Future of Prop 19 in California

Quantum Windbag

Gold Member
May 9, 2010
58,308
5,099
245
To put it simply, prison terms for everyone Holder can get his grubby little paws on.

Attorney General Eric Holder is warning that the federal government will not look the other way, as it has with medical marijuana, if voters next month make California the first state to legalize pot. Marijuana is illegal under federal law, which drug agents will "vigorously enforce" against anyone carrying, growing or selling it, Holder said.
The comments in a letter to ex-federal drug enforcement chiefs were the attorney general's most direct statement yet against Proposition 19 and sets up another showdown with California over marijuana if the measure passes.
With Prop 19 leading in the polls, the letter also raised questions about the extent to which federal drug agents would go into communities across the state to catch small-time users and dealers, or whether they even had the resources to do it.


washingtonpost.com

The one thing I keep telling my friends is that there is no way the feds can let this law stand unchallenged. If the people who are planning on building that massive warehouse/greenhouse in Oakland ever build the thing it will be raided before it opens its doors.
 
since when can the federal government tell the states what to do?
nowhere in the Constitution is any police power or jurisdiction over criminal law other than that regarding treason and counterfeiting given to the federal government. if the feds try it california should sue under the 10th amendment
 
since when can the federal government tell the states what to do?
nowhere in the Constitution is any police power or jurisdiction over criminal law other than that regarding treason and counterfeiting given to the federal government. if the feds try it california should sue under the 10th amendment

You better reread your COTUS. Federal law supersedes state law PERIOD.
 
The Feds, technically, can still raid and arrest anyone in violation of Federal law, and Prop 19 doesn't change the Federal drug laws (there should be no Federal drug laws to begin with, imo). Marijuana is, stupidly, still a Schedule 1 drug in the CSA.

Remember when Holder said they weren't going to raid medical marijuana facilities anymore? State laws on that would be respected, even though Federal law makes no medical exception for weed or any other Schedule 1 drug.

So that makes me question how he squares these two positions together. They won't raid medical marijuana facilities legalized by the state, facilities that are a violation of Federal law; but they will raid shops and growers legalized by the state, facilities that are also a violation of Federal law.

:confused:
 
since when can the federal government tell the states what to do?
nowhere in the Constitution is any police power or jurisdiction over criminal law other than that regarding treason and counterfeiting given to the federal government. if the feds try it california should sue under the 10th amendment

Missed that little dust up in the middle 1800's and the so called reconstruction that followed?

D.C. has the guns and the troops. The states get to do what D.C. allows them to do.
 
since when can the federal government tell the states what to do?
nowhere in the Constitution is any police power or jurisdiction over criminal law other than that regarding treason and counterfeiting given to the federal government. if the feds try it california should sue under the 10th amendment

You better reread your COTUS. Federal law supersedes state law PERIOD.

So what part of the Constitution gives the Federal government the authority to ban marijuana?
 
since when can the federal government tell the states what to do?
nowhere in the Constitution is any police power or jurisdiction over criminal law other than that regarding treason and counterfeiting given to the federal government. if the feds try it california should sue under the 10th amendment

You better reread your COTUS. Federal law supersedes state law PERIOD.

So what part of the Constitution gives the Federal government the authority to ban marijuana?
Doesn't exist, but then, when has that ever mattered?
 
If you people are serious about state's rights then you need to man up and prepare to resist federal tyranny by any means possible even if this eventually means federal workers in police state sponsored dragnets have to be targetted for violence. This of course should be a last resort effort but it will undoudbtedly come to frutition and it has little to do with drugs. This is the same government that actually came frighteningly near making DXM, the active ingredient in Robitussin and mild hallucinigenic, a schedule 1 drug and would have undoubtedly done so if there had been any reasonable substitution.
 
since when can the federal government tell the states what to do?
nowhere in the Constitution is any police power or jurisdiction over criminal law other than that regarding treason and counterfeiting given to the federal government. if the feds try it california should sue under the 10th amendment

You better reread your COTUS. Federal law supersedes state law PERIOD.

So what part of the Constitution gives the Federal government the authority to ban marijuana?

I think they stuffed it under the commerce clause, like they do everything else.
 
since when can the federal government tell the states what to do?
nowhere in the Constitution is any police power or jurisdiction over criminal law other than that regarding treason and counterfeiting given to the federal government. if the feds try it california should sue under the 10th amendment

What country do YOU live in?
 
Marijuana is for DOPES, only DOPES SMOKE DOPE.

I know. I used to be a DOPE back in the 60's & 70's when dope was $10 for a wt. ounce of shake.

Dope can be very psychologically addicting & worse for you than tobacco.

Another sign that LIBERALS are STUPID.
 
Marijuana is for DOPES, only DOPES SMOKE DOPE.

I know. I used to be a DOPE back in the 60's & 70's when dope was $10 for a wt. ounce of shake.

Dope can be very psychologically addicting & worse for you than tobacco.

Another sign that LIBERALS are STUPID.

True, very true.
 
To put it simply, prison terms for everyone Holder can get his grubby little paws on.

Attorney General Eric Holder is warning that the federal government will not look the other way, as it has with medical marijuana, if voters next month make California the first state to legalize pot. Marijuana is illegal under federal law, which drug agents will "vigorously enforce" against anyone carrying, growing or selling it, Holder said.
The comments in a letter to ex-federal drug enforcement chiefs were the attorney general's most direct statement yet against Proposition 19 and sets up another showdown with California over marijuana if the measure passes.
With Prop 19 leading in the polls, the letter also raised questions about the extent to which federal drug agents would go into communities across the state to catch small-time users and dealers, or whether they even had the resources to do it.


washingtonpost.com

The one thing I keep telling my friends is that there is no way the feds can let this law stand unchallenged. If the people who are planning on building that massive warehouse/greenhouse in Oakland ever build the thing it will be raided before it opens its doors.

Cuz this is important.:rolleyes:
 
The fact is the Federal Government has no legs to stand on legally when it comes to banning weed. In fact they had to get around the constitution when they did it. They did an end around by saying the were "regulating commerce" when the passed the stamp act. Which essentially said you can own, sell and use Pot, but you have to buy a stamp from the government to do so. A stamp they never intended to sell you.
 
I think they stuffed it under the commerce clause, like they do everything else.

Then why didn't they just cite the Commerce Clause for Prohibition instead of amending the Constitution?

Because the Feds have become shadier douches than they were in the 30s. I think the commerce clause has been progressively expanded by the Court since then.

Marijuana isn't "technically" banned by the Feds. You can legally grow and/or smoke it if you have a permit and do all the reporting paperwork and pay all the fees. This regulation is constitutional under the commerce clause, apparently... even if there's no interstate exchange of value. :doubt:

No Clause for Celebration - Reason Magazine
In addition to shifting the burden of justification from the government to the individual, the Supreme Court's expansive reading of the Commerce Clause shifts the balance of power between the federal government and the states. As Justice Sandra Day O'Connor noted in her dissent, California's decision to allow the medical use of marijuana is a clear example of the policy experimentation federalism is supposed to allow.
The majority correctly worried that to rule otherwise would jeopardize the Controlled Substances Act, since a similar logic would apply to local production and possession of marijuana (and other drugs) for recreational use. As Thomas noted, "No evidence from the founding suggests that 'commerce' included the mere possession of a good or some purely personal activity that did not involve trade or exchange for value. In the early days of the Republic, it would have been unthinkable that Congress could prohibit the local cultivation, possession, and consumption of marijuana."

To ban marijuana, Congress should have amended the Constitution through the arduous process prescribed by the Framers, just as it did when it banned alcohol. Instead it has amended the Constitution through legislative assertion and judicial acquiescence.
 
I think they stuffed it under the commerce clause, like they do everything else.

Then why didn't they just cite the Commerce Clause for Prohibition instead of amending the Constitution?

Because the Feds have become shadier douches than they were in the 30s. I think the commerce clause has been progressively expanded by the Court since then.

Marijuana isn't "technically" banned by the Feds. You can legally grow and/or smoke it if you have a permit and do all the reporting paperwork and pay all the fees. This regulation is constitutional under the commerce clause, apparently... even if there's no interstate exchange of value. :doubt:

No Clause for Celebration - Reason Magazine
In addition to shifting the burden of justification from the government to the individual, the Supreme Court's expansive reading of the Commerce Clause shifts the balance of power between the federal government and the states. As Justice Sandra Day O'Connor noted in her dissent, California's decision to allow the medical use of marijuana is a clear example of the policy experimentation federalism is supposed to allow.
The majority correctly worried that to rule otherwise would jeopardize the Controlled Substances Act, since a similar logic would apply to local production and possession of marijuana (and other drugs) for recreational use. As Thomas noted, "No evidence from the founding suggests that 'commerce' included the mere possession of a good or some purely personal activity that did not involve trade or exchange for value. In the early days of the Republic, it would have been unthinkable that Congress could prohibit the local cultivation, possession, and consumption of marijuana."

To ban marijuana, Congress should have amended the Constitution through the arduous process prescribed by the Framers, just as it did when it banned alcohol. Instead it has amended the Constitution through legislative assertion and judicial acquiescence.

ANY narcotic is technically legal if you have the correct permission. That's why pharmos can produce cocaine, heroin, and what have you. For that matter the same can be said for deadly viruses.
 
Marijuana is for DOPES, only DOPES SMOKE DOPE.

I know. I used to be a DOPE back in the 60's & 70's when dope was $10 for a wt. ounce of shake.

Dope can be very psychologically addicting & worse for you than tobacco.

Another sign that LIBERALS are STUPID.

It can't be as dumb as the mandatory sentencing laws against growing a plant less dangerous than alcohol.

It's just not possible.
 

Forum List

Back
Top