Oregon Lawsuit Sparks A Brawl Of Pot In State vs Federal Law

[Silhouette]

State of Oregon sued to restrict commercial marijuana operations
State of Oregon sued to restrict commercial marijuana operations

SALEM -- Officials in an Oregon county who have tried to restrict commercial marijuana production sued the state in federal court, asserting state laws that made pot legal are pre-empted by federal law that criminalize it.,...The lawsuit filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court escalated a long-running battle between the state and the Josephine County Board of Commissioners.

The panel says pot farms are a nuisance.

And this:

The lawsuit by the commission contends the state cannot dictate marijuana regulations over county restrictions because marijuana remains illegal under the federal Controlled Substances Act.

Now imagine lady justice, her hands grasping the balancing scales while her eyes are blindfolded. Who do you think will prevail on this suit as it makes its way to the USSC? (Hint: The USSC would have to gut the power of the FDA, and also Congress who regulates the FDA in order to find for the defendants).

When doing something that is federally illegal, it's kind of sticky on who gets to call authority. And it's dangerous too. Because when pretending to authorize with authority, something in favor of a federally-illegal act, one can be found guilty of conspiracy to violate federal law oneself. Especially as an authority figure it can even collect overtones of sedition or treason.

Vote in the poll

 

[Silhouette]

Hmmm... well this guy wants to not be held responsible for not doing due diligence when thinking of investing. What he did was high risk investing. But he's complaining as if it was low risk. (Same link as OP)

Pete Gendron, a marijuana grower in the county and president of the Oregon SunGrowers' Guild advocacy group, said the growers have invested large sums to start operations and were shocked when the county tried to restrict them.

Translation, "we were shocked to learn or high risk investment was a high risk investment!". Maybe they need a safe space with some milk and cookies to mull over their potential losses? Democrat states....

 

[g5000]

Oregon is flooded with independent breweries. It's a real thing there.

But don't grow pot! Tear down the pot plants and plant some hops!

 

[martybegan]

State of Oregon sued to restrict commercial marijuana operations
State of Oregon sued to restrict commercial marijuana operations

SALEM -- Officials in an Oregon county who have tried to restrict commercial marijuana production sued the state in federal court, asserting state laws that made pot legal are pre-empted by federal law that criminalize it.,...The lawsuit filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court escalated a long-running battle between the state and the Josephine County Board of Commissioners.

The panel says pot farms are a nuisance.

And this:

The lawsuit by the commission contends the state cannot dictate marijuana regulations over county restrictions because marijuana remains illegal under the federal Controlled Substances Act.

Now imagine lady justice, her hands grasping the balancing scales while her eyes are blindfolded. Who do you think will prevail on this suit as it makes its way to the USSC? (Hint: The USSC would have to gut the power of the FDA, and also Congress who regulates the FDA in order to find for the defendants).

When doing something that is federally illegal, it's kind of sticky on who gets to call authority. And it's dangerous too. Because when pretending to authorize with authority, something in favor of a federally-illegal act, one can be found guilty of conspiracy to violate federal law oneself. Especially as an authority figure it can even collect overtones of sedition or treason.

Vote in the poll

The Feds will wrongly prevail in this case until Congress gets off it's ass and allows pot to be treated like alcohol and have the States figure out how to handle it.

 

[Moonglow]

Oregon is flooded with independent breweries. It's a real thing there.

But don't grow pot! Tear down the pot plants and plant some hops!

It's bad, it doesn't kill enough people for all to prosper from it's production...

 

[Moonglow]

State of Oregon sued to restrict commercial marijuana operations
State of Oregon sued to restrict commercial marijuana operations

SALEM -- Officials in an Oregon county who have tried to restrict commercial marijuana production sued the state in federal court, asserting state laws that made pot legal are pre-empted by federal law that criminalize it.,...The lawsuit filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court escalated a long-running battle between the state and the Josephine County Board of Commissioners.

The panel says pot farms are a nuisance.

And this:

The lawsuit by the commission contends the state cannot dictate marijuana regulations over county restrictions because marijuana remains illegal under the federal Controlled Substances Act.

Now imagine lady justice, her hands grasping the balancing scales while her eyes are blindfolded. Who do you think will prevail on this suit as it makes its way to the USSC? (Hint: The USSC would have to gut the power of the FDA, and also Congress who regulates the FDA in order to find for the defendants).

When doing something that is federally illegal, it's kind of sticky on who gets to call authority. And it's dangerous too. Because when pretending to authorize with authority, something in favor of a federally-illegal act, one can be found guilty of conspiracy to violate federal law oneself. Especially as an authority figure it can even collect overtones of sedition or treason.

Vote in the poll

The Feds will wrongly prevail in this case until Congress gets off it's ass and allows pot to be treated like alcohol and have the States figure out how to handle it.

There's a little treaty that Nixon signed in 1970 that has to be voted on to codicil..

 

[Silhouette]

The Feds will wrongly prevail in this case until Congress gets off it's ass and allows pot to be treated like alcohol and have the States figure out how to handle it.

"wrongly prevail until Congress gets off its ass"? Actually, that would be rightly-prevailing since the courts would recognize that the only way for it to be legal would be for Congress to do something about it. Der. It would be wrong for the courts to find that federal law could be changed singularly in a few states. Federal legislation takes place in Congress, with all 50 states participating. Or didn't you pass American Government 101?.

 

[martybegan]

The Feds will wrongly prevail in this case until Congress gets off it's ass and allows pot to be treated like alcohol and have the States figure out how to handle it.

"wrongly prevail until Congress gets off its ass"? Actually, that would be rightly-prevailing since the courts would recognize that the only way for it to be legal would be for Congress to do something about it. Der. It would be wrong for the courts to find that federal law could be changed singularly in a few states. Federal legislation takes place in Congress, with all 50 states participating. Or didn't you pass American Government 101?.

Right by procedure, wrong by the original intent of the constitution. States should have priority in situations like this, in particular since another "intoxicating" substance is already delegated to the States via the 21st amendment.

The controlled substances act of 1970 give the feds control of drug legality, and unless challenged in Court and overturned overrides State legalizations.

 

[martybegan]

State of Oregon sued to restrict commercial marijuana operations
State of Oregon sued to restrict commercial marijuana operations

SALEM -- Officials in an Oregon county who have tried to restrict commercial marijuana production sued the state in federal court, asserting state laws that made pot legal are pre-empted by federal law that criminalize it.,...The lawsuit filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court escalated a long-running battle between the state and the Josephine County Board of Commissioners.

The panel says pot farms are a nuisance.

And this:

The lawsuit by the commission contends the state cannot dictate marijuana regulations over county restrictions because marijuana remains illegal under the federal Controlled Substances Act.

Now imagine lady justice, her hands grasping the balancing scales while her eyes are blindfolded. Who do you think will prevail on this suit as it makes its way to the USSC? (Hint: The USSC would have to gut the power of the FDA, and also Congress who regulates the FDA in order to find for the defendants).

When doing something that is federally illegal, it's kind of sticky on who gets to call authority. And it's dangerous too. Because when pretending to authorize with authority, something in favor of a federally-illegal act, one can be found guilty of conspiracy to violate federal law oneself. Especially as an authority figure it can even collect overtones of sedition or treason.

Vote in the poll

The Feds will wrongly prevail in this case until Congress gets off it's ass and allows pot to be treated like alcohol and have the States figure out how to handle it.

There's a little treaty that Nixon signed in 1970 that has to be voted on to codicil..

The Controlled Substances Act of 1970 is not a treaty, it is a law, one that should be amended to remove pot from Schedule I.

 

[Silhouette]

Right by procedure, wrong by the original intent of the constitution. States should have priority in situations like this, in particular since another "intoxicating" substance is already delegated to the States via the 21st amendment.

The controlled substances act of 1970 give the feds control of drug legality, and unless challenged in Court and overturned overrides State legalizations.

What if a state wants to legalize heroin? Imagine all the money that state could make producing too much heroin and clandestinely exporting it across its borders to other states? (part of what the fed will argue I'm sure.)

Alcohol was singled out by Congress for special treatment, twice. It wasn't a blanket amendment for any and all intoxicating substances. How does Congress parse out funds for suppression efforts in Mexico on pot growing and turn a blind eye to what's being done in the West and some East Coast states? It's OK to be a cartel state just not south of the border?

 

[Moonglow]

State of Oregon sued to restrict commercial marijuana operations
State of Oregon sued to restrict commercial marijuana operations

SALEM -- Officials in an Oregon county who have tried to restrict commercial marijuana production sued the state in federal court, asserting state laws that made pot legal are pre-empted by federal law that criminalize it.,...The lawsuit filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court escalated a long-running battle between the state and the Josephine County Board of Commissioners.

The panel says pot farms are a nuisance.

And this:

The lawsuit by the commission contends the state cannot dictate marijuana regulations over county restrictions because marijuana remains illegal under the federal Controlled Substances Act.

Now imagine lady justice, her hands grasping the balancing scales while her eyes are blindfolded. Who do you think will prevail on this suit as it makes its way to the USSC? (Hint: The USSC would have to gut the power of the FDA, and also Congress who regulates the FDA in order to find for the defendants).

When doing something that is federally illegal, it's kind of sticky on who gets to call authority. And it's dangerous too. Because when pretending to authorize with authority, something in favor of a federally-illegal act, one can be found guilty of conspiracy to violate federal law oneself. Especially as an authority figure it can even collect overtones of sedition or treason.

Vote in the poll

The Feds will wrongly prevail in this case until Congress gets off it's ass and allows pot to be treated like alcohol and have the States figure out how to handle it.

There's a little treaty that Nixon signed in 1970 that has to be voted on to codicil..

The Controlled Substances Act of 1970 is not a treaty, it is a law, one that should be amended to remove pot from Schedule I.

The one that was signed with the UN...

 

[martybegan]

State of Oregon sued to restrict commercial marijuana operations
State of Oregon sued to restrict commercial marijuana operations

SALEM -- Officials in an Oregon county who have tried to restrict commercial marijuana production sued the state in federal court, asserting state laws that made pot legal are pre-empted by federal law that criminalize it.,...The lawsuit filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court escalated a long-running battle between the state and the Josephine County Board of Commissioners.

The panel says pot farms are a nuisance.

And this:

The lawsuit by the commission contends the state cannot dictate marijuana regulations over county restrictions because marijuana remains illegal under the federal Controlled Substances Act.

Now imagine lady justice, her hands grasping the balancing scales while her eyes are blindfolded. Who do you think will prevail on this suit as it makes its way to the USSC? (Hint: The USSC would have to gut the power of the FDA, and also Congress who regulates the FDA in order to find for the defendants).

When doing something that is federally illegal, it's kind of sticky on who gets to call authority. And it's dangerous too. Because when pretending to authorize with authority, something in favor of a federally-illegal act, one can be found guilty of conspiracy to violate federal law oneself. Especially as an authority figure it can even collect overtones of sedition or treason.

Vote in the poll

The Feds will wrongly prevail in this case until Congress gets off it's ass and allows pot to be treated like alcohol and have the States figure out how to handle it.

There's a little treaty that Nixon signed in 1970 that has to be voted on to codicil..

The Controlled Substances Act of 1970 is not a treaty, it is a law, one that should be amended to remove pot from Schedule I.

The one that was signed with the UN...

You really think a government led by Trump would have an issue leaving a UN treaty?

 

[BluesLegend]

Don't like a federal law then just ignore it, that's what Dem's are doing all over the country. They can't muster the votes to overturn the law so meh just ignore it and flip the Constitution the bird.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Hint: The USSC would have to gut the power of the FDA

That is not at all necessarily so.

It is possible for the SCOTUS to hand down a very narrow decision that applies only to the matter as presented to them. On the other hand, the SCOTUS could also hand down a broad decision that has implications well beyond the specifics of the case the Justices hear. How narrow or broad be any decision the Justices render is 100% at their discretion. Indeed, even the dissenting or concurring decisions can affect the extrapolative value of the majority decision.

 

[TNHarley]

Fed gov will probably win. Even though they dont have the power to ban a fucking flower.

 

[TheOldSchool]

What a load of bullshit. Fuck that Wally Hicks pussy.

 

[Silhouette]

Hint: The USSC would have to gut the power of the FDA

That is not at all necessarily so.

It is possible for the SCOTUS to hand down a very narrow decision that applies only to the matter as presented to them. On the other hand, the SCOTUS could also hand down a broad decision that has implications well beyond the specifics of the case the Justices hear. How narrow or broad be any decision the Justices render is 100% at their discretion. Indeed, even the dissenting or concurring decisions can affect the extrapolative value of the majority decision.

The USSC would have to grant itself unilateral power to override the Legislature to regulate a Schedule 1 drug. They would be stepping around their authority. So your argument is void on that point. They then would have to try to say that 'just some states can override federally-binding law' which is the same as saying 'the way federal laws are made can be tweaked by the courts' (overstepping judicial limits again). The only way they could find for the state of Oregon would be to override the US Constitution. And, that isn't allowed via separation of powers (the Constitution).

 

[usmbguest5318]

When doing something that is federally illegal, it's kind of sticky on who gets to call authority.

As goes federal matters, regardless of who asserts authority, the fact of the matter is that authority is shared among the three branches of government. Thus, if one branch asserts authority, its assertion is only as durable as is the will of the other two branches to allow the assertion to stand.

• Executive branch --> Has focused political, fiat and broad enforcement power.
  • The Administration --> Defines current policy.
  • The Departments, Agencies, Bureaus, etc:
    • Executes current policy. This happens in response to the fiat of current executive office holders.
    • Enforces current laws. This happens without regard to who currently holds executive offices.
• Legislative branch --> Has broad political power, no enforcement power, and can overrule fiat by passing contravening legislation.
  • House --> The representative body responsible for advocating for the current whim of the polity.
  • Senate --> The representative body responsible for advocating for long-term and broader considerations.
• Judicial branch --> Has judicial review's interpretative power to reign in fiat and legislative excesses to the extent they violate tenets of the Constitution or basic ethical/republican (small "r") principles, very limited enforcement power, and no political power.
• "The People" --> Clearly not a formally established branch of government, yet every bit as essential to a healthy republic as any constructed governmental branch. Ultimate authority issues from the electorate's approbation which must be accorded representationally or via plebiscite.
• "The Fourth Estate" --> Again, not a branch of government, but every bit as essential to a republic as any official branch of government. The Fourth Estate serves as the "crystal ball" by which The People gain insight into the actions of the formal branches and the office holders therein, thus making the Fourth Estate the harbingers of potential excess by any of the three formal branches. The Fourth Estate is the only "branch" that has no authority to take any governance action; it can "show," "tell," but it cannot take any official action -- enforcement, fiat, legislative, electoral or interpretive. The Fourth Estate has two functions:
  • Reporting --> This is just the telling, given the information available at any given moment, of who did what, when, why, where, how.
  • Analysis --> This consists of describing how what was done interrelates with ethical, legal, and political factors and describing what be the actual and/or potential multidimensional impacts of what was done.

Authority and power are, by design, in our republic meant to be perpetually contested and meant to flux in greater and lesser measures among the four holders of them. As one can see, as the excesses of the three governing branches become increasingly onerous, it becomes increasingly easy for The People to step in to constrain or reverse them. That's as it should be in a republic.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Well, it's sure not my county.

I drive past at least a half dozen of these businesses on my 2 mile drive home. Maybe more.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Hint: The USSC would have to gut the power of the FDA

That is not at all necessarily so.

It is possible for the SCOTUS to hand down a very narrow decision that applies only to the matter as presented to them. On the other hand, the SCOTUS could also hand down a broad decision that has implications well beyond the specifics of the case the Justices hear. How narrow or broad be any decision the Justices render is 100% at their discretion. Indeed, even the dissenting or concurring decisions can affect the extrapolative value of the majority decision.

The USSC would have to grant itself unilateral power to override the Legislature to regulate a Schedule 1 drug. They would be stepping around their authority. So your argument is void on that point. They then would have to try to say that 'just some states can override federally-binding law' which is the same as saying 'the way federal laws are made can be tweaked by the courts' (overstepping judicial limits again). The only way they could find for the state of Oregon would be to override the US Constitution. And, that isn't allowed via separation of powers (the Constitution).

The USSC would have to grant itself unilateral power to override the Legislature to regulate a Schedule 1 drug.

It doesn't have to grant itself any such power. It already has that authority and it's called "judicial review." Have you truly forgotten Marbury v. Madison? (Marbury v. Madison)