Congresional GOP get hiiiiiigh on state's rights!

[Eleanor Ritas]

So, with a lot of help from Republicans, a recent US spending bill was crafted such that the Federal prosecutors can't use any funds to prosecute medical users in states that have medical cannabis. (They can still go all freaky deaky black on black MP5 rappel through the ceiling batshit crazy on traffickers, money launders, etc).

But if you be tokin' the medicinal ganj with the permission of your state, the GOP controlled congress has now signaled that Obama's instruction to Federal prosecutors to back the fuck up on medical marijuana users at the state level is basically something that they can agree on, because state's rights and shit.

The head of the DEA (an Obama appointee, although she may have been an "acting" holdover the Bush years) is throwing a total shitfit about it, and some in congress are openly calling for her resignation. She's not on the same page as the people who got her the job or even the people who hate the people who got her the job. I think she'll be on the consulting circuit sooner than she planned.

But what do you think NSG?

If even the GOP is down with the weed (in a very limited and well defined sense), how long until it's just removed as a schedule 1 drug?

[WestRedMaple]

Technically, the federal government lacks any authority to ban it in the first place.

[Eleanor Ritas]

Technically, the federal government lacks any authority to ban it in the first place.

This is interesting, please elaborate.

Is your position that the Federal Controlled Substances Act (Title II of a broader act on drugs and such), is not valid to begin with, because it intrudes on states rights and the federal government never had the power to prosecute cannabis in the first place? Or a different reason?

[WestRedMaple]

Technically, the federal government lacks any authority to ban it in the first place.

This is interesting, please elaborate.

Is your position that the Federal Controlled Substances Act (Title II of a broader act on drugs and such), is not valid to begin with, because it intrudes on states rights and the federal government never had the power to prosecute cannabis in the first place? Or a different reason?

The Constitution dictates which powers fall under the federal government and which fall under lower levels of government. Such a power was not granted to the federal government.

[Dinake]

My guess is that if you asked three different GOP congressmen who voted for this why they did(and they were honest), you would get three different answers. A few might be voting based on principles-state's rights, opposition to drug prohibition, whatever the case may be- a few on wanting to cooperate with the Democrats, a few just don't want to spend money on enforcing it, and the rest want to appeal to youth and think this will help. I think it'll be a while before it's removed from the list of controlled substances though, at least in part because the government just moves slowly, and also partly because the GOP thinks doing that will alienate part of their base in a way that doing this won't.

[Eleanor Ritas]

This is interesting, please elaborate.

Is your position that the Federal Controlled Substances Act (Title II of a broader act on drugs and such), is not valid to begin with, because it intrudes on states rights and the federal government never had the power to prosecute cannabis in the first place? Or a different reason?

The Constitution dictates which powers fall under the federal government and which fall under lower levels of government. Such a power was not granted to the federal government.

Would you similarly be of the position that no clause, the Commerce Clause nor any other, would grant the federal government power of cannabis, and moreso that they are similarly not authentically empowered to regulate alchohol or tobacco?

[Eleanor Ritas]

My guess is that if you asked three different GOP congressmen who voted for this why they did(and they were honest), you would get three different answers. A few might be voting based on principles-state's rights, opposition to drug prohibition, whatever the case may be- a few on wanting to cooperate with the Democrats, a few just don't want to spend money on enforcing it, and the rest want to appeal to youth and think this will help. I think it'll be a while before it's removed from the list of controlled substances though, at least in part because the government just moves slowly, and also partly because the GOP thinks doing that will alienate part of their base in a way that doing this won't.

When you say "a while", would you guess more than 20 years (rough estimate, I know this can't be handicapped with any precision)?

[Cannot think of a name]

My guess is that if you asked three different GOP congressmen who voted for this why they did(and they were honest), you would get three different answers. A few might be voting based on principles-state's rights, opposition to drug prohibition, whatever the case may be- a few on wanting to cooperate with the Democrats, a few just don't want to spend money on enforcing it, and the rest want to appeal to youth and think this will help. I think it'll be a while before it's removed from the list of controlled substances though, at least in part because the government just moves slowly, and also partly because the GOP thinks doing that will alienate part of their base in a way that doing this won't.

I'm still holding on to the weird fantasy that if a Democratic president is elected after Obama, one of his 'on the way out the door' acts is to reschedule marijuana opening the door for legalization in a broader sense.

This is based on nothing and a disputed power of the presidency (as I've heard people tell me that it both can and cannot be done that way and the one who said 'cannot' was the President himself), so...you know...it's like a lot of fantasies...

[Dinake]

My guess is that if you asked three different GOP congressmen who voted for this why they did(and they were honest), you would get three different answers. A few might be voting based on principles-state's rights, opposition to drug prohibition, whatever the case may be- a few on wanting to cooperate with the Democrats, a few just don't want to spend money on enforcing it, and the rest want to appeal to youth and think this will help. I think it'll be a while before it's removed from the list of controlled substances though, at least in part because the government just moves slowly, and also partly because the GOP thinks doing that will alienate part of their base in a way that doing this won't.

When you say "a while", would you guess more than 20 years (rough estimate, I know this can't be handicapped with any precision)?

Probably at least that, when the older generation that regards marijuana as being only for weird people who will never contribute anything to society will die off. Even then, I wouldn't be surprised if it stays illegal, but it'll probably be legalized at the state level in more liberal states a lot sooner than that.

My guess is that if you asked three different GOP congressmen who voted for this why they did(and they were honest), you would get three different answers. A few might be voting based on principles-state's rights, opposition to drug prohibition, whatever the case may be- a few on wanting to cooperate with the Democrats, a few just don't want to spend money on enforcing it, and the rest want to appeal to youth and think this will help. I think it'll be a while before it's removed from the list of controlled substances though, at least in part because the government just moves slowly, and also partly because the GOP thinks doing that will alienate part of their base in a way that doing this won't.

I'm still holding on to the weird fantasy that if a Democratic president is elected after Obama, one of his 'on the way out the door' acts is to reschedule marijuana opening the door for legalization in a broader sense.

This is based on nothing and a disputed power of the presidency (as I've heard people tell me that it both can and cannot be done that way and the one who said 'cannot' was the President himself), so...you know...it's like a lot of fantasies...

Most supreme courts probably wouldn't stand for it, and I don't see that being a priority if the administration does decide to risk it. So yeah, it is like a lot of fantasies.

[WestRedMaple]

The Constitution dictates which powers fall under the federal government and which fall under lower levels of government. Such a power was not granted to the federal government.

Would you similarly be of the position that no clause, the Commerce Clause nor any other, would grant the federal government power of cannabis, and moreso that they are similarly not authentically empowered to regulate alchohol or tobacco?

I'm interested in hearing about this "power of cannabis"

It's simple, the Constitution is not a long document. Any legal power not granted in it to the federal government is a legal power the federal government does not possess

[New Chalcedon]

Would you similarly be of the position that no clause, the Commerce Clause nor any other, would grant the federal government power of cannabis, and moreso that they are similarly not authentically empowered to regulate alchohol or tobacco?

I'm interested in hearing about this "power of cannabis"

It's simple, the Constitution is not a long document. Any legal power not granted in it to the federal government is a legal power the federal government does not possess

The Constitution specifically grants the Federal Government the power to regulate any goods or services traded across State borders. Granted, the War on Drugs abuses that clause, but it is there, and it does grant DC at least some authority in the matter.

[WestRedMaple]

I'm interested in hearing about this "power of cannabis"

It's simple, the Constitution is not a long document. Any legal power not granted in it to the federal government is a legal power the federal government does not possess

The Constitution specifically grants the Federal Government the power to regulate any goods or services traded across State borders. Granted, the War on Drugs abuses that clause, but it is there, and it does grant DC at least some authority in the matter.

The federal government has been granted authority to regulate interstate commerce. It has not been granted authority to forbid a person from growing marijuana, it has not been granted authority to prevent a person from smoking it or eating it, etc

[SaintB]

This is interesting, please elaborate.

Is your position that the Federal Controlled Substances Act (Title II of a broader act on drugs and such), is not valid to begin with, because it intrudes on states rights and the federal government never had the power to prosecute cannabis in the first place? Or a different reason?

The Constitution dictates which powers fall under the federal government and which fall under lower levels of government. Such a power was not granted to the federal government.

The power to control interstate and international commerce...

[Maurepas]

If they stuck to their principles they would. Really if the President stuck to his principles, and the GOP stuck to their principles then this should be a slam dunk bipartisan move.

I have about zero faith in any of them sticking to their principles on this issue. Too much money involved.

[WestRedMaple]

The Constitution dictates which powers fall under the federal government and which fall under lower levels of government. Such a power was not granted to the federal government.

The power to control interstate and international commerce...

See above

[Digital Planets]

A welcome change, I'd say. Still waiting for pot to be fully legal for everyone, without restrictions. And while I wait, I'm gonna light one up. Feel free to join me.

[Pope Joan]

Now that they own the national legislature, the GOP no longer have any interest in state's rights.

So now they can put pesky Vermont in its place. How dare they act as if their state had rights.

[Geilinor]

Good, at least the GOP and the Democrats can agree on something.

[Greed and Death]

Source on this medical marijuana rider.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/pos ... t-have-to/

[Greed and Death]

I have about zero faith in any of them sticking to their principles on this issue. Too much money involved.

They did and it is already there. It can be refunded in September when the current budget runs out.

[Greed and Death]

In case you are interested the rider was added by Dana Tyrone Rohrabacher, a Republican from California, the one who yelled at dreamer that he would deport her and her family for being illegals.

[The Cold Place]

The Constitution specifically grants the Federal Government the power to regulate any goods or services traded across State borders. Granted, the War on Drugs abuses that clause, but it is there, and it does grant DC at least some authority in the matter.

The federal government has been granted authority to regulate interstate commerce. It has not been granted authority to forbid a person from growing marijuana, it has not been granted authority to prevent a person from smoking it or eating it, etc

The production of marijuana would fall under interstate commerce even if it is not sold in a different state. This is because the marijuana could be sold in a different state, and because a person growing marijuana would not have to buy marijuana from another state. Same with smoking it or edibles.

[The Cold Place]

My guess is that if you asked three different GOP congressmen who voted for this why they did(and they were honest), you would get three different answers. A few might be voting based on principles-state's rights, opposition to drug prohibition, whatever the case may be- a few on wanting to cooperate with the Democrats, a few just don't want to spend money on enforcing it, and the rest want to appeal to youth and think this will help. I think it'll be a while before it's removed from the list of controlled substances though, at least in part because the government just moves slowly, and also partly because the GOP thinks doing that will alienate part of their base in a way that doing this won't.

When you say "a while", would you guess more than 20 years (rough estimate, I know this can't be handicapped with any precision)?

I think it will be less than 20 years because having marijuana legal on a state level in both Washington and Colorado makes it more expensive to ban it in other states.

They may also want to detach medical marijuana use from recreational use.

[Greed and Death]

The federal government has been granted authority to regulate interstate commerce. It has not been granted authority to forbid a person from growing marijuana, it has not been granted authority to prevent a person from smoking it or eating it, etc

The production of marijuana would fall under interstate commerce even if it is not sold in a different state. This is because the marijuana could be sold in a different state, and because a person growing marijuana would not have to buy marijuana from another state. Same with smoking it or edibles.

Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) and Gonzales v. Raich (previously [i]Ashcroft v. Raich[i]), 545 U.S. 1 (2005).

In the long term I would like this line of cases revisited, but that is not a good idea now.

[The Cold Place]

The production of marijuana would fall under interstate commerce even if it is not sold in a different state. This is because the marijuana could be sold in a different state, and because a person growing marijuana would not have to buy marijuana from another state. Same with smoking it or edibles.

Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) and Gonzales v. Raich (previously [i]Ashcroft v. Raich[i]), 545 U.S. 1 (2005).

In the long term I would like this line of cases revisited, but that is not a good idea now.

I think that interstate commerce should deserve its own thread.

I just wanted to point out to the other poster that, whether it should or not, marijuana does fall under interstate commerce.

But back on topic, I do not think that the GOP are supportive of marijuana, as the bill blocks the DC region from legalizing marijuana.