I'm not a lawyer either, but that is what some lawyers in the state are saying about this development. It will be interesting to see if the state court agrees.
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.
really, it's not the end of civilization
