due to budget crisis CA to Legalize weed and tax it....

[manu1959]

just heard it on the radio....legislation sponsored by San Francisco folks.....

[LiberalNation]

it would still be illegal at the fed level. Kinda pointless.

[manu1959]

it would still be illegal at the fed level. Kinda pointless.

so are medical pot clubs but they still exist....

maybe california will just leave.....and take its weed money with it.....

[Mr. P]

just heard it on the radio....legislation sponsored by San Francisco folks.....

Damn! Now it all goes to POT! The California crop price goes up an quality goes down! Geeeeeeeeezzzzzz!!

[Yurt]

good, it will also free up more beds in the prisons/jails since weed will not be illegal

[Little-Acorn]

it would still be illegal at the fed level. Kinda pointless.

It's an interesting question. The Constitution states that Federal laws made under the authority granted by the Constitution, supersede any conflicting state or local laws.

And there are certainly Federal laws banning Marijuana, growing it, possessing it, selling it etc.

But are those Federal laws, made under the authority of the US Constitution?

Another section of the Constitution says that the Federal government has ONLY the powers explicitly granted it by the Constitution... and that all others are "reserved to the States, or to the People." Meaning, the Fed does NOT have any power to regulate those others.

If someone grows some maryjane and transports or sells it over a state line, then the Fed can make a colorable argument that they can regulate it, under the Interstate Commerce clause.

But what if the guy grows it and smokes it himself, and/or sells it to his friends, all within the same state so it never crosses a state line or even comes close?

A number of people believe the Fed CANNOT regulate that in-state weed in any way, since it is not at all involved in "commerce among the several states".

Some lawyer in a court case once tried to make the argument that, since certain articles were made in a state and consumed completely within that same state, that had the effect of reducing the transport of the same stuff from out of state, into the state. And so the completely in-state stuff, DID affect interstate commerce, and so the Fed COULD regulate it under the Interstate Commerce Clause.

I believe that argument was laughed out of court, and rejected.

Personally, I believe that any one who uses MJ recreationally, has rocks in his head; and I would never do it. And the states can certainly regulate or ban it if they want.

But I don't see where the Fed has ANY authority to ban or restrict MJ, in any way.

[avatar4321]

good, it will also free up more beds in the prisons/jails since weed will not be illegal

How many people using weed end up in jail? Any of my clients with weed end up on probation. So its not like they are taking up space to begin with.

[avatar4321]

it would still be illegal at the fed level. Kinda pointless.

For some reason I just dont think its likely a Federal Court is going to get involved prosecuting marijuana use. The state courts hardly like wasting their time on it.

[Mr. P]

LA..just wondering...have you ever used any MJ?

[Little-Acorn]

For some reason I just dont think its likely a Federal Court is going to get involved prosecuting marijuana use. The state courts hardly like wasting their time on it.

Are there any states that do NOT have any laws on their State books, banning MJ? If a guy in one of those states, get busted for MJ, it would have to be under the Federal law. If he gets convicted, he could appeal it all the way up to the US Supreme Court, and he could use the argument that the Fed has no authority to ban or restrict MJ since the stuff he used never left the state.

I don't see any arguments the prosecution could use against him.

If a STATE has state laws against marijuana use, that's different. States DO have authority to restrict or ban MJ if they want to.

Is there any state that has NO such laws on its books?

If there aren't any states like that, then maybe California will become the first, if these proposed laws get passed. I guess the laws essentially repeal any State laws California does have.

Then if a guy is hauled in for growing his own MJ and smoking it in the state, will the Feds prosecute him under the Federal law, or chicken out and let him go?

[April15]

good, it will also free up more beds in the prisons/jails since weed will not be illegal

You aren't shittin either. Over 60% are for marijuana.

[Yurt]

How many people using weed end up in jail? Any of my clients with weed end up on probation. So its not like they are taking up space to begin with.

so they were booked and release without ever stepping foot in jail?

[Yurt]

You aren't shittin either. Over 60% are for marijuana.

do you have a link for that? where did you get this knowledge?

[Yurt]

It's an interesting question. The Constitution states that Federal laws made under the authority granted by the Constitution, supersede any conflicting state or local laws.

And there are certainly Federal laws banning Marijuana, growing it, possessing it, selling it etc.

But are those Federal laws, made under the authority of the US Constitution?

Another section of the Constitution says that the Federal government has ONLY the powers explicitly granted it by the Constitution... and that all others are "reserved to the States, or to the People." Meaning, the Fed does NOT have any power to regulate those others.

If someone grows some maryjane and transports or sells it over a state line, then the Fed can make a colorable argument that they can regulate it, under the Interstate Commerce clause.

But what if the guy grows it and smokes it himself, and/or sells it to his friends, all within the same state so it never crosses a state line or even comes close?

A number of people believe the Fed CANNOT regulate that in-state weed in any way, since it is not at all involved in "commerce among the several states".

Some lawyer in a court case once tried to make the argument that, since certain articles were made in a state and consumed completely within that same state, that had the effect of reducing the transport of the same stuff from out of state, into the state. And so the completely in-state stuff, DID affect interstate commerce, and so the Fed COULD regulate it under the Interstate Commerce Clause.

I believe that argument was laughed out of court, and rejected.

Personally, I believe that any one who uses MJ recreationally, has rocks in his head; and I would never do it. And the states can certainly regulate or ban it if they want.

But I don't see where the Fed has ANY authority to ban or restrict MJ, in any way.

excellent argument. i think though that the in state effect on interstate commerce was upheld as, taken in the aggregate, it substantially effected interstate commerce. i think it was a corn case or something, and i believe the government used the same argument at SCOTUS regarding marijuana....not positive, but i think i remember reading that.

[5stringJeff]

Does anyone really think the Feds take any type of limitation of power seriously?