Somewhere the Tenth Ammendment is weeping softly.

The DEA's focus on the dispensaries - and the city's response to it - highlights the discord in federal and state laws on marijuana: California voters approved Proposition 215, supporting medical usage, in 1996, but federal law outlaws marijuana. And the DEA has warned cannabis dispensary owners that relying on state law is not a valid defense against federal charges.



That would make for a very interesting legal challenge.

"DEA sends "threatening letters" to medical cannabis dispensaries in California, points out that owners can't rely on state law as valid defense against federal charges"


If you can't impeach, there is always Secession....

But, but, but, I thought Republicans were for states rights....

is there a place we can all go to simultaneously boo the DEA?

Dude that's like so unfair. I mean if you really think about it, dude, it's like so messed up and stuff.

That should stop all the marijuana smoking then.

Sum Guye: But, but, but, I thought Republicans were for states rights....

No, the Republican party was against states rights when it came to slavery. stands to reason that they'd continue the philosophy when it comes to the war on drugs.

not saying it's right, merely that they're being entirely consistant.

testsicles: That should stop all the marijuana smoking then.

Right! stick with tobacco!

oh...wait...

Lenny and Carl: Somewhere the Tenth Ammendment is weeping softly.

i doubt it is yet. the high court hasn't decided yet whether the controlled substances act violates the 10th amendment. probably won't be long before they'll have to. if they rule that it doesn't, then yes it will weep. until then, no reason yet to get upset.

Weaver95:
That would make for a very interesting legal challenge.

Actually it wouldn't. I'm just armchairing here, but it seems pretty obvious to me that the only two calls a judge could make that would save them is either:
A) Declaring it unconstitutional for Federal Law to supersede State Law. We answered that in 1861. I doubt a modern judge would even be willing to limit the scope of which laws Federal supersedes on.
B) Declaring the entirety of US. Federal recreational drug laws unconstitutional. I think the judge would be more likely to risk refighting the civil war.

In short, it may be an absolute dick move on the part of the government, but if the DEA does go after these people, they're absolutely boned. Figure they have to know it, too. They may be dirty hippies, but every one of the has to know that the odds are good that they're going to end up doing the time so that the next generation can maybe have a chance of fixing these ludicious laws. The issue may not be as important (at least, not unless you're dying of cancer and wracked with pain and uncontrollable nausea) but they're taking the same risk the early civil rights protestors did. They're willing to go to jail to force trials that probably wont get them free even if they eventually result in changes in the laws.

The DEA is probably right. I don't recall on what basis, but somehow the feds got jurisdiction over drugs, and there is precendent in the Supreme Court supporting it.

WaltzingMathilda

While the courtshve not ruled on this specific case they have made that decision many time in the past. They've used a ridiculously broad interpretation of the commerce clause to give congress authority to regulate anything and anything.

Without that interpretation of the Constitution there couldn't even be a DEA because the Constitution doesn't give the Feds the authority to regulate any substances.

Weaver95: No, the Republican party was against states rights when it came to slavery. stands to reason that they'd continue the philosophy when it comes to the war on drugs.

St. Ronnie was on-side for the "states rights" concept*

(*Reagan's actual "on-side" may not necessarilly involve issues including but not limited to "abortion", "drug use", "highway speed limits", "legal drinking age", and any issue involving s-e-x which should be mandated by the federal government and not left to the states.

testsicles: That should stop all the marijuana smoking then.

If that doesn't take care of it, maybe we should start a war on drugs, once we've wrapped up this was on terror.

Oh, wait...

aerojockey: I don't recall on what basis, but somehow the feds got jurisdiction over drugs, and there is precendent in the Supreme Court supporting it.

Interstate Commerce Clause. Throughout the 20th century this has been abused to give the federal government power over absolutely everything and I don't think the current court has the balls to stop its expansion.

aerojockey: The DEA is probably right. I don't recall on what basis, but somehow the feds got jurisdiction over drugs, and there is precendent in the Supreme Court supporting it.

It's actually a bit more murky than anyone would like us to realize. Basically, congress 'sort of' made drugs illegal and then turned over the responsiblity of regulation to a guy who lied to congress about the dangers of cannabis and used his new found authority to keep white women away from the darkies.

Things have gone down hill from there.

aerojockey

The DEA is supported by nearly all court precedent, even though the 10th Ammendment should take precedence in these matters. Its one of the great disgraces of 20th century jurisprudence, and it looks like we won't see it disappear in the 21st either.

You're the jerk... jerk: Interstate Commerce Clause. Throughout the 20th century this has been abused to give the federal government power over absolutely everything and I don't think the current court has the balls to stop its expansion.

Somehow, I doubt the Founding Fathers had anything event vaguely like it's current use in mind when they described the "Interstate Commerce" part of the constitution. I mean, theoretically a man convicted of _any_ crime could then cross a border and do business there, so technically the prosecution of all crimes involve interstate commerce.

The Commerce Clause. Until the day that is brought before judges the Feds believe they are entitled to do such things. That's why I'm not really sure why states and municipalities try to add this referendum to their ballots when technically the feds can and will intervine with a broad loophole.

In America, you can't practice medicine unless you're heavily armed and have a SWAT team in reserve.

//What is this MD degree you speak of?

A dragonfly beating its wings in Missoula alters the prevailing winds over Tampa, therefore affecting interstate commerce.

So goes the federal laws forbidding everything not compulsory, making compulsory all that is not forbidden, and declaring an 'enemy combatant' anyone who tries to find out which is which.

I'd say more, but there's a knock at the door, gotta go..

States lost their rights in WWII when the Supremes ruled that the Federal regulation of interstate trade could be extended to include just about anything the Feds wanted to regulate.

Any one expect the Feds to voluntarily relinquish power?

While I support medical MJ, and decriminalization of weed possession, I'm pretty sure it's correct that no state can make a law that contradicts or overrides federal law. Sadly, that is the case.

Pxtl: Somehow, I doubt the Founding Fathers had anything event vaguely like it's current use in mind when they described the "Interstate Commerce" part of the constitution. I mean, theoretically a man convicted of _any_ crime could then cross a border and do business there, so technically the prosecution of all crimes involve interstate commerce.

There is even a case where the feds were allowed to regulate the wheat a farmer was growing precisely because he did not sell it and thus affected the market.

This was on 60 Minutes. The DEA agents all acted like total douchebags. These places are completely transparent in what they sell and yet they bust windows and break shiat like they're barging into a gang-defended crack house.

/doesn't smoke
//believes in states' rights

Don't fark with DEA man. They can do whatever they want. Your money, nope, their money. Your house, nope, their house. Your car, nope, their car. Your freedom, nope, not yours. You'll fight it, nope, you'll lose it. Unless you're a celebrity or have millions to burn, bend over and bite on a towel.

Epsilon

While that is true, the Feds were supposed to be limited as to what they could regulate. They weren't supposed to have jurisdiction over minor crimial matters like drugs. The Constitution is pretty explicit on this point.

States can't supercede federal law, but the feds weren't allowed to pass drug laws in the first place.

Epsilon: While I support medical MJ, and decriminalization of weed possession, I'm pretty sure it's correct that no state can make a law that contradicts or overrides federal law. Sadly, that is the case.

My state's minimum wage overrides federal law.

Mad-n-FL 2007-12-22 08:16:57 PM
If you can't impeach, there is always Secession....

I'm pretty sure there was some sort of disagreement in the early 1860s over that, and it was determined that secession is not an option.

Lenny and Carl

The DEA is supported by nearly all court precedent, even though the 10th Ammendment should take precedence in these matters. Its one of the great disgraces of 20th century jurisprudence, and it looks like we won't see it disappear in the 21st either.

Yes, but it's very rare that there isn't some clause they point to to give lip service to the idea that they are abiding the Constitution. I don't remember what it was (maybe I should refresh myself) but I seem to remember it being a stronger claim than some other federal de facto powers.

Epsilon: While I support medical MJ, and decriminalization of weed possession, I'm pretty sure it's correct that no state can make a law that contradicts or overrides federal law. Sadly, that is the case.

Hoopy Frood: My state's minimum wage overrides federal law.

Well, that's a good point. Maybe we need more clarification on this issue, because I'm not a lawyer. To what extent can a state enact laws that override federal laws?

Hoopy Frood

Epsilon: While I support medical MJ, and decriminalization of weed possession, I'm pretty sure it's correct that no state can make a law that contradicts or overrides federal law. Sadly, that is the case.

My state's minimum wage overrides federal law.

It actually doesn't.

Mmm...states' rights. Happy 1861.

Lenny and Carl: While that is true, the Feds were supposed to be limited as to what they could regulate. They weren't supposed to have jurisdiction over minor crimial matters like drugs. The Constitution is pretty explicit on this point.

I'm not aware that the Constitution explicitly addresses drugs, I don't think it does, but not all federal laws are spelled out in the Constitution. In fact, very few are. I think it was Richard Nixon who enacted drug regulation laws and Congress approved it, giving the fed the ability to regulate drugs as they see fit. I don't necessarily agree with the decision, but I think that's how it came about.

Epsilon: Epsilon: While I support medical MJ, and decriminalization of weed possession, I'm pretty sure it's correct that no state can make a law that contradicts or overrides federal law. Sadly, that is the case.

Hoopy Frood: My state's minimum wage overrides federal law.

Well, that's a good point. Maybe we need more clarification on this issue, because I'm not a lawyer. To what extent can a state enact laws that override federal laws?

A state cannot enact laws that take away rights enumerated by the Constitution, but it can enact laws that grant more rights/benefits privileges than are spelled out -- specifically, in fact, the Constitution grants the states the exclusive authority to do just that. So, in short, a state can't take away your freedom of speech but it can raise the minimum wage.

Epsilon: I'm not aware that the Constitution explicitly addresses drugs, I don't think it does, but not all federal laws are spelled out in the Constitution. In fact, very few are. I think it was Richard Nixon who enacted drug regulation laws and Congress approved it, giving the fed the ability to regulate drugs as they see fit. I don't necessarily agree with the decision, but I think that's how it came about.

Please read the 10th amendment.

(Time to dig this oldie but goodie out again&hellip):

While nobody has died of marijuana directly in the entire history of civilization (the word "cannabis" comes from the Sumerian / Babylonian word for cannabis hemp, "K(a)N(a)B(a)" and that [cuneiform] is the oldest written language! Thus, the word "cannabis" is from one of the longest-surviving root words in any human language!), many do die as a result of it being illegal. Of course, all of these are vicious drug criminals who get taken out by the DEA and other agencies in the process of doing their valid jobs, and who richly and justly deserve their fate, right?

Vicious drug criminals like: 35-year-old Baptist missionary Veronica Bowers, and her 7-month old daughter Charity, shot down over Peru in April, 2001. "As part of a long-standing arrangement to stop drug shipments, U.S. government tracking provided the information for the Peruvian Air Force to mistakenly shoot down a Cessna plane carrying missionaries. Killed in the incident were Roni Bowers, a missionary with the Association of Baptists for World Evangelism, and her daughter, Charity. As of August, 2003, the United States is considering reinstating the shoot-down program. Perhaps they think by now we've forgotten."

Or 46-year-old Willie Heard, of Oswatomie, Kansas, who heard his 16-year-old daughter cry out in fear in the middle of the night, one night in February, 1999. Mr. Heard, loving husband and father and good protector, took an empty rifle to scare off the burglars or rapists he believed had invaded his home, and marched down the hall to confront them. Turned out that it was SWAT agents on a drug raid, who then shot him dead in "self-defense." Turns out that they were at the wrong house.

Or how about: 14-year-old Ashley Villareal of San Antonio, who was shot and killed in February, 2003 by DEA agents who mistakenly believed that her father (whom they had no warrant for) was driving?

Or how about: 57-year-old Alberta Spruill of Harlem, who died of a heart attack from the shock of having police burst into her home and setting off flash grenades in the middle of one night in May, 2003? They were acting on a tip, but had the wrong address.

This guy looks like a vicious drug lord, right? Actually, he was 75-year-old retired Methodist minister Accelyne Williams of Boston. In March of 2004, an informant gave them his address and a SWAT team battered down his door, wrestled him to the floor, and tied his hands behind his back, where he died of a heart attack. Wrong address again.

Then there's this obvious crook: 39-year-old Kenneth B. Walker, husband, father of a young daughter, respected church-goer, and a Blue Cross / Blue Shield middle manager for 15 years, was pulled over in his SUV less than a year ago (December, 2003) by police during a drug investigation. No drugs nor weapons were found, but that didn't stop Deputy Dave Glisson from fatally shooting Mr. Walker in the head. This was in Columbus, GA.

Or how about 11-year-old Alberto Sepulveda was shot to death in the back while following SWAT instructions and lying face-down on the floor with his hands behind his back during a drug raid in September, 2000? He was a seventh-grader of Prescott Senior Elementary School of Modesto, CA.

Sometimes it's not even an accident or wrong address or bad information. Sometimes it's premeditated:
61-year-old reclusive millionaire Donald P. Scott of Malibu had a ranch that the Los Angeles County Sherrif's Department wanted to seize and forfeit for the local government. They messed up, though, and didn't plant the drugs that they'd intended to plant and upon which the search warrant was based. In October of 1992, a 32-man assault team raided his ranch and shot him dead in front of his wife. No drugs, not even the ones that were supposed to've been planted as phony evidence, were found.

A later official report found: "It is the District Attorney's opinion that the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department was motivated, at least in part, by a desire to seize and forfeit the ranch for the government. Based in part upon the possibility of forfeiture, Spencer obtained a search warrant that was not supported by probable cause. This search warrant became Donald Scott's death warrant."

19-year-old Tony Marinez of De Valle, TX, was sleeping on the couch in a mobile home that was targeted by a drug raid one night in December of 2001. He sat up and was shot in the chest. He was not the target of the raid.

Finally, onto the topic of medical marijuana, there's this guy: Meet 50-year-old Peter McWilliams of Laurel Canyon, CA, author of this book:
He was a world-famous author and an advocate of medical marijuana, not only because he believed in it in principle, but because it was keeping him alive (he had AIDS and non-Hodgkins lymphoma). After California passed a law legalizing medical marijuana, Peter helped finance the efforts of Todd McCormick to cultivate marijuana for distribution to those who needed it for medical reasons. Federal agents got wind of his involvement, and Peter was a target for his advocacy. He was arrested, and in federal court was prevented from mentioning his medical condition or California's law (a violation of one of the most important foundations of our jurisprudence system, that the accused may bring any relevant evidence to bear). While he was on bail awaiting sentencing, the prosecutors threatened to take away his mother's house (used for bail) if he failed a drug test, so he stopped using the marijuana which controlled his nausea from the medications and allowed him to keep them down. He was found dead on the bathroom floor, choked to death on his own vomit.

For more information on these and (unfortunately) many, many others, visit this site.

Now, who here still thinks that legallizing pot will cause more harm to society than keeping it illegal does? Look those people and their families in the eye and say that to their faces. I double-dog dare you.

Also, to anyone here who still supports the prohibition of this non-addictive, never-once-having-killed-anyone, God-created-and-commanded herb-bearing-seed, would you still support it if it were your kid who was shot by SWAT agents thinking that they were targeting you, and that on false information? Or your wife and infant daughter who get shot out of the skies over Peru while there to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ, due to false information supplied by the DEA? Or your mother who drops dead from a heart attack when they break into her house with flash grenades by mistake? Or your 11-year-old son who gets shot in the back in a drug raid while face-down on the ground in obedience to the police that you taught him to trust? Or when some greedy local government decides to use the drug laws as a handy-dandy means to take away your property by framing you for drugs, and kill you or one or more of your loved ones in the process, in full view of others of your loved ones? Or even your husband or father or uncle who chokes to death on his own vomit when refused the only medication that could keep him alive, which was legal in his State, in the process of a Federal kangaroo court witch-hunt trial which trampled Constitutional States's Powers (Tenth Amendment) and among the most important principles of American jurisprudence, etc. etc. etc., all because if we were to legalize it, when somebody, somewhere, might actually use it to (oh, the horror!) have a good time?

Mad-n-FL: "DEA sends "threatening letters" to medical cannabis dispensaries in California, points out that owners can't rely on state law as valid defense against federal charges"


If you can't impeach, there is always Secession....

California secede? I like it! Everybody wins!

Sum Guye: But, but, but, I thought Republicans were for states rights....

Ron Paul is a Republican.

kliq: hese places are completely transparent in what they sell and yet they bust windows and break shiat like they're barging into a gang-defended crack house.

Breaking windows is much more fun than knocking. It's like being a kid again, only without mommy to tell you to stop breaking things.

The DEA's focus on the dispensaries - and the city's response to it - highlights the discord in federal and state laws on marijuana: California voters approved Proposition 215, supporting medical usage, in 1996, but federal law outlaws marijuana. And the DEA has warned cannabis dispensary owners that relying on state law is not a valid defense against federal charges.

Weaver95: That would make for a very interesting legal challenge.

Where have you people been?
The Supreme Court case Gonzales v. Raich WAS the legal challenge. It directly asked whether the Controlled Substances Act was a constitutional use of the Commerce Clause. In case you didn't know, Gonzales won, hands down, and cemented a hardcore precedent of federal authority with broad ramifications (it's SCOTUS after all).

In fact MOST of the federal laws on everything hinges on the vaguely worded Commerce Clause empowering Congress:
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:
The Congress shall have power . . . To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

Remember when the Constitution was written the USA was envisioned as a weak confederation of independent states. They explicitly empowered the fed to have a military, declare war, raise taxes, make foreign treaties, coin money, have a Supreme Court, make roads, make a post office, issue patents, and NOT much else is explicitly listed. The Commerce Clause has been seriously expanded beyond its original intent because people wanted it to be that way. As such about 95% of the legislation you hear about (or don't hear about) relies solely on this exploitative interpretation of the Commerce Clause.

jaldor: A state cannot enact laws that take away rights enumerated by the Constitution, but it can enact laws that grant more rights/benefits privileges than are spelled out -- specifically, in fact, the Constitution grants the states the exclusive authority to do just that. So, in short, a state can't take away your freedom of speech but it can raise the minimum wage.

Well then it seem like a state should be able to legalize marijuana. So what gives here?

Sadly this is a cultural battle that can never be won so long as those opposing medial use can posture themselves to be on the moral high-ground.

While THC is basically somewhere between asprin and alcohol, being wholly less harmfull than either while still offering certain homeopathic medical benefits, it is viewed as being akin to cocaine, herion and the like.

But aside from the cultural battle which is being waged the real reason for all of this is that prescription drug companies take a big hit if a cheap herb that grows anywhere can treat as many common symptoms as THC does.

Complete legalization will never happen, but to use the DEA to keep helpful drugs out of the hands of cancer patients is pretty sick if you ask me. Those responsible for doing that deserve some of the big C themselves.

Your revolution is over, Mr. Lebowski. Condolences! The bums stoners lost!!

Weaver95: Sum Guye: But, but, but, I thought Republicans were for states rights....

No, the Republican party was against states rights when it came to slavery. stands to reason that they'd continue the philosophy when it comes to the war on drugs.

not saying it's right, merely that they're being entirely consistant.

Replace "Republicans" with "social conservatives" and his point stands. Many Republicans today agitate over past and current issues of "states' rights" while hypocritically trying to use the Federal Government to impose their views on everyone else.

Just because a quirk of history had them swap parties doesn't make them consistent.

/Dixiecrats of yesteryear are today's Republicans
//But you already knew that

Sum Guye: But, but, but, I thought Republicans were for states rights....

Federal drug laws were enacted by Democrats over the objections of Republicans. That was a long time ago, tho. The Repubs have become the nanny-state liberals that they biatch about.

I wish, for just one day, I would not read about anything else that pisses me off about the federal government. I do not see how the rest of the country can not be up in arms about how the federal government has constantly overstepped their bounds and continuously causes problems with wasteful and illogical choices. It seems VERY clear to me that they no longer represent the American citizen, if they ever did. Then again, they are not beholden to the citizens, they are beholden to their special interest groups... Money talks and all that.

/off my lawn

I have a friend who just bagged some medical marijuana as soon as he got into California. Thing is, he was bragging about it and grabbed about 30 business cards from the "doctor" to give out to everyone "in case they needed some migraine help too," which I thought was stupid. I've been out of state for a while, so I forgot it was "legal" here, and it had me thinking even before this article appeared.

I don't smoke, but I feel like going after semi-legal pot distributors is kind of a waste of time and effort for the DEA. I'm reluctant to wave the banner of state's rights because I don't always subscribe to that clause universally, but in this case I feel like it's not the Fed's beeswax.

good. do you have any idea how many lives have been ruined because of these cannabis clubs?