Feds reply to Cali Prop 19

[In~Plain~Site]

Thats not true.
I suggest you read the 10th amendment. They may try little tricks to exert their power here and there, but its not legal.
And what position did they reverse? I've heard the Obama admin say they will defer medical MJ cases to state authorities as long as it falls under state law. Holder said nothing of medical use, just recreational use.

I agree with the bolded red

It's ALL just political posturing and semantics...none of them are really on our side when it comes to MJ.

Federal raids still took place, even on the so-called 'technicalities' of compliance. It was ALL bullshit!

At least with the neocons I know where I stand, instead of this double-speak, false hope bullshit.


I'm a lil' upset about it, can you tell?

 

[vta]

Prop 19 and Constitutional Law for Dummies (and DEA Administrators)

by Dan Riffle
October 13, 2010

There’s been a great deal of chatter recently about what the federal government can or will do if Californians wisely pass Proposition 19 in a few weeks (read up here and here for example). President Obama has several choices, but the one I want address here is the one recently urged by nine former DEA heads (pdf): for the feds to sue California in an attempt to declare the law null and void under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution because it violates the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). I have yet to see a more than perfunctory analysis of such a scenario, so I thought I’d post a little introductory Constitutional Law lesson for our curious readers.

Article VI, Section 1, clause 2 of the Constitution says “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof … shall be the supreme Law of the Land; … Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” In short, if state law conflicts with a constitutionally valid federal law, the state law is void. Now for starters, not even Supreme Court justices will agree on what the CSA can constitutionally prohibit. At least one justice will tell you a law prohibiting the intrastate cultivation and consumption of marijuana (at least for medical use) isn’t constitutional in the first place. But since a majority on the Court has already said Congress has authority to regulate even intrastate marijuana cultivation, does that mean Prop 19 would be void? Hardly.

The legal term for this analysis is “preemption” – does federal law preempt state law? There are two ways this can happen, express or implied. Express preemption is when federal law expressly says that it preempts state law (example) – the CSA does not. The second is implied preemption, and there are multiple versions of implied preemption. First is when federal laws and regulations are so comprehensive that they intend to “occupy the field” and leave no room for the states to regulate. The second is when there is a direct conflict between state and federal law, so that one law forbids something the other requires, or visa versa. Fortunately, section 903 of the CSA speaks directly to this question:

No provision of this subchapter shall be construed as indicating an intent on the part of the Congress to occupy the field in which that provision operates, including criminal penalties, to the exclusion of any State law on the same subject matter which would otherwise be within the authority of the State, unless there is a positive conflict between that provision of this subchapter and that State law so that the two cannot consistently stand together.

As you can see, the CSA itself says explicitly that it doesn’t “occupy the field.” That’s why in addition to federal laws on marijuana possession, every state in the country has its own laws, most of which differ from one another and federal law. So the question is whether there’s a “positive conflict” between federal law and Prop 19 — does the proposition require something that the CSA forbids? Late night punchlines notwithstanding, smoking marijuana will not be mandatory in California if Prop 19 passes. And Prop 19 doesn’t forbid anything the CSA requires.

There’s one final wrinkle though. A state law can conflict with federal law if it creates an obstacle to accomplishing the goals behind federal law. There’s some question as to whether this form of preemption even applies since one could argue the language of section 903 limits the analysis to direct, positive conflicts (and at least one court agrees with this interpretation). But let’s assume for argument’s sake that it does apply. Some will argue that a state making marijuana legal under its own laws frustrates Congress’ intent to control (by prohibiting) marijuana possession and use. Does that mean California has to keep marijuana illegal? No. A separate line of cases says the feds cannot “commandeer” state governments by telling them what they can and cannot do. In other words, the federal government cannot force California to keep marijuana illegal under state law or enforce federal law.

So what does all this mean? Without question, California can simply remove its criminal laws concerning the possession, cultivation, and use of marijuana, which Prop 19 would do. Then, cities and the state would be free to decide whether to tax and regulate marijuana distribution. Whether and how states or municipalities can enact regulations concerning sales and use of marijuana is another question, but the court decisions on similar issues are encouraging. Decisions in two California cases have found that federal law doesn’t prevent cities and counties from licensing medical marijuana dispensaries and that federal law doesn’t preempt the issuance of patients’ and caregivers’ ID cards. But suffice it to say, anyone claiming Prop 19 will just be void anyway because it conflicts with federal law is, at best, grossly oversimplifying matters. More likely, they’re just flat out wrong, and running scared now that it’s becoming clear what a failure marijuana prohibition has been.

The bottom line is this: California voters have a very real opportunity on November 2 to finally start unwinding marijuana prohibition, and nothing in the Constitution says otherwise.

(Thanks to Karen O’Keefe, MPP’s director of state policies, for her assistance.)

 

[igrowone]

it is interesting where the tidal wave of DEA agents is going to appear from
guess they'll pull some out of Colorado, MMJ being the lesser problem now
and quietly in NY, we're watching events carefully for next year, MMJ has never been closer, it's made it through the legislative process for the first time a few months ago
so no more DEA agents for NY, again it's just MMJ
the more i look, the more links in the federal MJ legal chain look to be bending

 

[♥Mo♥]

/\Cool article.

 

[supermanlives]

cant stop us all

 

[Frogger]

We just have to keep pushing fist the states then the nation!
We need to know were the politician’s stand on med marijuana?

 

[Frogger]

Stand together and we will win this!
We run this country not the DEA or the politicians

 

[StevenSteve]

Wow, so it looks like this country is becoming more and more divided... i wonder how many agents the federal government has.. and more so i wonder how many more are under their control and part of their army...

we just wanna smoke in peace guys, please just leave us alone... we like it, it helps us, and there is nothing wrong with using marijuana period.

 

[Neo 420]

Cmon guy's....Look at how this came out. It will be status quo..

 

[SOTF420]

Hey as long as we keep borrowing money from China they will never run out of resources, but then again we'll make great pets. we'll make great pets.

What is gonna happen when China decides to collect all the trillions we owe them?

Then we definitely won't have any weed to smoke my brothers & sisters.

 

[In~Plain~Site]

Hey as long as we keep borrowing money from China they will never run out of resources, but then again we'll make great pets. we'll make great pets.

What is gonna happen when China decides to collect all the trillions we owe them?

Then we definitely won't have any weed to smoke my brothers & sisters.

BINGO

That's what all the rainbowers have yet to figure out budgets WILL be expanded, is there any doubt?

Christ, they'll create an entire new arm of LEO if they so choose.

Still think that the 'non-compliance' busts in Cali were legit?

Rude awakening = drastic measures

 

[grasspass]

The Feds fought assisted suicide in Oregon that was passed by the voters in Oregon and the Feds lost. The DEA tried to get the names of the people on the state med marijuana program in Oregon and Oregon told them no . The DEA isn't all powerful and I don't agree that federal law trumps state law , especially if you have a county sheriff with some balls.

 

[Frozenguy]

Hey as long as we keep borrowing money from China they will never run out of resources, but then again we'll make great pets. we'll make great pets.

What is gonna happen when China decides to collect all the trillions we owe them?

Then we definitely won't have any weed to smoke my brothers & sisters.

Oh man, dont bring up China lol.. Gets me going.. Since we banned incandescent light bulbs (mercury free), we buy all our light bulbs (cfls-household lighting) from China (and some from India). Not one American company makes them, and the last GE incandescent light bulb factory closed recently. Its really too bad and civilizations in the future will wonder why we used mercury in household lighting, just like we wonder why the romans used lead for their piping and food syrups.

 

[RollmeoneKenobi]

I'm going to quote George W. Bush: "Bring it on!".

 

[use]

"who often distribute marijuana alongside cocaine and other drugs"

yea because everyone I know grows a few coca plants in with their buds. Do these people realize suggesting something like that immediately takes them back to square one in the eyes of the logical.

 

[mean mr.mustard]

Oh man, dont bring up China lol.. Gets me going.. Since we banned incandescent light bulbs (mercury free), we buy all our light bulbs (cfls-household lighting) from China (and some from India). Not one American company makes them, and the last GE incandescent light bulb factory closed recently. Its really too bad and civilizations in the future will wonder why we used mercury in household lighting, just like we wonder why the romans used lead for their piping and food syrups.

Watch out... or you'll be ridiculed for fear mongering!!

 

[Frozenguy]

"who often distribute marijuana alongside cocaine and other drugs"

yea because everyone I know grows a few coca plants in with their buds. Do these people realize suggesting something like that immediately takes them back to square one in the eyes of the logical.

I've been around weed in one form or another since I was about sixteen. Started smoking when I was about 20/21. For a while after that I was heavily involved in the "local" scene but I have yet to ever see one grain of cocaine in my life. When I see comments like that, it's difficult to take what they have to say seriously or apply any merit to it. Unfortunately I think its meant for others and I'm sure it does it's damage in some places..

 

[trichrider]

whats wrong with a bit of fear? it wakes people the fuck up!!!
get a note saying they're taking your home back, wakes you the fuck up!
lose your income, no bank account? wakes you the fuck up!
have a little more regard for peoples ability to think and act in accordance,
we may need to give many the benefit of the doubt.

the NRA has some hefty political clout, yet they have fewer than four(4) million members, we as a group far exceed that number. if we were ever able to harness that power WE would be in control. we are many times that number.

i want to believe this relief from prohibition will be won without the violence that the evil government primps constantly. we stoners don't want violence, but when they begin to relieve us of property and rights it is hard to not want retribution, and it will be increasingly difficult to avoid if the feds want to press the issue.

i reiterate, fear is healthy; gives you a fucking adrenaline rush, paranoia is not.

pardon your disdain over my choice of words. fuck yeah!

 

[Preacher]

Prop 19 and Constitutional Law for Dummies (and DEA Administrators)

by Dan Riffle
October 13, 2010

There’s been a great deal of chatter recently about what the federal government can or will do if Californians wisely pass Proposition 19 in a few weeks (read up here and here for example). President Obama has several choices, but the one I want address here is the one recently urged by nine former DEA heads (pdf): for the feds to sue California in an attempt to declare the law null and void under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution because it violates the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). I have yet to see a more than perfunctory analysis of such a scenario, so I thought I’d post a little introductory Constitutional Law lesson for our curious readers.

Article VI, Section 1, clause 2 of the Constitution says “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof … shall be the supreme Law of the Land; … Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” In short, if state law conflicts with a constitutionally valid federal law, the state law is void. Now for starters, not even Supreme Court justices will agree on what the CSA can constitutionally prohibit. At least one justice will tell you a law prohibiting the intrastate cultivation and consumption of marijuana (at least for medical use) isn’t constitutional in the first place. But since a majority on the Court has already said Congress has authority to regulate even intrastate marijuana cultivation, does that mean Prop 19 would be void? Hardly.

The legal term for this analysis is “preemption” – does federal law preempt state law? There are two ways this can happen, express or implied. Express preemption is when federal law expressly says that it preempts state law (example) – the CSA does not. The second is implied preemption, and there are multiple versions of implied preemption. First is when federal laws and regulations are so comprehensive that they intend to “occupy the field” and leave no room for the states to regulate. The second is when there is a direct conflict between state and federal law, so that one law forbids something the other requires, or visa versa. Fortunately, section 903 of the CSA speaks directly to this question:



As you can see, the CSA itself says explicitly that it doesn’t “occupy the field.” That’s why in addition to federal laws on marijuana possession, every state in the country has its own laws, most of which differ from one another and federal law. So the question is whether there’s a “positive conflict” between federal law and Prop 19 — does the proposition require something that the CSA forbids? Late night punchlines notwithstanding, smoking marijuana will not be mandatory in California if Prop 19 passes. And Prop 19 doesn’t forbid anything the CSA requires.

There’s one final wrinkle though. A state law can conflict with federal law if it creates an obstacle to accomplishing the goals behind federal law. There’s some question as to whether this form of preemption even applies since one could argue the language of section 903 limits the analysis to direct, positive conflicts (and at least one court agrees with this interpretation). But let’s assume for argument’s sake that it does apply. Some will argue that a state making marijuana legal under its own laws frustrates Congress’ intent to control (by prohibiting) marijuana possession and use. Does that mean California has to keep marijuana illegal? No. A separate line of cases says the feds cannot “commandeer” state governments by telling them what they can and cannot do. In other words, the federal government cannot force California to keep marijuana illegal under state law or enforce federal law.

So what does all this mean? Without question, California can simply remove its criminal laws concerning the possession, cultivation, and use of marijuana, which Prop 19 would do. Then, cities and the state would be free to decide whether to tax and regulate marijuana distribution. Whether and how states or municipalities can enact regulations concerning sales and use of marijuana is another question, but the court decisions on similar issues are encouraging. Decisions in two California cases have found that federal law doesn’t prevent cities and counties from licensing medical marijuana dispensaries and that federal law doesn’t preempt the issuance of patients’ and caregivers’ ID cards. But suffice it to say, anyone claiming Prop 19 will just be void anyway because it conflicts with federal law is, at best, grossly oversimplifying matters. More likely, they’re just flat out wrong, and running scared now that it’s becoming clear what a failure marijuana prohibition has been.

The bottom line is this: California voters have a very real opportunity on November 2 to finally start unwinding marijuana prohibition, and nothing in the Constitution says otherwise.

(Thanks to Karen O’Keefe, MPP’s director of state policies, for her assistance.)

Excellent. I agree that the federales don't have the authority to stifle this. Unfortunately I also agree with the dissenting opinions of Gonzales v. Raich which was a 5-4 case in a pre-Roberts court- giving away weed that didn't involve the influence of a fucking thing outside the state of California from the exchange itself to the dirt used to grow it is not "commerce between the several states" damnit. Chances are this will eventually be kicked up to them and they'll make it legal when it's pretty much really not. Hell, I think it was Scalia who once tortured logic so badly that he claimed the state of Texas has a compelling interest in stopping gay people from fucking in their own homes.

Now until then, I think an injunction might work, though I don't know too terribly much about those. I do know that Angel Raich later failed to get an injunction against the state based on the necessity of life defense because apparently the police had showed no prior intent to raid her. Well this is a declaration of intent. If someone here knows more about these legal instruments as well as how to play it out in this crazy American experiment known as duel sovereignty, that'd be great.

If I somehow manage to enter an insane alternate reality where Prop 19 successfully conquers the federales, here's my predicted response (and my predicted responses have been right before, when the legislature was faced with this I basically responded on another forum "here's looking forward to seeing the fearmongering on TV in October when this thing goes on the ballet after the congress kills it"). They'll realize they need the local pigs' help to go after people. They'll maintain the same failed supply-side attack on weed because that's where the real money lies for them and besides they've seen the demand-side propaganda bombs work in halving the percentage of tobacco users over the last half century and they can't have that. And so they'll either attack the biggest dealers and give local LEO a cut of the seized assets, or use the carrot-and-stick methods that eventually coerced every state to raise the drinking age to 21.

At any rate I'm guessing the real cause of their pissation is they know all that wonderful tax revenue isn't going to reach the federal level despite people being required to report illegal income... fuck, they could send the Treasury department in for tax evasion. :\

Radio edit: while I'm talking about insane alternate realities it'd be pretty cool seeing someone successfully invoke US v. Leary and make my previous paragraph totally irrelevant.

 

[mean mr.mustard]

Apparently fear mongering is the last stance of the unsubstantsiated.... at least on IC.