PSA: ATTN - If you are bound in raid zones, read this

[heartbrand]

Originally Posted by GoodGuyAmes [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I wonder if they will choose to even hear the case though. 5 of the 9 justices have been appointed by conservative presidents with three of them remaining from the Reagan era. They might decide not to hear it because of their belief in strong state rights with the government trying to meddle in their affairs as little as possible. And yes the federal law prohibits its illegality in the U.S but it has not been actively in-forced for quite some time as anyone who has been in California can attest to. There are more marijuana dispensaries in L.A then there are Starbucks.

The silence of the DOJ on the matter is indeed pretty interesting, given their prior stance I thought for sure they would challenge it under the supremacy clause, an argument that at least in my estimation from the legal blog world would be pretty open and shut.

edit: the DOJ has gone after the large dispensaries though, states rights aside those arguments are usually because of the belief by the conservative justices, a belief I must admit I also hold, that Congress routinely oversteps it's boundaries vis-à-vis the commerce clause. This case is one where a state law directly contradicts a federal law, which would seem straight forward to me. A better argument would be that the Controlled Substances Act is unconstitutional because it violates the commerce clause, however, arguments using the commerce clause have been for the most part even under the conservative majority almost unanimously unsuccessful with the exception of United States v. Lopez

[GoodGuyAmes]

Originally Posted by heartbrand [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The silence of the DOJ on the matter is indeed pretty interesting, given their prior stance I thought for sure they would challenge it under the supremacy clause, an argument that at least in my estimation from the legal blog world would be pretty open and shut.

edit: the DOJ has gone after the large dispensaries though

They try and pursue them in court instead of kicking down doors. When they stop trying to stop it on the ground and just focus on applying pressure through the courts it just becomes all for show. The DOJ needs to follow the law in place and not the law they think should be in place. Public servants in government do not create law - only the congress has that power. I'm sure Eric Holderman believes that they should just let the states decide or even go one step further and decriminalize it across the board but he just cant act on his personal beliefs. I voted for Obama in 2008 and I really hoped to see more of his campaign promises enacted when he came to office. Decriminalize and tax (still illegal for street dealers to sell, regulate it and make it safe) marijuana, legalize gay marriage and give them all the federal benefits straight couples enjoy and lets focus on important issues.

[Stinkum]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Sektor]

Originally Posted by Stinkum [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

LOL stupid shit like this cracks me up.

[Agatha]

Originally Posted by heartbrand [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The silence of the DOJ on the matter is indeed pretty interesting, given their prior stance I thought for sure they would challenge it under the supremacy clause, an argument that at least in my estimation from the legal blog world would be pretty open and shut.

edit: the DOJ has gone after the large dispensaries though

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[heartbrand]

It is pretty straight forward that those laws violate the supremacy clause. Just because the DOJ during the Obama administration has been inept at deciding how to handle the changing societal views on marijuana, does not change that fact.

[Agatha]

Originally Posted by heartbrand [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It is pretty straight forward that those laws violate the supremacy clause. Just because the DOJ during the Obama administration has been inept at deciding how to handle the changing societal views on marijuana, does not change that fact.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

for the non retired special forces pilots, thats a b-52
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/160th_S...ment_(Airborne) < where i used to serve

[heartbrand]

I couldn't agree more. The DOJ has for too long been used as a weapon of the executive branch to selectively enforce certain laws and ignore others, the CSA included. I have to disagree on Eric Holder though, I've written to him before and his responses are troubling to a social libertarian such as myself. He's a big opponent of legalizing online poker for example because of it's "evils" and would not vote for legislation that allows states to decide whether to tax and regulate it. While republicans claim to be the party of small government and states rights, that doesn't seem to apply to sexual orientation / drugs / gambling aka anything that goes against their Puritan values.

edit: a well written article on the legality of state marijuana laws and their interaction with federal law: http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/f.../pdf/PA714.pdf A decent response to the article, http://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog...arijuana-laws/ which makes the argument that states merely choosing not to enforce federal laws is not equivalent to attempting to violate federal laws, but that of course under federal law marijuana possession and use remains illegal.

[Agatha]

Originally Posted by heartbrand [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I couldn't agree more. The DOJ has for too long been used as a weapon of the executive branch to selectively enforce certain laws and ignore others, the CSA included. I have to disagree on Eric Holder though, I've written to him before and his responses are troubling to a social libertarian such as myself. He's a big opponent of legalizing online poker for example because of it's "evils" and would not vote for legislation that allows states to decide whether to tax and regulate it. While republicans claim to be the party of small government and states rights, that doesn't seem to apply to sexual orientation / drugs / gambling aka anything that goes against their Puritan values.

edit: a well written article on the legality of state marijuana laws and their interaction with federal law: http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/f.../pdf/PA714.pdf A decent response to the article, http://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog...arijuana-laws/ which makes the argument that states merely choosing not to enforce federal laws is not equivalent to attempting to violate federal laws, but that of course under federal law marijuana possession and use remains illegal.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
this is an mh-53 in honor of heartbrands 53rd post in this thread

[Stinkum]

Originally Posted by heartbrand

The rationale here by people is just comical. Are you ok when the government says online poker and sports betting is illegal? Do you just go o yaw that's classic np np good decision? are you cool with blue laws in your states that forbid you from buying alcohol on sundays? Sodomy laws? You think the current patent law system is ok?

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]