California Vs. Federals on Legalized Marijuana

[Disposable Heart]

Feds oppose Calif. Prop 19 to legalize marijuana - Yahoo! News

So, whatever a state does, the Feds say no way Jose. Federalist invasive tactics again... Poor states, you don't know how to govern your own territory, let us do it for you

Doesn't matter the idea of legalization of marijuana, its how they go about it...

 

[indykid]

I truly hope California gets the vote to legalize marijuana. I was always hoping that someone would realize that people are going to smoke it anyway, and like alcohol which was once banned, treat it the same. Enjoy it but don't drive after using it.

Although California's motive is income, there is nothing wrong with taxing it like they tax alcoholic beverages. Regulate it like alcohol.

Unfortunately there are people that are always going to get into a car after drinking alcohol or smoking pot, but only then should the jail sentences be huge.

As to California versus the federal government, this is one time I would stand side by side with California and tell the government to get back to it's constitutional duties which is not telling states how to run their own business.

I truly hope the people of California, like Arizona have what it takes to tell the government to do their constitutional job.

 

[lashicoN]

The Feds will probably win. California gave up all of their arms, fools. Indiana should legalize though. We can put up a respectable fight here.

 

[christman]

Legalize it everywhere. Im tired of paying for morons to be locked up in prison for non-violent drug offenses. So much tax money wasted for repeat offenders. If they want to fry their brain on whatever drug they wish, so be it. Can't be any worse than the millions of deaths each year attributed to alcohol and cigarettes. At least this way, we could benefit from the regulation of it.

 

[rambone]

If California wins, the 10th Amendment wins. I don't know why any conservative would support a Federal Government trumping the states' ability to self-govern. Its more obvious now than ever why this is a very bad thing.

If the Feds win this one it doesn't help our cause trying to go against the Feds on Obamacare.

 

[88GT]

If California wins, the 10th Amendment wins. I don't know why any conservative would support a Federal Government trumping the states' ability to self-govern. Its more obvious now than ever why this is a very bad thing.

If the Feds win this one it doesn't help our cause trying to go against the Feds on Obamacare.

Cali won't win, but not necessarily because of the marijuana issue. The feds are all too aware of your point about the 10th. They can't let Cali win on marijuana and claim supremacy/preemption against AZ and the immigration issue.

 

[Disposable Heart]

Pretty much everything I have read regarding AZ and this Cali issue, the personleading the charge in both cases was the squishyface retard Holder. That guy is starting to seriously twist my dreds. It's these "czars" and other appointed branch goons that are squeezing America. Lots of fronts on the war against liberty right now, and all are agonizingly slow "incremental" attacks.

 

[phylodog]

CA needs federal money now more than ever to continue giving it away to anyone who wanders within it's boundaries from far away places. CA politicians will fold under the pressure when the feds start threatening to pull federal funding for all of their welfare programs.

 

[mrjarrell]

CA needs federal money now more than ever to continue giving it away to anyone who wanders within it's boundaries from far away places. CA politicians will fold under the pressure when the feds start threatening to pull federal funding for all of their welfare programs.

The California politicians won't have a say in the matter. This is coming about via Prop 19, a citizen driven initiative. If the people of California vote for it, it becomes law. The only recourse anyone has is to challenge it in court and, seeing as no-ones rights are violated by its passage, they'd have a hard row to hoe on this one. The politicians hands will be tied.

 

[Disposable Heart]

The California politicians won't have a say in the matter. This is coming about via Prop 19, a citizen driven initiative. If the people of California vote for it, it becomes law. The only recourse anyone has is to challenge it in court and, seeing as no-ones rights are violated by its passage, they'd have a hard row to hoe on this one. The politicians hands will be tied.

Hopefully this will begin the domino fall: Citizen run action bringing about the end to the drug laws in this country, especially over marijuana. Citizens forced to take responsibility for their own action.

Ainsley gotta be spinnin' in his grave right now

 

[jbombelli]

I wonder if the feds would be ticked if every single LEO agency in the state of California suddenly refused to cooperate with them, refused to conduct raids with them, refused to share resources and information with them, etc.


Not that I think that would happen.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

CA needs federal money now more than ever to continue giving it away to anyone who wanders within it's boundaries from far away places. CA politicians will fold under the pressure when the feds start threatening to pull federal funding for all of their welfare programs.

The California politicians won't have a say in the matter. This is coming about via Prop 19, a citizen driven initiative. If the people of California vote for it, it becomes law. The only recourse anyone has is to challenge it in court and, seeing as no-ones rights are violated by its passage, they'd have a hard row to hoe on this one. The politicians hands will be tied.

This vote means absolutely nothing. Less than nothing. Constitution, Supremacy Clause. Feds say it's illegal. Doesn't matter what the state says.

Not saying it's right. Just saying what is.

 

[miguel]

Every state in the union needs to pick some issue to challenge the Feds with, pass it into law via their legislature or a referendum, then let the Feds challenge it in court. AZ has immigration, CA will have dope. What's next?

Uncle Sam can only fight on so many fronts -- in this case, courts -- before the house of cards that is the usurpation of the 10th Amendment collapses.

 

[phylodog]

Wouldn't hurt my feelings in the least to see it legalized in CA. May just start the process to legalize it across the nation which would be fine with me. I still believe that if the Fed money is cut off the state will buckle and do whatever it takes to keep the money flowing.

 

[Bill of Rights]

This vote means absolutely nothing. Less than nothing. Constitution, Supremacy Clause. Feds say it's illegal. Doesn't matter what the state says.

Not saying it's right. Just saying what is.

Would this not be a 10A issue? Especially for pot grown and then smoked in CA? It's not and has never crossed state lines, so I'm not sure where there's any power granted the fedgov to even discuss pot. I understand that SCOTUS is not going to make a ruling that's going to turn all those years of law, all those cases that are so lucrative all over the country, and an entire federal bureaucracy (DEA) on its proverbial head, but I'm trying to address the source of the federal power over this. It does not seem to exist.

Thoughts?

Blessings,
Bill

 

[dross]

Would this not be a 10A issue? Especially for pot grown and then smoked in CA? It's not and has never crossed state lines, so I'm not sure where there's any power granted the fedgov to even discuss pot. I understand that SCOTUS is not going to make a ruling that's going to turn all those years of law, all those cases that are so lucrative all over the country, and an entire federal bureaucracy (DEA) on its proverbial head, but I'm trying to address the source of the federal power over this. It does not seem to exist.

Thoughts?

Blessings,
Bill

Tenth Amendment? What's that? Hasn't that been repealed? Has any SCOTUS ruling cited it? Isn't it trumped by the Commerce Clause and the Preamble?

Seriously, I can't tell from the current state of our law that the Tenth Amendment even exists.

 

[88GT]

Would this not be a 10A issue? Especially for pot grown and then smoked in CA? It's not and has never crossed state lines, so I'm not sure where there's any power granted the fedgov to even discuss pot. I understand that SCOTUS is not going to make a ruling that's going to turn all those years of law, all those cases that are so lucrative all over the country, and an entire federal bureaucracy (DEA) on its proverbial head, but I'm trying to address the source of the federal power over this. It does not seem to exist.

Thoughts?

Blessings,
Bill

The flip answer would be something like "Since when did the federal .gov need a reason to usurp power from the states?"

The more diplomatic answer would be something like "The usurpation of state authority/power by the federal government has been a long and cumulative process. States, lured by the promise of federal funds, have willfully abdicated their authority/power. The Fed.gov has obligingly accepted it. That the Constitution clearly prohibits it doesn't seem to matter much any more. Not on this issue. Not on most others. Arguing from the "should be this way" platform is but an exercise in futility IMO.


Power is either freely given or forcefully taken. I do not see the Feds opting for Door #1 on this issue. Where we the citizenry end up in what remains of those options is anyone's guess.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Maybe not. Obama administration issues new policy on medical marijuana | 44 | washingtonpost.com

Granted, that only addresses medical marijuana, but how hard would it be to change the policy again? That was three days shy of a year ago.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Would this not be a 10A issue? Especially for pot grown and then smoked in CA? It's not and has never crossed state lines, so I'm not sure where there's any power granted the fedgov to even discuss pot. I understand that SCOTUS is not going to make a ruling that's going to turn all those years of law, all those cases that are so lucrative all over the country, and an entire federal bureaucracy (DEA) on its proverbial head, but I'm trying to address the source of the federal power over this. It does not seem to exist.

Thoughts?

Blessings,
Bill

SCOTUS has ruled many times that Congress can regulate intrastate commerce when it affects interstate commerce.

Here's a summary of a case directly on point.

GONZALES V. RAICH

 

[mrjarrell]

This vote means absolutely nothing. Less than nothing. Constitution, Supremacy Clause. Feds say it's illegal. Doesn't matter what the state says.

Not saying it's right. Just saying what is.

You're wrong, as the previous vote on Prop 215 shows. The feds were against that one, too and today it is the law of the land in California, despite federal opposition. There are clinics and farms across the state growing medical cannabis and it's being distributed to patients all over the state. Federal supremacy means nothing when you have law on your side.