DEA, Pot $, Tobacco Giants & Taxes: A Head-On Collision Coming?

[Silhouette]

Well you have pot illegal federally, but Big Tobacco lining up to mass produce it in "legal" states for recreation. One can assume such mass-production is in anticipation of export to other states where it's illegal still. (You know if all legal states are producing more than they themselves can consume). With all the laws in place banning tobacco companies from undue influence on states' minors particularly, where is this going?

And, would a state have the right to sue another state for overproduction/anticipation of export to states who respect the federal laws on controlled substances?

Why are we still spending money in Mexico to suppress pot growing there?

When it comes to filing taxes for profits on mass production of pot, say at $10 an ounce or so (when the market floods accordingly), will BigTobacco be able to file federal tax reports that claim profits from the production of a substance used for recreation that is federally banned in all 50 states? That would be like BigTobacco filing federal taxes from profits of violating the MANN Act or other such federal crimes.

And, if these few states that have legalized recreational use of pot (using the farce of "for medical purposes" to shoehorn the door open for recreational...not fooling anyone..), perhaps tolerating the intolerable because their in financial hot water and seek to make a boon off the trade before it floods and there's no money in it, are their intentions really truly expressed with respect to disobeying federal law? Can we allow any state to pass any law it likes regardless of federal restrictions, just to make a fast buck off of degrading the collective social fabric of the entire nation? Is this what the economic crash has turned our states into? A bunch of pimps and whores?

Discuss.

 

[Silhouette]

Here's one to add to the discussion with regards to state vs federal legality of a federally controlled substance. And, fodder for one state to sue another for overproduction of a federally illegal substance (obviously/intently) meant for export to other states.

The Commerce Clause vs the 10th Amendment (Federal vs State Powers to Regulate Controlled Substances)

OK, let's parse it out.

Commerce Clause

The Commerce Clause refers to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.”.....The Constitution enumerates certain powers for the federal government. The Tenth Amendment provides that any powers that are not delegated to Congress by the Constitution are reserved for the states. Congress has often used the Commerce Clause to justify exercising legislative power over the activities of states and their citizens, leading to significant and ongoing controversy regarding the balance of power between the federal government and the states........The Commerce Clause has historically been viewed as both a grant of congressional authority and as a restriction on the regulatory authority of the States. The “dormant” Commerce Clause refers to the prohibition, implicit in the Commerce Clause, against states passing legislation that discriminates against or excessively burdens interstate commerce.

Long story short, the Commerce Clause acts with the 10th Amendment in a push and pull of debate on what constitutes states' rights and federal dominance to regulate commerce.

So as with any debate, one has to go back to the intent of the authors of said clauses to parse out what the law means today. I suspect and would argue that the original authors of the commerce clause wanted to regulate commerce as a form of perserving the delicate balance of the Union. In fact it could be said that the founding fathers wisely wrote limited federal powers to only address such situations where overweening states must be curbed in order to protect and preserve the stability and longevity of the Union as a whole.

Allowing one state to overproduce an intoxicating substance that always finds its way into the hands of children of other states would be a direct and provable threat to such stability. Therefore, the FDA is a viable and dominant unit over states when it comes to controlled intoxicating substances. An intoxicated Union is a vulnerable Union. The 10th Amendment would not provide a weighty enough argument for "recreational" illegal drug trade some states are currently involved with...to try to dig themselves out of poverty... Convenience cannot be a reason to destabilize the country.

 

[RodISHI]

I thought it was Monsanto making the push to get cashed in on the great Pot fiasco? Commerce has been used as an excuse for everything pushed under the sun in an attempt to control the masses, prohibition didn't work. Why not just leave adults that grow Pot or any other herb for themselves alone and go after the Cartels and those who provide access of intoxicating substances to children? Lots of legislators, attorneys and other professionals of all kinds do a lot harder drugs that Pot if you were not aware of that. Legalize it, then regulate and tax the shit out of it more than alcohol is. They haven't and will not stop people from seeking relief or a high via drugs or alcohol as it cannot be done by force but through education, a more intelligent society with a solid ethical and moral foundation which hasn't seemed to be the goal for many years by all concerned. If society was truly concerned about the health and well being of the society as a whole it would get rid of fluoridated water, stop giving children government approved toxic substances for profit, quit poisoning the entire population with pharmaceuticals and chemicals at every turn and all the other garbage that is being approved by the FDA and EPA in the name of commerce for profit and control.

 

[Silhouette]

I thought it was Monsanto making the push to get cashed in on the great Pot fiasco? Commerce has been used as an excuse for everything pushed under the sun in an attempt to control the masses, prohibition didn't work. Why not just leave adults that grow Pot or any other herb for themselves alone and go after the Cartels and those who provide access of intoxicating substances to children? Lots of legislators, attorneys and other professionals of all kinds do a lot harder drugs that Pot if you were not aware of that. Legalize it, then regulate and tax the shit out of it more than alcohol is. They haven't and will not stop people from seeking relief or a high via drugs or alcohol as it cannot be done by force but through education, a more intelligent society with a solid ethical and moral foundation which hasn't seemed to be the goal for many years by all concerned. If society was truly concerned about the health and well being of the society as a whole it would get rid of fluoridated water, stop giving children government approved toxic substances for profit, quit poisoning the entire population with pharmaceuticals and chemicals at every turn and all the other garbage that is being approved by the FDA and EPA in the name of commerce for profit and control.

We agree that there have been many lapses and purchased-blindness to the preservation of the Union via the Commerce Clause. But is the solution to do this even more to the detriment of the Union? I think not. There must be a point at where we draw the line.

Your argument taken to its extreme means that there should be zero federal regulation on Commerce. If that complete suspension results in the detriment to the Union, then that argument is the same as sedition.

 

[RodISHI]

I thought it was Monsanto making the push to get cashed in on the great Pot fiasco? Commerce has been used as an excuse for everything pushed under the sun in an attempt to control the masses, prohibition didn't work. Why not just leave adults that grow Pot or any other herb for themselves alone and go after the Cartels and those who provide access of intoxicating substances to children? Lots of legislators, attorneys and other professionals of all kinds do a lot harder drugs that Pot if you were not aware of that. Legalize it, then regulate and tax the shit out of it more than alcohol is. They haven't and will not stop people from seeking relief or a high via drugs or alcohol as it cannot be done by force but through education, a more intelligent society with a solid ethical and moral foundation which hasn't seemed to be the goal for many years by all concerned. If society was truly concerned about the health and well being of the society as a whole it would get rid of fluoridated water, stop giving children government approved toxic substances for profit, quit poisoning the entire population with pharmaceuticals and chemicals at every turn and all the other garbage that is being approved by the FDA and EPA in the name of commerce for profit and control.

We agree that there have been many lapses and purchased-blindness to the preservation of the Union via the Commerce Clause. But is the solution to do this even more to the detriment of the Union? I think not. There must be a point at where we draw the line.

Your argument taken to its extreme means that there should be zero federal regulation on Commerce. If that complete suspension results in the detriment to the Union, then that argument is the same as sedition.

What you continue to allow the regulatory agency ignore the fact that the current commerce agenda is doing more harm than good to the people of the Union? Sedition already took place years ago and the people are obviously just now awakening to see the massive damage that it has caused.

 

[Silhouette]

What you continue to allow the regulatory agency ignore the fact that the current commerce agenda is doing more harm than good to the people of the Union? Sedition already took place years ago and the people are obviously just now awakening to see the massive damage that it has caused.

See, this is where you and I disagree. I say it's harmful to promote and allow the mind-hazing of multiple generations of "it's all good!" Americans to the detriment of the Union. It's a matter of national security. Our wealth is what makes us strong. Knock that down with a multi-generational populace of lazy drug addicts and you might as well sign the Deed for the USA over to Russia and China.

So, federally regulated drug use "recreationally" is in fact promoting the best status quo for the US's national security. The FDA has its good and sound reasons for curbing strong mind-altering drugs for use recreationally.

 

[RodISHI]

What you continue to allow the regulatory agency ignore the fact that the current commerce agenda is doing more harm than good to the people of the Union? Sedition already took place years ago and the people are obviously just now awakening to see the massive damage that it has caused.

See, this is where you and I disagree. I say it's harmful to promote and allow the mind-hazing of multiple generations of "it's all good!" Americans to the detriment of the Union. It's a matter of national security. Our wealth is what makes us strong. Knock that down with a multi-generational populace of lazy drug addicts and you might as well sign the Deed for the USA over to Russia and China.

So, federally regulated drug use "recreationally" is in fact promoting the best status quo for the US's national security. The FDA has its good and sound reasons for curbing strong mind-altering drugs for use recreationally.

I did not say "It's all good!" I said people are going to do these things and they are going to make choices to do them. That is in no way promoting being addicted to alcohol or pharmaceuticals. I said that there will be people go there and try it out looking for relief. You can lead a horse to a clean source of water but if its used to drinking from the mud hole it may reject the good clean water source and go right back to that mud hole to get a drink. Jesus never said to take anything by forcing it on people and yet that is what some people think they have the right to do and that may make those who claim they are free more adamant to do the dirty verses try to avoid it whatever it may be. Pharmaceuticals are also regulated and yet some of them are doing more damage than ever as those companies work to profit off of other peoples miseries and their hopes of getting or feeling better. The best thing to do is give people choices and let them know what they may be giving up if they take the addiction route. Most generally if they have a better choice they will take it. Not always but most generally if they have a solid foundation. "As a matter of national security" does not cut it in a land based on liberty. That is a fascist mindset for the country I love and is something I will never agree with anymore than forcing a child to be sexualized in public schools or anywhere else.