US Supreme Court Ruling Could End Legal Marijuana Sales

Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
ThickStemz said:
If you don't think they won't pull the interstate commerce clause out of their hat you're fooling yourself.

The law upholds the law. I doubt even the seemingly liberal justices will want to tare down the establishment.

The commerce clause is a blank check they've granted themselves to do almost as they please.
Click to expand...
so now you go from "must not interpret the law or die" to "they will interpret the law, anybody knows that". Which one is it? Or do you pick whichever you like to fit your pin headed thinking?

I'm no lawyer, I only know what I read and what I read was in that article. If you want to make shit up, go ahead but that's not what the article said.
 
Last edited:
T

ThickStemz

Well-Known Member
ArcticOrange said:
I beg to differ, i think rescheduling could be achieved in court. I agree with the overall argument but interpretation of the law sets precedent effectively changing law. Couldnt fully legalize per se but re schedule definitely.
Click to expand...
I agree that the law should be changed. Marijuana should be treated somwhere between tobacco and alcohol.

The courts don't determine should, they decide is.

States are recognized to have an interest in banning substances becuase of health and safety concerns.

The law has to be changed in the legislature not the court. Courts simplyinterpret law and weigh facts to fit that law.

In effect Colorado and other states are rogue and have my full support. I think it's good for the marijuana movement overall to have the court side against them. If you want bad laws changed you simply have to enforce them. This will be seen as anti democratic and give an urgency factor to pot fans
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
ThickStemz said:
With legal weed in one state increasing the supply in others it is the free people of one state increasing the burden on the free people of another state.
Click to expand...
Uhh, "With legal interracial marriage in one state increasing the supply into others, it is the free people of one state increasing the burden onto the free people of another state."

Ya see how fast your own retardation surfaces?

People don't like it. DUH! That's the enitre fuckin' point of the courts decision. The court said "It doesn't fucking matter what you like or not, DEAL WITH IT."

So guess what the fuck you have to do?

DEAL WITH IT.

Go change the court's opinion if you wanna cry about it.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Not GOP

Not GOP

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
why?

you were telling us that what he is doing by allowing cannabis prohibition to end is illegal. you call him a tyrant for it. but it is because of him that your fatass can come to colorado and smoke legally.

stop being a fucktard. if that means not speaking at all, so be it.
Click to expand...
"Allowing it to end"? No he's not. That is the whole reason why a march on the white house is happening in the first place. In April
 
Not GOP

Not GOP

Well-Known Member
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
ThickStemz said:
I agree that the law should be changed. Marijuana should be treated somwhere between tobacco and alcohol.

The courts don't determine should, they decide is.

States are recognized to have an interest in banning substances becuase of health and safety concerns.

The law has to be changed in the legislature not the court. Courts simplyinterpret law and weigh facts to fit that law.

In effect Colorado and other states are rogue and have my full support. I think it's good for the marijuana movement overall to have the court side against them. If you want bad laws changed you simply have to enforce them. This will be seen as anti democratic and give an urgency factor to pot fans
Click to expand...
umm, you had your mind made up about this a long time ago, this is clear. Unlike your fantasy authoritarian stance, Obama did not impose authoritarian rule regarding MJ, he let states enforce the law. Not to say he ignored his obligations regarding Federal law but he restricted the DEA's actions to a more narrow set of actions. It's true that a reactionary right wing president will change the climate of MJ legalization and will set this country back 20 years or so with regard to medical and recreational MJ use. Elections matter.

So, now you make up shit regarding this case to fit your bias. Read the effing article. Yes MJ legalization is at risk. The issue going to the Supreme Court is not whether or not state laws that allow recreational, commercial and medical MJ are somehow in violation of federal law and therefore unconstitutional. The issue is whether or not one state can control the legal activities of citizens in another state. Also, as @ArcticOrange pointed out, the court can rule to reschedule MJ based upon facts presented in their court. They are not forced to rule in a specific way just because MJ is a schedule 1 drug.

Think about what you are saying. You are saying that Florida can pass a law and can insist upon it being enforced on the citizens of California. That's nuts. And why the US Solicitor General recommended the Supreme Court not waste its time on this lawsuit.
 
T

ThickStemz

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
umm, you had your mind made up about this a long time ago, this is clear. Unlike your fantasy authoritarian stance, Obama did not impose authoritarian rule regarding MJ, he let states enforce the law. Not to say he ignored his obligations regarding Federal law but he restricted the DEA's actions to a more narrow set of actions. It's true that a reactionary right wing president will change the climate of MJ legalization and will set this country back 20 years or so with regard to medical and recreational MJ use. Elections matter.

So, now you make up shit regarding this case to fit your bias. Read the effing article. Yes MJ legalization is at risk. The issue going to the Supreme Court is not whether or not state laws that allow recreational, commercial and medical MJ are somehow in violation of federal law and therefore unconstitutional. The issue is whether or not one state can control the legal activities of citizens in another state. Also, as @ArcticOrange pointed out, the court can rule to reschedule MJ based upon facts presented in their court. They are not forced to rule in a specific way just because MJ is a schedule 1 drug.

Think about what you are saying. You are saying that Florida can pass a law and can insist upon it being enforced on the citizens of California. That's nuts. And why the US Solicitor General recommended the Supreme Court not waste its time on this lawsuit.
Click to expand...
I got what the issue was. And I cautioned that the commerce clause would be their weapon for striking it down.

They will do this becuase marijuana is illegal in most states and also federally.


You and I both know that if a federal court decides this based on the law marijuana rights in Colorado is going to be on the losing side of the issue.

But the court doesn't have a means of enforcing this. They don't have their own police force. It is going to be interesting.

The only way a judge could vote in favor of Colorado here is if they disregard the laws.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Are you a lawyer or do you study law?

I'm not and I don't.

ThickStemz said:
You and I both know that if a federal court decides this based on the law marijuana rights in Colorado is going to be on the losing side of the issue.
Click to expand...
I don't know this. From what I've read, the US Solicitor General doesn't know this either. I read somewhere that he's a pretty good lawyer.


ThickStemz said:
The only way a judge could vote in favor of Colorado here is if they disregard the laws.
Click to expand...
Wow, you are either a gifted scholar or just making shit up. I think its the latter.
 
T

ThickStemz

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Are you a lawyer or do you study law?

I'm not and I don't.



I don't know this. From what I've read, the US Solicitor General doesn't know this either. I read somewhere that he's a pretty good lawyer.




Wow, you are either a gifted scholar or just making shit up. I think its the latter.
Click to expand...
If the supreme court held in favor of Colorado here they would be undermining federal law.

They may want to do that. I doubt it. But there is no way possible to go by any Federal law (which the supreme court is governed by) and find in favor of marijuana cultivation.

I get that you may want this suit to go one way. I do too. I'm just not optimistic about it. The court would have to ignore federal law. I just don't see them doing that.
 
T

ThickStemz

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Are you a lawyer or do you study law?

I'm not and I don't.



I don't know this. From what I've read, the US Solicitor General doesn't know this either. I read somewhere that he's a pretty good lawyer.




Wow, you are either a gifted scholar or just making shit up. I think its the latter.
Click to expand...
Here it is in detail.

We have the controlled substances act. It's a valid law passed by congress.

We have Colorado taxing this marijuana. Technically they're laundering money.

While the court cannot compel Colorado to change its law or to enforce fed law, they can do things. The extent of which I do not know.

I bring up the commerce clause becuase in 05 there was a marijuana case (Gonzales v Raich) where a woman with a valid state med marijuana license was ruled against by SCOTUS even though she grew it herself, didn't sell it, it never left her property. Yet the high court used the commerce clause to justify it's ruling.

Google search what the supreme court has applied the commerce clause to in the past. It's absurd.

This Colorado case would actually be a milD abuse of its intended power.

I'm not saying I support all of this. I'm jusr saying this is what is.

The us supreme court will not be able to uphold marijuana...

Want to know the ironic thing... in the 05 case I mentioned Clarence Thomas wrote the dessent. I hope I don't need to tell you that means that Thomas would have sided with the med marijuana patient. It was the liberal judges who used the commerce clause against med marijuana.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
ThickStemz said:
If the supreme court held in favor of Colorado here they would be undermining federal law.

They may want to do that. I doubt it. But there is no way possible to go by any Federal law (which the supreme court is governed by) and find in favor of marijuana cultivation.

I get that you may want this suit to go one way. I do too. I'm just not optimistic about it. The court would have to ignore federal law. I just don't see them doing that.
Click to expand...
I get that you think all that you said is true. I also get that you don't really know anything.

What the court is deciding upon isn't what you said it "is". The following are the first few lines from the supplemental brief filed the the Court filed to the Supreme Court this January:

The State of Colorado authorizes, oversees, protects, and profits from a sprawling $100-million per-month marijuana growing, processing, and retailing organization1 that exported thousands of pounds of marijuana to some 36 States in 2014.2 If this entity were based south of our border, the federal government would prosecute it as a drug cartel. That is why the merits question presented by this case – whether Colorado’s actions conflict with the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) – is so straightforward. The Court has already concluded that the CSA precludes States from attempting to create “an exemption for *** a significant segment of the total [marijuana] market,” as they “would undermine the orderly enforcement of the entire [CSA] regulatory scheme.”3 The Department of Justice (DOJ) supported that position and still agrees that “State *** that have enacted laws authorizing marijuana-related conduct” may create a “threat *** to public safety, public health, and other law enforcement interests.”4

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/OAG-Supplemental-Brief-OK-NE-v-CO.pdf

This is a complaint by two states that want to protect its citizens from the dangers or marijuana (their words
not mine). They claim repeatedly in their briefing that the "State of Colorado oversees the export of MJ".

The brief puts the actions of the State of Colorado front and center in their briefing and not Colorado's pot laws or the actions of their citizens as the core of their case.

The US Solicitor General says that the case has no merit because the two backward states are trying to regulate the actions of another state's citizens. In his opinion, the State of Colorado is not doing the things that those idiot states claim.

This is all that the case revolves around. Not all the right wing fluff that you put into your post.

Unlike you I differentiate between what I think and the facts. I only know what I read and that's what I'm sticking to. On the other hand, I think that it's a ridiculous idea that one state can regulate the activities of people in another state. That would open up a whole can of worms, not just regarding MJ. Which is why this whole case is not as open and shut as you seem to fantasize.
 
Last edited:
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Not GOP said:
Did you even read the article? Obama hasn't done anything to end federal prohibition, or protect states; leaving Colorado vulnerable to lawsuits.
Click to expand...
so obama has done nothing to protect colorado's attempt to end prohibition, as evidenced by the actions holder took announcing exactly what states have to do to be protected?

yep. that does it. you are hopeless.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
ThickStemz said:
Here it is in detail.

We have the controlled substances act. It's a valid law passed by congress.

We have Colorado taxing this marijuana. Technically they're laundering money.
Click to expand...
that is not even what this case is about you fucking stooge.

ThickStemz said:
It was the liberal judges who used the commerce clause against med marijuana.
Click to expand...
it was scalia who wrote the majority opinion, stooge.

are you blind, or stupid? or both?
 
T

ThickStemz

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
I get that you think all that you said is true. I also get that you don't really know anything.

What the court is deciding upon isn't what you said it "is". The following are the first few lines from the supplemental brief filed the the Court filed to the Supreme Court this January:

The State of Colorado authorizes, oversees, protects, and profits from a sprawling $100-million per-month marijuana growing, processing, and retailing organization1 that exported thousands of pounds of marijuana to some 36 States in 2014.2 If this entity were based south of our border, the federal government would prosecute it as a drug cartel. That is why the merits question presented by this case – whether Colorado’s actions conflict with the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) – is so straightforward. The Court has already concluded that the CSA precludes States from attempting to create “an exemption for *** a significant segment of the total [marijuana] market,” as they “would undermine the orderly enforcement of the entire [CSA] regulatory scheme.”3 The Department of Justice (DOJ) supported that position and still agrees that “State *** that have enacted laws authorizing marijuana-related conduct” may create a “threat *** to public safety, public health, and other law enforcement interests.”4

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/OAG-Supplemental-Brief-OK-NE-v-CO.pdf

This is a complaint by two states that want to protect its citizens from the dangers or marijuana (their words
not mine). They claim repeatedly in their briefing that the "State of Colorado oversees the export of MJ".

The brief puts the actions of the State of Colorado front and center in their briefing and not Colorado's pot laws or the actions of their citizens as the core of their case.

The US Solicitor General says that the case has no merit because the two backward states are trying to regulate the actions of another state's citizens. In his opinion, the State of Colorado is not doing the things that those idiot states claim.

This is all that the case revolves around. Not all the right wing fluff that you put into your post.

Unlike you I differentiate between what I think and the facts. I only know what I read and that's what I'm sticking to. On the other hand, I think that it's a ridiculous idea that one state can regulate the activities of people in another state. That would open up a whole can of worms, not just regarding MJ. Which is why this whole case is not as open and shut as you seem to fantasize.
Click to expand...
You could be right. Idk. If I came off as trying to say I 100% know how this will unfold then I worded it too strong.

The court though, I don't think, can be seen to go against such a well established federal law. They'll find a way to side with the petitioners. And if I'm correct on that they will use the commerce clause as their justification.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top