Legalization and the 10th Amendment

Discussion in 'Marijuana Legalization' started by silentbob71, Mar 31, 2012.

  1. Once states start to legalize cannabis, as soon as this year (or next year), the DEA will still follow orders to shut down shops and sales. So, what rights do the states have at upholding their laws? The answer comes down to the 10th Amendment, and the states rights to uphold their laws, even over federal laws.

    It reads:
    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    Last time I checked the founding fathers did not include a law against cannabis. So, the DEA would be unconstitutional at raiding states where they make it legal. I hope a judge has the balls to stand up the DEA and allow the states to override them in raids, and even as far as arresting the DEA agents, it would be truly remarkable.
     
  2. This is true. But you don't have to go all the way to the 10th amendment to justify legalization. The first amendment guarantees our right to use it as a religious practice.

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
     
  3. #3 FarmerJames, Apr 1, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 1, 2012
    The Constitution specifically grants the Fed's the power to regulate Interstate Commerce.


    "Most recently, the Commerce Clause was cited in the 2005 decision Gonzales v. Raich. In this case, a California woman sued the Drug Enforcement Administration after her medical marijuana crop was seized and destroyed by federal agents. Medical marijuana was explicitly made legal under California state law by Proposition 215; however, marijuana is prohibited at the federal level by the Controlled Substances Act. Even though the woman grew the marijuana strictly for her own consumption and never sold any, the Supreme Court stated that growing one's own marijuana affects the interstate market of marijuana. The theory was that the marijuana could enter the stream of interstate commerce, even if it clearly wasn't grown for that purpose and that was unlikely ever to happen (the same reasoning as in the Wickard v. Filburn decision). It therefore ruled that this practice may be regulated by the federal government under the authority of the Commerce Clause."

    Regulating Interstate Commerce is the basis for a VAST number of Federal laws. Everything from agriculture to gun ownership is regulated on this basis. EVEN IF THE ACTIVITY IN QUESTION, FROM BEGINNING TO END, NEVER LEAVES YOUR HOME!!!

    It's WRONG!!
     
  4. This will be interesting to see what happens...
     
  5. I think that the federal prohibition of marijuana will end the same way that alcoholic prohibition ended. Enough states will legalize marijuana and soon the DEA won't be able to reasonably enforce the law, it would cost far to much.
     
  6. The DEA will sure as hell try as hard as they can until they're canned.
     

  7. Sad but probably true.
     
  8. If the DEA could shut down all the dispensaries currently in existence, then they probably would. The number of dispensaries that are open for business right now I think are only a fraction of the businesses that will pop up in states that fully legalize, so the DEA will probably be completely overwhelmed if more than one states legalizes this November, or in the years that follow.

    Once it is obvious that the Federal government is not going to be able to control the huge industry that will sprout up then it will probably force the issue to be discussed more openly in the political realm and might even force the feds to reclassify it.
     
  9. That is not how prohibition ended. Prohibition ended upon passage of amendment XXI. Unfortunately, amendment X is essentially a dead letter. It is very unlikely a judge would take such an action. I can't remember the case but the supreme court ruled that federal drug laws trump state medical marijuana laws.
     

Share This Page