Dr Dreidel: The only people who want to drug test anymore are people who bought the "Say no to drugs" (weed) crap HL&S. Anyone else knows that what someone does on their own time - so long as it's not affecting their work - doesn't farking matter.

As more states legalize marijuana, I'm guessing fewer employers will test for it. Just like you can't come to work drunk, you can't come to work stoned. The tide is turning against the War on Drugs. If Colorado and Washington are able to show that legalizing it SAVES money, more states will adopt.

yousaywut: Saves? No it will most likely cause an increase in revenue as well as a savings on policing. I predict a $200 mil swing in revenue during the first year of enforcement. /Also My lease is up in feb and I live across the river from Vancouver WA so I may have to look into apartment pricing up there.

I've seen some estimates of over a billion dollars in yearly revenue from legalizing mary jane in those 2 states

Several states passed laws preventing the implementation of Obamacare.

State Rights will be front and center for SCOTUS next year.

stewbert: If the Feds try to strike down the bill, they'll probably succeed because of the tax issue (IANAL). However, if that happens, I hope the states clearly tell DC that, sorry, the people of our state have spoken, and do not wish their resources used on pot. Let DC round up the potheads themselves.

Currently, the DEA can bust medical grows that don't comply with state laws, and the states cooperate. If the DEA starts messing with people that are following state law, they may run into trouble. Counties could refuse to house the prisoners, and say "sorry, they didn't break the law". DEA does NOT have the resources to police this on their own.

Can't wait to watch this play out. Also can't wait to drive across the Columbia and score some weed.

The DEA doesn't have the resources (only 5000 agents) to go after marijuana. Yes, the federal government can go after the state...but the Controlled Substances Act is going to be tested by the courts if it does.

Prohibition was passed (and repealed) via a Constitutional Amendment...which is a difficult process. Not so with the Controlled Substances Act. The People will have the final say on this....the electorate is speaking...and politicians better start listening (and on same-sex marriage as well).

Smackledorfer: Amos Quito: The Federal Government had and has no legitimate constitutional power to enforce this act

The supreme court, how does it work?

Believe it or not, the founding fathers, who wrote the constitution that you believe you are the sole interpreter of, set up a body appointed by the presidents to determine the constitutionality of things. You are welcome to dislike their interpretations, but the very fact that they make a judgement that something is constitutional makes it... wait for it... constitutional. Things may be slipped in under an expanding interpretation of the commerce clause, but that's just the way it goes.

I don't know why this seems such a confusing concept for people. You move dangerously close to tea-party territory when you head in that direction.

I think that Amos was talking about the questionable legality of the law under the Constitution, irrespective of how the Supreme Court decided. The Commerce Clause was meant to regulate interstate commerce, not intrastate commerce.

Under Gonzalez v. Raich the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that it WAS within Congress' right to regulate intrastate commerce under a class of activities that have economic impact. Ironically, it was the conservative justices that dissented (Thomas, Rehnquist, and O'Connor).

Since Justice Thomas is usually ripped on Fark, This is what he said:

Respondent's local cultivation and consumption of marijuana is not "Commerce ... among the several States." Certainly no evidence from the founding suggests that "commerce" included the mere possession of a good or some personal activity that did not involve trade or exchange for value. In the early days of the Republic, it would have been unthinkable that Congress could prohibit the local cultivation, possession, and consumption of marijuana.

and

If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption (not because it is interstate commerce, but because it is inextricably bound up with interstate commerce), then Congress' Article I powers - as expanded by the Necessary and Proper Clause - have no meaningful limits. Whether Congress aims at the possession of drugs, guns, or any number of other items, it may continue to "appropriate state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce."

and

If the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States. This makes a mockery of Madison's assurance to the people of New York that the "powers delegated" to the Federal Government are "few and defined", while those of the States are "numerous and indefinite."

I believe the times are changing for the simple reason that people are seeing that the War on Drugs is a failure. I don't smoke pot (I haven't in 20 years) nor would I if it was legalized (not my thing). But I passionately support the right of others to do so.

If enough states pass laws legalize pot, Congress will be forced to deal with it. The DEA doesn't have enough agents to enforce state law. That being said, I can't see a lot of people rushing to sell pot through state regulation because of the risk that the Feds will come down on the operator under federal law.

Smackledorfer: The founders may have had a different plan for the commerce clause, but they had a very clear plan for the supreme court's function.

I don't believe the framers intended the Commerce Clause to cover anything that the federal government wanted to regulate. That doesn't mean that the Supreme Court's decision isn't legal and binding...it is.