Post by
PapaGG3 on Jun 29, 2021 8:23pm
The federal-state marijuana disconnect half in half out
Justice Clarence Thomas issued a statement that more broadly addressed the federal-state marijuana disconnect. He specifically discussed a 2005 ruling in Gonzales v. Raich, wherein the court narrowly determined that the federal government could enforce prohibition against cannabis cultivation that took place wholly within California based on its authority to regulate interstate commerce. Whatever the merits of Raich when it was decided, federal policies of the past 16 years have greatly undermined its reasoning, Thomas wrote. Once comprehensive, the Federal Governments current approach is a half-in, half-out regime that simultaneously tolerates and forbids local use of marijuana. This contradictory and unstable state of affairs strains basic principles of federalism and conceals traps for the unwary, he said, adding that though federal law still flatly forbids the intrastate possession, cultivation, or distribution of marijuanathe Government, post-Raich, has sent mixed signals on its views. Case in point: the Justice Department under President Barack Obama twice issued memorandums signaling that the government would tolerate certain marijuana-related activity if its lawful in the state where it took place. The so-called Cole memo laid out enforcement priorities for federal prosecutors, signaling that low-level cannabis offenses shouldnt be pursued. Further, Thomas noted, Congress has repeatedly approved a spending bill rider that prohibits the Justice Department from using its funds to interfere in the implementation of state-level medical marijuana programs. Given all these developments, one can certainly understand why an ordinary person might think that the Federal Government has retreated from its once-absolute ban on marijuana, he wrote. One can also perhaps understand why business owners in Coloradomay think that their intrastate marijuana operations will be treated like any other enterprise that is legal under state law.
Comment by
WestCoast78 on Jun 30, 2021 12:08pm
Of all the people. The most conservative of the justices. Getting the S.C to hear 'your' case, is no small feat. This would be mind boggling, if this played out. It did just happen in Mexico, so, not impossible I suppose.
Comment by
WestCoast78 on Jun 30, 2021 1:55pm
Nope, my google machine tells me otherwise The Supreme Court agrees to hear about 100-150 of the more than 7,000 cases that it is asked to review each year.