Letter from senator Leahy to US Senate Judiciary Committee concerning Marijuana

[mgrady3]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/leahy-kerlikowske-marijuana.pdf

I know this is not the most credible link - but I'd like to open it up for discussion none the less

The part I find important is towards the bottom of the letter:

Legislative options exist to resolve the differences between Federal and state law in this area and
end the uncertainty that residents of Colorado and Washington now face. One option would be
to amend the Federal Controlled Substances Act to allow possession of up to one ounce of
marijuana, at least in jurisdictions where it is legal under state law. In order to give these options
full consideration, the Committee needs to understand how the administration intends to respond
to the decision of the voters in Colorado and Washington. I look forward to hearing your
thoughts on this matter.

Now isn't that a novel idea - amend the CSA to allow for cannabis legislation at the state level. It doesn't have to be legalized everywhere, rather, let the states that want to legalize, do so without the threat of federal crackdown. Whereas the states with no interest in legalization (i'm looking at you Southern US...)can continue with their day to day business with no changes.

Senator Leahy, a Democrat from Vermont, is hinting to Congress that legislative action can (and possibly should) be used to resolve the current conflict of interest between state's rights and federal law with regards to marijuana legalization, regulation, taxation, etc...

Even if the end of the letter is disregarded by most, the point remains that people are asking questions about how the federal government is going to handle the situation in Colorado and Washington. The ball in in the hands of the federal government; its their move. Lets hope they don't screw it up for everyone.

This also comes out near the same time where Obama has spoken out on the issue [see other DiTM threads] saying little more than recreational pot use won't be top federal priority... which is basically just saying it remains the status quo. However that statement could have been far worse. I'm glad at least it looks like the government is taking its time on the issue, for now, and not rushing into anything.

 

[daytryptr]

It all comes down to federalism and interstate commerce regulation (really intrastate commmerce, btw).

The feds know they don't have the constitutional authority, but the laws now a days are so perverse in regeards to adherence to the constitution it doesn't mattter. States should be proving grounds for legislation, if the voters in said state choose to write something into law, as long as it adheres to the consitution, for all i care, the feds can go sit on the washington monument if they got a problem with that. You don't make very many political allies when you turn on the majority voting populace of a state.

 

[23536]

The feds know they don't have the constitutional authority

Everyone keeps saying this, but aren't there a gazillion Federal laws that are enforced on every inch of American soil? What part of the constitution limits the power of the Federal government to enforce Federal laws?

 

[MemphisX3]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/leahy-kerlikowske-marijuana.pdf

I know this is not the most credible link - but I'd like to open it up for discussion none the less

The part I find important is towards the bottom of the letter:


Now isn't that a novel idea - amend the CSA to allow for cannabis legislation at the state level. It doesn't have to be legalized everywhere, rather, let the states that want to legalize, do so without the threat of federal crackdown. Whereas the states with no interest in legalization (i'm looking at you Southern US...)can continue with their day to day business with no changes.

Senator Leahy, a Democrat from Vermont, is hinting to Congress that legislative action can (and possibly should) be used to resolve the current conflict of interest between state's rights and federal law with regards to marijuana legalization, regulation, taxation, etc...

Even if the end of the letter is disregarded by most, the point remains that people are asking questions about how the federal government is going to handle the situation in Colorado and Washington. The ball in in the hands of the federal government; its their move. Lets hope they don't screw it up for everyone.

This also comes out near the same time where Obama has spoken out on the issue [see other DiTM threads] saying little more than recreational pot use won't be top federal priority... which is basically just saying it remains the status quo. However that statement could have been far worse. I'm glad at least it looks like the government is taking its time on the issue, for now, and not rushing into anything.

i know the southern states' gears are turning toward the idea of medical marijuana. we had it come to a vote this past election, imo not enough people knew about it to get a decent turn out. gives us another 2-4 years.

 

[mgrady3]

Everyone keeps saying this, but aren't there a gazillion Federal laws that are enforced on every inch of American soil? What part of the constitution limits the power of the Federal government to enforce Federal laws?

perhaps the Tenth Ammendment: "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."

Although I'm by no means a scholar of law.
Its certainly not a cut and dry situation. Things like the supremacy clause and the commerce clause make it sticky territory. According to congress, the federal government has the right to oversee interstate commerce - they can use this loosely to claim the right to stick their feet into states' MMJ businesses. The IRS also gets involved because if the federal government deems that the businesses are taking income from an illegal source (schedule one substances) then certain right to tax breaks and exemptions are no longer valid.

So as of right now the Federal government is trouncing on state's rights concerning MMJ but there's still room for debate. But someone mentioned in another thread that many court precedents have been set that put the power in the federal governments hands... it would be a tough battle for states to take MMJ or recreational marijuana to court over states rights.

i know the southern states' gears are turning toward the idea of medical marijuana. we had it come to a vote this past election, imo not enough people knew about it to get a decent turn out. gives us another 2-4 years.

thats true - I do remember seeing that Arkansas was close to voting in MMJ in this past election but I think in general that the South is laggin behind the rest of the nation a bit.

 

[23536]

If the tenth amendment is to be read in such a strict way--that every power the Feds have has to be directly mentioned in the constitution--then you have to either dismantle most of the Federal government or monstrously expand the Constitution.

The way I read that amendment is that everything the Federal government doesn't control is the jurisdiction of the states. But I'm not a lawyer.

I want the Feds to act on drugs. I want them to explicitly legalize them, so that with one fell swoop we can eliminate most of the crime in this country. Think about it: what percentage of violent crimes here are directly related to drug dealing? And when was the last time a guy with a vegetable truck shot up a supermarket because they were selling produce on his turf?

 

[slimvictor]

I want the Feds to act on drugs. I want them to explicitly legalize them, so that with one fell swoop we can eliminate most of the crime in this country. Think about it: what percentage of violent crimes here are directly related to drug dealing? And when was the last time a guy with a vegetable truck shot up a supermarket because they were selling produce on his turf?

I am with you on the legalization question - far preferable if they are legalized nationally. However, if Obama is too scared to do so, the Leahy idea is better than nothing.

As for the guy with the vegetables- they are the worst. Most of them are (insert race/ethnicity here), and are (insert stereotype here), and I heard that one of them was raping (economically/socially privileged race/ethnicity) girls.
We need to make vegetables illegal.

 

[23536]

As for the guy with the vegetables- they are the worst. Most of them are (insert race/ethnicity here), and are (insert stereotype here), and I heard that one of them was raping (economically/socially privileged race/ethnicity) girls.
We need to make vegetables illegal.

That's just a myth that the supermarket industry is propagating. In reality, all of us have sold or distributed some form of vegetable at some point in our lives, and for the most part we've gone on to lead productive, tax-paying lives