In recent weeks I have come to the conclusion that the illegality of marijuana is in fact, illegal. As the US Supreme court set a legal precedent in 1919, that stated to ban or prohibit a substance from the public a Constitutional Amendment must be ratified. Yet, I see no amendment(s) of any sort banning, prohibiting, or restricting the sale, possession, or usage of Marijuana or any other drug (illegal, controlled, ect.). It dawned on me to ask my father (who is a lawyer) about this whole conundrum, he had no intrest as it was just provoking a tender subject regarding my arrest and continued usage of the "dangerous" substance (haha). The next logical step was to ask my probation officer, to which I was greeted with a smile, sleight confusion and then a tangential answer that ended up with a simpsons episode being his main point. When I reworded the question (similarly to how it is stated above) he stared at me in bewilderment, and could not come to an answer whatsoever. I found this both odd and hilarious. Although when he went upstairs to his office I overheard him talking to the other officers and city lawyers who were present, all of whom could not respond to the question as they had just realized they were enforcing non-existing/falsely placed laws. The confusion that I brought to that office is still lingering as one of my friends who had their test about 20 minutes ago just called me, to inform me of how one of the prosecutors and his probation officer were in a hot debate over the constitution. TL;DR : Is the drug war a non-existent, falsely enforced set of laws? > YES. Has anyone ever really realized this? > Not really. Posted this on reddit this afternoon, posting it here too. I would love to hear some legalese feedback on this from anyone very constitutionally literate, involved in the legal professions, ect. Link to Original Post: Asked A little question during my Probation meeting today... : trees
I agree, and furthermore think that marijuana isn't real. Cannabis isn't illegal, it says marijuana, not cannabis.
That is very interesting...i imagine they are still scratching their heads...we need a legal wiz to look into this or explain to us in laymans terms ....very good thought....toke onnnn
I have thought this before...because it's a plant. How can PEOPLE, ban a PLANT? I'm pretty sure plants have seniority. God damn I hate being a human.
Unlike the prohibition of alcohol in the U.S., the prohibition of marijuana and other controlled substances via the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) did not require a constitutional amendment. This is because the CSA was enacted as the national legislative implementation of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution states: “Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be supreme Law of the Land.” So the U.S. signs the "Single Convention" treaty which requires each country to enact laws to control certain substances. The Supremacy Clause empowers the U.S. government to enact such laws. No Constitutional amendment is required. In addition, Gonzales v. Raich empowers the U.S. government to enforce the CSA under the authority of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. So marijuana prohibition in the U.S. is "legal" from a constitutional standpoint. Twisted, but legal Edit: For information regarding a recent decision challenging the authority of the U.S. government to enforce laws based on international treaties see Bond v. US.
[quote name='"StoneyMcGhee"']In recent weeks I have come to the conclusion that the illegality of marijuana is in fact, illegal. As the US Supreme court set a legal precedent in 1919, that stated to ban or prohibit a substance from the public a Constitutional Amendment must be ratified. Yet, I see no amendment(s) of any sort banning, prohibiting, or restricting the sale, possession, or usage of Marijuana or any other drug (illegal, controlled, ect.). It dawned on me to ask my father (who is a lawyer) about this whole conundrum, he had no intrest as it was just provoking a tender subject regarding my arrest and continued usage of the "dangerous" substance (haha). The next logical step was to ask my probation officer, to which I was greeted with a smile, sleight confusion and then a tangential answer that ended up with a simpsons episode being his main point. When I reworded the question (similarly to how it is stated above) he stared at me in bewilderment, and could not come to an answer whatsoever. I found this both odd and hilarious. Although when he went upstairs to his office I overheard him talking to the other officers and city lawyers who were present, all of whom could not respond to the question as they had just realized they were enforcing non-existing/falsely placed laws. The confusion that I brought to that office is still lingering as one of my friends who had their test about 20 minutes ago just called me, to inform me of how one of the prosecutors and his probation officer were in a hot debate over the constitution. TL;DR : Is the drug war a non-existent, falsely enforced set of laws? > YES. Has anyone ever really realized this? > Not really. Posted this on reddit this afternoon, posting it here too. I would love to hear some legalese feedback on this from anyone very constitutionally literate, involved in the legal professions, ect. Link to Original Post: Asked A little question during my Probation meeting today... : trees[/quote] Damn I love you