Just what have the Feds been up to? Feds take a stand on Cannabis Commerce again.

canndo

Well-Known Member
I can give a fellow medical person weed and I don't go to jail, Whole dispensaries exist and they stay open.

So did those people collect monies? Is that why they were in trouble I assume?

We did pass medical. It's a template for all as I understand it since it held up on constitutional review.

I'll check out the SCOTUS link.

I know we have one of our own in for growing for others above 99. so there are practical limits for all things.

And- We are here doing as we do because of medical..
No, they collected no money. Raich V. Ashcroft - Gonzales v.Raich.

"The government also contended that consuming one's locally grown marijuana for medical purposes affects the interstate market of marijuana, and hence that the federal government may regulate—and prohibit—such consumption. This argument stems from the landmark New Deal case Wickard v. Filburn, which held that the government may regulate personal cultivation and consumption of crops, due to the effect of that consumption on interstate commerce, however minute it may be."
"Raich has personally participated in that market, and Monson expresses a willingness to do so in the future. More concretely, one concern prompting inclusion of wheat grown for home consumption in the 1938 Act was that rising market prices could draw such wheat into the interstate market, resulting in lower market prices. Wickard, 317 U.S., at 128. The parallel concern making it appropriate to include marijuana grown for home consumption in the CSA is the likelihood that the high demand in the interstate market will draw such marijuana into that market. While the diversion of homegrown wheat tended to frustrate the federal interest in stabilizing prices by regulating the volume of commercial transactions in the interstate market, the diversion of homegrown marijuana tends to frustrate the federal interest in eliminating commercial transactions in the interstate market in their entirety. In both cases, the regulation is squarely within Congress' commerce power because production of the commodity meant for home consumption, be it wheat or marijuana, has a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market for that commodity"


In short Ernst, there is no private grow and there is no non-commerce. Your belief tha we can avoid difficulty by legalizing personal hortculture and not "commercializing" this substance is contrary to recent SCOTUS ruling.
 

Ernst

Well-Known Member
I believe that we in California can pass the laws anyway.

You are correct that if we attack the larger picture as in how best to establish a commercial cannabis industry in the face of Federal laws regarding interstate commerce we will waste our time and a multi-pronged and strategically crafted modifications to California laws are needed.
But to hell with commerce..

commerce is holding us back.. Let us start with laws that allow private horticulture as our foundation of our relationship to opposing federal law.
It will be much easier to defend allowing local production to offset imported and illegal production then it will be to fight for the right to have large scale commercial sales.

If you ask me our Federal Government needs our help.

One way or the other we are either advocating legalization or we are advocating commerce.
I remind everyone that we have pushed the Cartels down into south America and we the people are not about to authorize commercial sales on this side of the boarder for 2012 after our Drone Patrol success.

Private horticulture is our only hope from what i can see..

As far as I know wheat is not in danger and I doubt Congress and the President are going to protect Cannabis prices and Cannabis industry.. Nice try.

In fact I believe taking the profits out of cannabis is much more popular with Republicans of Southern California than wheat prices are.

I'll agree with a secondary point you made of the pro and con of cannabis legalization have the price of cannabis in mind. It's, as always, the middle that pays the price of any drug policy.

I'll report back as I find out more on what the issues are of the South Land.
 

canndo

Well-Known Member
I believe that we in California can pass the laws anyway.

You are correct that if we attack the larger picture as in how best to establish a commercial cannabis industry in the face of Federal laws regarding interstate commerce we will waste our time and a multi-pronged and strategically crafted modifications to California laws are needed.
But to hell with commerce..

commerce is holding us back.. Let us start with laws that allow private horticulture as our foundation of our relationship to opposing federal law.
It will be much easier to defend allowing local production to offset imported and illegal production then it will be to fight for the right to have large scale commercial sales.

If you ask me our Federal Government needs our help.

One way or the other we are either advocating legalization or we are advocating commerce.
I remind everyone that we have pushed the Cartels down into south America and we the people are not about to authorize commercial sales on this side of the boarder for 2012 after our Drone Patrol success.

Private horticulture is our only hope from what i can see..

As far as I know wheat is not in danger and I doubt Congress and the President are going to protect Cannabis prices and Cannabis industry.. Nice try.

In fact I believe taking the profits out of cannabis is much more popular with Republicans of Southern California than wheat prices are.

I'll agree with a secondary point you made of the pro and con of cannabis legalization have the price of cannabis in mind. It's, as always, the middle that pays the price of any drug policy.

I'll report back as I find out more on what the issues are of the South Land.

I'm not sure you are getting my point Ernst. In America, according to those rulings, there is no horticulture that is not defined as commerce. According to SCOTUS, if you grow using your own soil, with seeds you got from a local friend, using local water and local nutrients, even if you compost your own and you never ever even considered selling or giving away anything you grew, it would still be considered an element of interstate commerce. So far as CA law is concerned, it has been proven already that states can pass local laws but those laws do not negate the fact in SOCTUS's eyes that our local horticulture affects all commerce and therefore is subject to Federal law.
 

Dan Kone

Well-Known Member
One way or the other we are either advocating legalization or we are advocating commerce.
If it's going to be legal, why shouldn't it be able to be bought and sold?

Who's going to fund this legalization effort once you take the profit motive out of it?

When a more serious legalization measure gets on the ballot are you going to oppose it if it contains commerce language?
 

Ernst

Well-Known Member
I'm not sure you are getting my point Ernst. In America, according to those rulings, there is no horticulture that is not defined as commerce. According to SCOTUS, if you grow using your own soil, with seeds you got from a local friend, using local water and local nutrients, even if you compost your own and you never ever even considered selling or giving away anything you grew, it would still be considered an element of interstate commerce. So far as CA law is concerned, it has been proven already that states can pass local laws but those laws do not negate the fact in SOCTUS's eyes that our local horticulture affects all commerce and therefore is subject to Federal law.
Rulings follow politics not ultimate wisdom.

We know not how we are. No God sends us Email that I know.
Fuck the limitations of human perception and embrace Cannabis!

You do like weed don't you?
 

Ernst

Well-Known Member
If it's going to be legal, why shouldn't it be able to be bought and sold?

Who's going to fund this legalization effort once you take the profit motive out of it?

When a more serious legalization measure gets on the ballot are you going to oppose it if it contains commerce language?

Look Dickhead you have spent all the credit you have with me..
If you want more play then put more quarters in the slot or fuck off.
Are we cool? I am not your Dad I don't have to mentor you.
 

Dan Kone

Well-Known Member
nice answers to perfectly reasonable questions.

I'm aware you won't answer reasonable questions, you can't, because everything your saying is fraudulent and doesn't hold up to even the most basic scrutiny. But as long as you choose to spam your nonsense, questions like those will be asked regardless of how hostile the response is.
 

canndo

Well-Known Member
Rulings follow politics not ultimate wisdom.

We know not how we are. No God sends us Email that I know.
Fuck the limitations of human perception and embrace Cannabis!

You do like weed don't you?
Be that as it may, this ruling follows precident from the 30's, that is 80 years of law, 80 years unlikely to be reversed no matter what the political climate. I am simply telling you reality in America. It isn't something I like, it isn't something that I agree with but it is a fact, your idea of personal horticulture over commerce is not in keeping with U.S. law.
 
Top