Alcohol vs marijuana

[Thall303]

I’m beginning to see why politics are forbidden here......and glad of it!

 

[/pine]

I知 beginning to see why politics are forbidden here......and glad of it!

Nobody forces you to click on threads you don't care about...

 

[tjkubota93]

Nobody forces you to click on threads you don't care about...

Yeah they do, boredom and pettiness force me.

 

[/pine]

Yeah they do, boredom and pettiness force me.

We all have our weaknesses...

 

[goeduck]

The feds are following the law. If you don't like what they are doing, change the law. Ignoring laws is never good

How does one state, or a few states, change federal law? Won稚 happen! The federal law on pot will only be changed after the majority of states legalize it. Even then it will be a long time. Stupid idea to try to enforce. Wrong battle.

 

[Doofy]

Nobody forces you to click on threads you don't care about...

Yes they do...this forum is very addictive!

 

[goeduck]

The Feds are grabbing powers not permitted under the Constitution. If the Feds want the power to control such things, they need to change the Constitution, since that is the document that forbids the Feds from doing what they are doing. As stated previously, the feds recognized they needed a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol (prohibition). Why is/should MJ be viewed differently? What has changed is our acquiescence to federal overreach, if it's something we agree with. But we fight darn hard when it's something we disagree with. (See i.e. second amendment.)

Well stated. Case closed.

 

[California]

I just looked in here, haven't read more than the last page on this topic since neither interest me much. Maybe this has been discussed already:

I just saw discussion that a Medical MJ Card, legal in some states, goes into that state's database and will prevent firearms purchase because possession is a felony in Federal law regardless of state law. Also I don't know if any record of purchases is kept in the states with less restriction on purchase but its likely that ID has to be shown to prove age.

Then the present Attorney General has withdrawn the policy of taking no Federal action where state law allows possession, which could lead to who know what.

Please, let's not make this a political critique of present or prior administrations, but can someone dispassionately clarify what is going on with this issue presently?


Hmmm. Posted that, then found this discussion:

entrepreneurs and investors fueling the legal marijuana boom of the past few years remain, well, pretty chill about the whole thing.

 

[Streetcar]

See post above.

The Feds are grabbing powers not permitted under the Constitution. If the Feds want the power to control such things, they need to change the Constitution, since that is the document that forbids the Feds from doing what they are doing. As stated previously, the feds recognized they needed a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol (prohibition). Why is/should MJ be viewed differently? What has changed is our acquiescence to federal overreach, if it's something we agree with. But we fight darn hard when it's something we disagree with. (See i.e. second amendment.)

Mj is regulated as a drug, under general welfare of citizens. Alcohol is not a regulated drug. That is difference

 

[2LaneCruzer]

Mj is regulated as a drug, under general welfare of citizens. Alcohol is not a regulated drug. That is difference

An article that is on point:

Who can control marijuana? The Constitution says it's the states | TheHill

Who can control marijuana? The Constitution says it's the states

A growing number of states are defying the federal marijuana ban, not only by easing their own laws, but by actively cooperating with marijuana growing, processing, and use. Many contend that pot should be a state, rather than a federal, concern.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled otherwise. In Gonzales v. Raich (2005), the court held that under the Constitution, Congress may use its Commerce Power to ban even 努indow box medical marijuana, whether permitted under state law or not.

The Commerce Power derives from two constitutional provisions: (1) the Commerce Clause, which grants Congress authority to 途egulate Commerce ... among the several States, and (2) the Necessary and Proper Clause, which says Congress may �ake all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution certain itemized grants�ncluding the Commerce Clause.


In Gonzales, the court found that marijuana growing and use were economic activities. It then followed some 20th century cases that (contrary to earlier rulings) allowed Congress to use the Constitution痴 Necessary and Proper Clause to regulate economic activities with 都ubstantial effects on interstate commerce.



Was the court correct? Answering that question requires us to determine what the Constitution meant to those who adopted it. Even though the founders did not discuss marijuana specifically, a vast array of sources tells us their answer. The sources include debates from the Constitutionç—´ framing and ratification, and writings informing us how key constitutional phrases were used in legal documents.

All students of the Constitution know it splits authority between the states and the federal government. What many do not recognize is that it deliberately divides responsibility over some closely-connected activities. For example, the founders often observed that commerce and domestic manufacturing were tightly related. Nevertheless, their Constitution granted power over several forms of commerce to Congress, but left authority over manufacturing to the states. The founders divided authority this way because protecting liberty was a higher priority than regulatory coordination.

So the Supreme Court is wrong to conclude that because an activity 都ubstantially affects interstate commerce it follows that Congress may regulate it. Many activities, economic or not, substantially affect commerce without being constitutional targets for Congress.

When the Constitution was adopted, the phrase 途egulate commerce was well-understood. It referred to laws governing mercantile trade and certain associated matters, such as tariff barriers, commercial finance, navigation, and marine insurance. It did not include other aspects of the economy. In fact, many of the founders are on record as specifically assuring the public that Congress would have no jurisdiction over agriculture, manufacturing, land use, or (according to Chief Justice Marshall) 塗ealth laws of every description.

Growing marijuana is, of course, a species of agriculture. Processing is manufacturing. The ban on personal consumption is a health regulation. The Constitution places control over all those activities squarely within the state, not the federal, sphere.

So does Congress have any power over marijuana? Under a correct reading of the Constitution, the answer is, å¾¹nly some. The Commerce Clause allows Congress to restrict or ban the marijuana trade across national and state boundaries. Moreover, the Necessary and Proper Clause recognizes some additional authority.

The background and history of the Necessary and Proper Clause establish that the provision is not a grant of authority to Congress, but merely a rule of interpretation. The Clause does, however, acknowledge Congressç—´ prerogative to pass certain laws 妬ncidental to regulating commerce. For example, if Congress prohibits interstate trade in marijuana, it might also require interstate shippers to disclose whether their cargoes included the substanceå‚*ut only if disclosure is reasonably necessary to enforcing the congressional ban.

However, incidental powers do not extent to comprehensive regulation of areas, such as agriculture or manufacturing, reserved to the states.

In sum: Under the original Constitution as ratified by the American people, Congress may regulate, or even ban, marijuana from interstate and foreign commerce. It also may exercise some incidental authority. But it may not constitutionally regulate or prohibit in-state growing, processing, or use of marijuana. For better or worse, those are exclusive concerns of the citizens of the several states.

Rob Natelson is senior fellow in constitutional jurisprudence and heads up the Article V Information Center at the Independence Institute, a free market think tank in Denver. He was previously a constitutional law professor for 25 years.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and are not the views of The Hill.