What do the State Right's people think of this?

[bigrebnc1775]

Feds cracking down on California medical marijuana dispensaries - latimes.com

It's not clear to me the reason for this crackdown. The Obama administration had previously declined to prosecute medical marijuana in states where it was legal under state law.

The legal justification for the crackdown is that marijuana possession is illegal under federal law. The constitutionality of the law follows from the commerce clause, (Gonzales v. Raich - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) according to most Supreme Court justices, including Scalia.

That being said, even though the federal government has the power to go after medical marijuana (which in practice it clearly does) I don't think it should. There doesn't seem to be any compelling reason to, as far as I can see.

The bastardization of the commerce clause

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/173469-the-bastardization-of-the-commerce-clause.html

 

[Kuros]

The legal justification for the crackdown is that marijuana possession is illegal under federal law. The constitutionality of the law follows from the commerce clause, (Gonzales v. Raich - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) according to most Supreme Court justices, including Scalia.

Have you read Gonzales v. Raich?

The majority placed heavy reliance on our decisions in United States v. Lopez, 514 U. S. 549 (1995), and United States v. Morrison, 529 U. S. 598 (2000), as interpreted by recent Circuit precedent, to hold that this separate class of purely local activities was beyond the reach of federal power. In contrast, the dissenting judge concluded that the CSA, as applied to respondents, was clearly valid under Lopez and Morrison; moreover, he thought it "simply impossible to distinguish the relevant conduct surrounding the cultivation and use of the marijuana crop at issue in this case from the cultivation and use of the wheat crop that affected interstate commerce in Wickard v. Filburn." 352 F. 3d, at 1235 (Beam, J., dissenting) (citation omitted).

Our case law firmly establishes Congress' power to regulate purely local activities that are part of an economic "class of activities" that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. See, e.g., Perez, 402 U. S., at 151; Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U. S. 111, 128-129 (1942). As we stated in Wickard, "even if appellee's activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce." Id., at 125. We have never required Congress to legislate with scientific exactitude.

Our decision in Wickard, 317 U. S. 111, is of particular relevance. In Wickard, we upheld the application of regulations promulgated under the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, 52 Stat. 31, which were designed to control the volume of wheat moving in interstate and foreign commerce in order to avoid surpluses and consequent abnormally low prices. The regulations established an allotment of 11.1 acres for Filburn's 1941 wheat crop, but he sowed 23 acres, intending to use the excess by consuming it on his own farm. Filburn argued that even though we had sustained Congress' power to regulate the production of goods for commerce, that power did not authorize "federal regulation [of] production not intended in any part for commerce but wholly for consumption on the farm." Wickard, 317 U. S., at 118. Justice Jackson's opinion for a unanimous Court rejected this submission. He wrote:

"The effect of the statute before us is to restrict the amount which may be produced for market and the extent as well to which one may forestall resort to the market by producing to meet his own needs. That appellee's own contribution to the demand for wheat may be trivial by itself is not enough to remove him from the scope of federal regulation where, as here, his contribution, taken together with that of many others similarly situated, is far from trivial." Id., at 127-128.

Wickard thus establishes that Congress can regulate purely intrastate activity that is not itself "commercial," in that it is not produced for sale, if it concludes that failure to regulate that class of activity would undercut the regulation of the interstate market in that commodity.

The similarities between this case and Wickard are striking. Like the farmer in Wickard, respondents are cultivating, for home consumption, a fungible commodity for which there is an established, albeit illegal, interstate market.28 Just as the Agricultural Adjustment Act was designed "to control the volume [of wheat] moving in interstate and foreign commerce in order to avoid surpluses ..." and consequently control the market price, id., at 115, a primary purpose of the CSA is to control the supply and demand of controlled substances in both lawful and unlawful drug markets. See nn. 20-21, supra. In Wickard, we had no difficulty concluding that Congress had a rational basis for believing that, when viewed in the aggregate, leaving home-consumed wheat outside the regulatory scheme would have a substantial influence on price and market conditions. Here too, Congress had a rational basis for concluding that leaving home-consumed marijuana outside federal control would similarly affect price and market conditions.

More concretely, one concern prompting inclusion of wheat grown for home consumption in the 1938 Act was that rising market prices could draw such wheat into the interstate market, resulting in lower market prices. Wickard, 317 U. S., at 128. The parallel concern making it appropriate to include marijuana grown for home consumption in the CSA is the likelihood that the high demand in the interstate market will draw such marijuana into that market. While the diversion of homegrown wheat tended to frustrate the federal interest in stabilizing prices by regulating the volume of commercial transactions in the interstate market, the diversion of homegrown marijuana tends to frustrate the federal interest in eliminating commercial transactions in the interstate market in their entirety. In both cases, the regulation is squarely within Congress' commerce power because production of the commodity meant for home consumption, be it wheat or marijuana, has a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market for that commodity.

Wickard v. Filburn was a case where a wheat farmer grew extra wheat for his own consumption . . . it never left the farm. The court concluded that this was interstate commerce because of the aggregate effects test. IOW, the court can make any intrastate commerce into interstate commerce.

It is a horrible precedent, and Gonzales v. Raich relies entirely upon that one precedent.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Calif. pot dispensaries told to shut down - US news - Crime & courts - msnbc.com

SAN FRANCISCO — Federal prosecutors have launched a crackdown on pot dispensaries in California, warning the stores that they must shut down in 45 days or face criminal charges and confiscation of their property even if they are operating legally under the state's 15-year-old medical marijuana law

It seems that they are paying taxes, are responsible businesses operating within the laws of their State.

On the other hand, the Federal government won't try to prosecute anyone because of the fear of losing the case and thereby setting precedent.

That means this is simple harassment and potentially an illegal confiscation of personal property in violation of civil rights.

I’m wondering about the ‘conservative’ members on this board? How do you feel about the Federal Government stepping on the rights of States?

Stop playing both ends against the middle. This is a troll thread.

 

[AVG-JOE]

WHERE THE **** ARE THE LIBS?

Hell, at least Chimpola got some resistance from the right when he spent like a drunken Kennedy.

I know y'all are looking in on this thread....Are your heads really buried that far up Boiking's ass that y'all can't utter so much as a peep?

Lib here.

Been here all along.

Just being my opinionated self.


Does EVERYONE have me on 'ignore'?

 

[AVG-JOE]

Feds cracking down on California medical marijuana dispensaries - latimes.com

It's not clear to me the reason for this crackdown. The Obama administration had previously declined to prosecute medical marijuana in states where it was legal under state law.

The legal justification for the crackdown is that marijuana possession is illegal under federal law. The constitutionality of the law follows from the commerce clause, (Gonzales v. Raich - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) according to most Supreme Court justices, including Scalia.

That being said, even though the federal government has the power to go after medical marijuana (which in practice it clearly does) I don't think it should. There doesn't seem to be any compelling reason to, as far as I can see.

This lib is going to have to politely disagree and agree with the liberal lady. Prohibition at the federal level needs to end.

History proves that prohibition does not work and makes us look stupid.

End the prohibition of weed if you want to create thousands of tax-paying American jobs overnight - the cash-flow is already in place.

End the prohibition of weed if you want to take a huge bite out of the violence on our southern border and our city streets.

End the prohibition of weed if you want to deny the organized smugglers of illegal aliens, hard drugs that should be prohibited, white slaves, stolen merchandise, etc a huge, business maintaining revenue stream.

End the prohibition of weed if you want to cut the money spent on incarceration in this country in half and free up the cops to chase people who're actually bad.

LEAP | Law Enforcement Against Prohibition

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Feds cracking down on California medical marijuana dispensaries - latimes.com

It's not clear to me the reason for this crackdown. The Obama administration had previously declined to prosecute medical marijuana in states where it was legal under state law.

The legal justification for the crackdown is that marijuana possession is illegal under federal law. The constitutionality of the law follows from the commerce clause, (Gonzales v. Raich - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) according to most Supreme Court justices, including Scalia.

That being said, even though the federal government has the power to go after medical marijuana (which in practice it clearly does) I don't think it should. There doesn't seem to be any compelling reason to, as far as I can see.

This lib is going to have to politely disagree and agree with the liberal lady. Prohibition at the federal level needs to end.

History proves that prohibition does not work and makes us look stupid.

End the prohibition of weed if you want to create thousands of tax-paying American jobs overnight - the cash-flow is already in place.

End the prohibition of weed if you want to take a huge bite out of the violence on our southern border.

End the prohibition of weed if you want to deny the organized smugglers of illegal aliens, hard drugs that should be prohibited, white slavers, stolen merchandise, etc a huge, business maintaining revenue stream.

End the prohibition of weed if you want to cut the money spent on incarceration in this country in half and free up the cops to chase people who're actually bad.

LEAP | Law Enforcement Against Prohibition

and I agree

 

[DaGoose]

WHERE THE **** ARE THE LIBS?

Hell, at least Chimpola got some resistance from the right when he spent like a drunken Kennedy.

I know y'all are looking in on this thread....Are your heads really buried that far up Boiking's ass that y'all can't utter so much as a peep?

WHERE THE **** ARE THE LIBS?

Hell, at least Chimpola got some resistance from the right when he spent like a drunken Kennedy.

I know y'all are looking in on this thread....Are your heads really buried that far up Boiking's ass that y'all can't utter so much as a peep?

YES THEY ARE

Oh, we're here all right. We're just amused at all of this phony outrage. And I will tell you that I DO disagree with that policy. But if you think that it's enough to make me support a wingnut for POTUS you're sadly mistaken, my misinformed friend.

Your outrage would seem much less phony if you would also be outraged at.....

1) Government trying to tell a woman and her doctor what she can or cannot do with her body.

2) Government telling us that we cannot enjoy recreational drugs.

3) Government telling two people that they cannot have a legalized recognition of marriage just because they happen to be of the same sex.

4) Government telling a gay person that they cannot serve our nation openly and must hide who they are.

5) Government telling someone that is dying that they cannot choose to end their life with dignity with the help of a willing physician.

6) Government telling a family that they do not have the right to determine when the plug is pulled on a loved one who will never recover from a vegetative state like Terri Schiavo.

7) Government regulating what questions a pediatrician may ask parents.

So until you are ready to be outraged at these issues as well don't talk to us about government overreach. You only make yourselves look foolish.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Feds cracking down on California medical marijuana dispensaries - latimes.com

It's not clear to me the reason for this crackdown. The Obama administration had previously declined to prosecute medical marijuana in states where it was legal under state law.

The legal justification for the crackdown is that marijuana possession is illegal under federal law. The constitutionality of the law follows from the commerce clause, (Gonzales v. Raich - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) according to most Supreme Court justices, including Scalia.

That being said, even though the federal government has the power to go after medical marijuana (which in practice it clearly does) I don't think it should. There doesn't seem to be any compelling reason to, as far as I can see.

This lib is going to have to politely disagree and agree with the liberal lady. Prohibition at the federal level needs to end.

History proves that prohibition does not work and makes us look stupid.

End the prohibition of weed if you want to create thousands of tax-paying American jobs overnight - the cash-flow is already in place.

End the prohibition of weed if you want to take a huge bite out of the violence on our southern border.

End the prohibition of weed if you want to deny the organized smugglers of illegal aliens, hard drugs that should be prohibited, white slavers, stolen merchandise, etc a huge, business maintaining revenue stream.

End the prohibition of weed if you want to cut the money spent on incarceration in this country in half and free up the cops to chase people who're actually bad.

LEAP | Law Enforcement Against Prohibition

and I agree

With a LIBERAL?!?

( Don't tell! )​

It's amazing what common ground we can find when we switch from Flame to Discussion.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Calif. pot dispensaries told to shut down - US news - Crime & courts - msnbc.com

SAN FRANCISCO — Federal prosecutors have launched a crackdown on pot dispensaries in California, warning the stores that they must shut down in 45 days or face criminal charges and confiscation of their property even if they are operating legally under the state's 15-year-old medical marijuana law

It seems that they are paying taxes, are responsible businesses operating within the laws of their State.

On the other hand, the Federal government won't try to prosecute anyone because of the fear of losing the case and thereby setting precedent.

That means this is simple harassment and potentially an illegal confiscation of personal property in violation of civil rights.

I’m wondering about the ‘conservative’ members on this board? How do you feel about the Federal Government stepping on the rights of States?

I'd sue the feds for over stepping it's authority.

i saw on the news today that that,will soon be happening....

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Calif. pot dispensaries told to shut down - US news - Crime & courts - msnbc.com



It seems that they are paying taxes, are responsible businesses operating within the laws of their State.

On the other hand, the Federal government won't try to prosecute anyone because of the fear of losing the case and thereby setting precedent.

That means this is simple harassment and potentially an illegal confiscation of personal property in violation of civil rights.

I’m wondering about the ‘conservative’ members on this board? How do you feel about the Federal Government stepping on the rights of States?

I'd sue the feds for over stepping it's authority.

i saw on the news today that that,will soon be happening....

good

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Calif. pot dispensaries told to shut down - US news - Crime & courts - msnbc.com

SAN FRANCISCO — Federal prosecutors have launched a crackdown on pot dispensaries in California, warning the stores that they must shut down in 45 days or face criminal charges and confiscation of their property even if they are operating legally under the state's 15-year-old medical marijuana law

It seems that they are paying taxes, are responsible businesses operating within the laws of their State.

On the other hand, the Federal government won't try to prosecute anyone because of the fear of losing the case and thereby setting precedent.

That means this is simple harassment and potentially an illegal confiscation of personal property in violation of civil rights.

I’m wondering about the ‘conservative’ members on this board? How do you feel about the Federal Government stepping on the rights of States?

I don't like it.

The people of cali voted for it so it should be legal there to do it. If the feds want to cut off federal funding over it that is fine but the feds can't step in and override the state's laws, thats why we have a 10th ammendment.

This also applies to obamacare, states can pass laws exempting all their citizens from the law.

It also applies to anything else, outside of the authority the constitution gives the federal govt, that the feds try to override the states on.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Calif. pot dispensaries told to shut down - US news - Crime & courts - msnbc.com

SAN FRANCISCO — Federal prosecutors have launched a crackdown on pot dispensaries in California, warning the stores that they must shut down in 45 days or face criminal charges and confiscation of their property even if they are operating legally under the state's 15-year-old medical marijuana law

It seems that they are paying taxes, are responsible businesses operating within the laws of their State.

On the other hand, the Federal government won't try to prosecute anyone because of the fear of losing the case and thereby setting precedent.

That means this is simple harassment and potentially an illegal confiscation of personal property in violation of civil rights.

I’m wondering about the ‘conservative’ members on this board? How do you feel about the Federal Government stepping on the rights of States?

I don't like it.

The people of cali voted for it so it should be legal there to do it. If the feds want to cut off federal funding over it that is fine but the feds can't step in and override the state's laws, thats why we have a 10th ammendment.

This also applies to obamacare, states can pass laws exempting all their citizens from the law.

It also applies to anything else, outside of the authority the constitution gives the federal govt, that the feds try to override the states on.

It's not the Constitution that the Federal Government is basing its authority on, it's the precedents set by the prosecution of the Civil War.

It's high time* for peace between the States and Washington DC.


* Thought thunk prior to perception of pun, but I like it. Pun intended.

 

[Nic_Driver]

The OP must be devastated that he didn't cause a wrestle with the dogma siezure.

Must have thought that Conservatives were Democrats who held a different dogma.

Alrighty, then... Let's turn this around. How do Liberals feel about a state flaunting Federal Law? Send in the US Marshalls? Escort the flower children through the harrassing crowds into the Marijuana clinics? Will Norman Rockwell rise from the grave tro reprise his famous poster of the little girl braving the gauntlet of hate in the Deep South?

http://0.tqn.com/d/detroit/1/0/T/8/-/-/The-Problem-We-All-Live-With-8x5.jpg

On most issues I’m in favor of States rights.

It might come as a surprise but I’m opposed to this as well as many other broken promises from Obama.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The legal justification for the crackdown is that marijuana possession is illegal under federal law. The constitutionality of the law follows from the commerce clause, (Gonzales v. Raich - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) according to most Supreme Court justices, including Scalia.

Have you read Gonzales v. Raich?

The majority placed heavy reliance on our decisions in United States v. Lopez, 514 U. S. 549 (1995), and United States v. Morrison, 529 U. S. 598 (2000), as interpreted by recent Circuit precedent, to hold that this separate class of purely local activities was beyond the reach of federal power. In contrast, the dissenting judge concluded that the CSA, as applied to respondents, was clearly valid under Lopez and Morrison; moreover, he thought it "simply impossible to distinguish the relevant conduct surrounding the cultivation and use of the marijuana crop at issue in this case from the cultivation and use of the wheat crop that affected interstate commerce in Wickard v. Filburn." 352 F. 3d, at 1235 (Beam, J., dissenting) (citation omitted).

Our case law firmly establishes Congress' power to regulate purely local activities that are part of an economic "class of activities" that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. See, e.g., Perez, 402 U. S., at 151; Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U. S. 111, 128-129 (1942). As we stated in Wickard, "even if appellee's activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce." Id., at 125. We have never required Congress to legislate with scientific exactitude.

Our decision in Wickard, 317 U. S. 111, is of particular relevance. In Wickard, we upheld the application of regulations promulgated under the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, 52 Stat. 31, which were designed to control the volume of wheat moving in interstate and foreign commerce in order to avoid surpluses and consequent abnormally low prices. The regulations established an allotment of 11.1 acres for Filburn's 1941 wheat crop, but he sowed 23 acres, intending to use the excess by consuming it on his own farm. Filburn argued that even though we had sustained Congress' power to regulate the production of goods for commerce, that power did not authorize "federal regulation [of] production not intended in any part for commerce but wholly for consumption on the farm." Wickard, 317 U. S., at 118. Justice Jackson's opinion for a unanimous Court rejected this submission. He wrote:

"The effect of the statute before us is to restrict the amount which may be produced for market and the extent as well to which one may forestall resort to the market by producing to meet his own needs. That appellee's own contribution to the demand for wheat may be trivial by itself is not enough to remove him from the scope of federal regulation where, as here, his contribution, taken together with that of many others similarly situated, is far from trivial." Id., at 127-128.

Wickard thus establishes that Congress can regulate purely intrastate activity that is not itself "commercial," in that it is not produced for sale, if it concludes that failure to regulate that class of activity would undercut the regulation of the interstate market in that commodity.

The similarities between this case and Wickard are striking. Like the farmer in Wickard, respondents are cultivating, for home consumption, a fungible commodity for which there is an established, albeit illegal, interstate market.28 Just as the Agricultural Adjustment Act was designed "to control the volume [of wheat] moving in interstate and foreign commerce in order to avoid surpluses ..." and consequently control the market price, id., at 115, a primary purpose of the CSA is to control the supply and demand of controlled substances in both lawful and unlawful drug markets. See nn. 20-21, supra. In Wickard, we had no difficulty concluding that Congress had a rational basis for believing that, when viewed in the aggregate, leaving home-consumed wheat outside the regulatory scheme would have a substantial influence on price and market conditions. Here too, Congress had a rational basis for concluding that leaving home-consumed marijuana outside federal control would similarly affect price and market conditions.

More concretely, one concern prompting inclusion of wheat grown for home consumption in the 1938 Act was that rising market prices could draw such wheat into the interstate market, resulting in lower market prices. Wickard, 317 U. S., at 128. The parallel concern making it appropriate to include marijuana grown for home consumption in the CSA is the likelihood that the high demand in the interstate market will draw such marijuana into that market. While the diversion of homegrown wheat tended to frustrate the federal interest in stabilizing prices by regulating the volume of commercial transactions in the interstate market, the diversion of homegrown marijuana tends to frustrate the federal interest in eliminating commercial transactions in the interstate market in their entirety. In both cases, the regulation is squarely within Congress' commerce power because production of the commodity meant for home consumption, be it wheat or marijuana, has a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market for that commodity.

Wickard v. Filburn was a case where a wheat farmer grew extra wheat for his own consumption . . . it never left the farm. The court concluded that this was interstate commerce because of the aggregate effects test. IOW, the court can make any intrastate commerce into interstate commerce.

It is a horrible precedent, and Gonzales v. Raich relies entirely upon that one precedent.

After reading those decisions, I have concluded that even learned legal minds are capable of stupidity.
If in these cases all technicalities are held to a rigid standard then all farmers who raise wheat for market cannot use any portion of their wheat to feed their own families. That takes into account for example the Amish. These people essentially live off the crops they raise. Is Congress so far reaching that it can regulate self grown or created products for self consumption?. Ridiculous.
This is a case of judicial activism run amok.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Calif. pot dispensaries told to shut down - US news - Crime & courts - msnbc.com



It seems that they are paying taxes, are responsible businesses operating within the laws of their State.

On the other hand, the Federal government won't try to prosecute anyone because of the fear of losing the case and thereby setting precedent.

That means this is simple harassment and potentially an illegal confiscation of personal property in violation of civil rights.

I’m wondering about the ‘conservative’ members on this board? How do you feel about the Federal Government stepping on the rights of States?

I don't like it.

The people of cali voted for it so it should be legal there to do it. If the feds want to cut off federal funding over it that is fine but the feds can't step in and override the state's laws, thats why we have a 10th ammendment.

This also applies to obamacare, states can pass laws exempting all their citizens from the law.

It also applies to anything else, outside of the authority the constitution gives the federal govt, that the feds try to override the states on.

It's not the Constitution that the Federal Government is basing its authority on, it's the precedents set by the prosecution of the Civil War.

It's high time* for peace between the States and Washington DC.


* Thought thunk prior to perception of pun, but I like it. Pun intended.

Peace yes. You suggest submission.
The Constitution does not specify nor does it mention where the federal government can compel individuals to purchase a product from the federal government.
Therefore the authority to compel to purchase is non existent. Ergo, the federal government CANNOT compel citizens to buy health insurance from the federal government.
The 10th Amendment is clear on this question. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
I see no ambiguity there. Obamacare is unconstitutional.

 

[oreo]

Calif. pot dispensaries told to shut down - US news - Crime & courts - msnbc.com

SAN FRANCISCO — Federal prosecutors have launched a crackdown on pot dispensaries in California, warning the stores that they must shut down in 45 days or face criminal charges and confiscation of their property even if they are operating legally under the state's 15-year-old medical marijuana law

It seems that they are paying taxes, are responsible businesses operating within the laws of their State.

On the other hand, the Federal government won't try to prosecute anyone because of the fear of losing the case and thereby setting precedent.

That means this is simple harassment and potentially an illegal confiscation of personal property in violation of civil rights.

I’m wondering about the ‘conservative’ members on this board? How do you feel about the Federal Government stepping on the rights of States?

I am a conservative--and this is B.S.

In fact--since this is coming from the Justice Department--aka--Eric Holder who is up to his armpits with this Fast & Furious scandal--it may be nothing more than a political manuver for him to do a CYA. (Give semi--automatic weapons to violent Mexican drug cartels---but close down legitimate tax paying business's--UNBELIEVABLE.)

We have 17 states with medical marijuana approval in this country--and all we're doing is WASTING taxpayer dollars--that we don't have to chase down businesse's that are actually contributing to the tax revenue base.

OUR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AT WORK.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Since when does an agency have the authority to take away a constitutional right of anyone?




Medical-pot users fuming over ATF’s gun-sale ban

You can have your gun, or you can have your medical marijuana. But the Obama administration now says you can’t have both.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is in the crosshairs for a recent memo prohibiting gun merchants from selling firearms to anyone who uses marijuana, including those with state-issued medical-marijuana cards.
Medical-pot users fuming over ATF's gun-sale ban - Washington Times

 

[CT9]

Calif. pot dispensaries told to shut down - US news - Crime & courts - msnbc.com



It seems that they are paying taxes, are responsible businesses operating within the laws of their State.

On the other hand, the Federal government won't try to prosecute anyone because of the fear of losing the case and thereby setting precedent.

That means this is simple harassment and potentially an illegal confiscation of personal property in violation of civil rights.

I’m wondering about the ‘conservative’ members on this board? How do you feel about the Federal Government stepping on the rights of States?

Well you are ignoring the supremacy clause

However, I wish the Feds would take the stance of adopting that states unique view on marijuana as to how it enforces it. Sorry for the bad wording, basically if Cali decriminalizes the government recognizes that position but if it remains illegal in Texas the government will allot resources if it wishes to help enforce the law.

The Supremacy Clause IS NOT an independent source of Federal power. It merely resolves that when Federal power is legitimate, and State law conflicts with it, Federal law controls.

But the Feds should not be able to enact criminal law. This is a traditional and long-recognized state prerogative.

Seriously?

If you want to go this route we can


Most marijuana is either international or intrastate commerce which gives the feds the right to intervene. If they don't want that trade they can make it illegal. I would know, I smoke weed


And the fed enacts plenty of criminal laws... thats what a federal offense is.

 

[oreo]

Calif. pot dispensaries told to shut down - US news - Crime & courts - msnbc.com

SAN FRANCISCO — Federal prosecutors have launched a crackdown on pot dispensaries in California, warning the stores that they must shut down in 45 days or face criminal charges and confiscation of their property even if they are operating legally under the state's 15-year-old medical marijuana law

It seems that they are paying taxes, are responsible businesses operating within the laws of their State.

On the other hand, the Federal government won't try to prosecute anyone because of the fear of losing the case and thereby setting precedent.

That means this is simple harassment and potentially an illegal confiscation of personal property in violation of civil rights.

I’m wondering about the ‘conservative’ members on this board? How do you feel about the Federal Government stepping on the rights of States?

It's a problem resulting from our stupid federal drug laws conflicting with CA's law. It was bound to happen.

Yeah--but after 15 years--one has to ask themselves WHY NOW? Fast & Furious is why now. The U.S Justice department is being looked at under a micro-scope with Eric Holders neck on the chopping block--so no better time to get Americans focused on something else--even though there are 17 states with medical marijuana regulation in them--they're going to head out to these states to shut down tax paying businesse's--while wasting taxpayer dollars to do so.

GEEZ how did this country get so SCREWED UP?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Well you are ignoring the supremacy clause

However, I wish the Feds would take the stance of adopting that states unique view on marijuana as to how it enforces it. Sorry for the bad wording, basically if Cali decriminalizes the government recognizes that position but if it remains illegal in Texas the government will allot resources if it wishes to help enforce the law.

The Supremacy Clause IS NOT an independent source of Federal power. It merely resolves that when Federal power is legitimate, and State law conflicts with it, Federal law controls.

But the Feds should not be able to enact criminal law. This is a traditional and long-recognized state prerogative.

Seriously?

If you want to go this route we can


Most marijuana is either international or intrastate commerce which gives the feds the right to intervene. If they don't want that trade they can make it illegal. I would know, I smoke weed


And the fed enacts plenty of criminal laws... thats what a federal offense is.

I guess you've never had any home grown? have you ever heard of Hydroponics?