Fed vs State Pot Showdown

heres my bold prediction...based on reality and not fear mongering.

The Feds are showing that theyre not ignoring the Fed laws against pot...so theyre beating their chest with little intent to actually charge the victim.

The way i see this is simple. The feds have a law, California has a law. They conflict 100%. However, when CA first instituted this law, the Feds didnt react because CA had put in place a set of rules as to how this legalization of medicinal mariguana was to work that the feds saw as civil enough to "let it slip" if you will.
However, If any of you have ever seen how easily one can open a dispensary now days in CA, and how you can bipass just about every rule as to how one can qualify to open and run one...then you know how ridiculous it has become.

Now, California (specially LA) has been trying pretty hard to reel back the out of control dispensaries opening faster than Starbucks (there are 4 dispensaries in my area and only one Starbucks if that puts it into perspective) and basically making a mockery of the system put in place in order to make medicinal mariguana legal to those who qualify (by qualify, i mean anyone that knows how to walk into a doctors office and say "ouch" ). I for one think that CA is actually behind this Fed "crack down" in order to put some muscle behind closing all the illegal (yet somehow legal, its a loophole thing) dispensaries popping up everywhere....while we're all pretending to know whats actually happening, that my 2cents.

Me and many other people like me..that is, people that are for legal pot but against uncontrolled abuse of the law that brings zero benefit to the state (i dont think anyone is for not taxing tobacco or alcohol right? same thing), see all this illegal dispensaries as a HUGE problem for the future of actual legalization of pot, which obviously im all for. This is the first attempt at controlling a substance long seen as a social problem and the last thing we need in the path forward, is the evidence that Pot cannot be controlled as a legal substance either. All the anti-pot activist have to do to show that legalizing pot will bring zero benefits to the state because the lack of control and implementation of any rules put forward, only has to look at their current situation with pot dispensaries.

So, if the Feds beating their chest makes CA tighten up the reigns on the actual laws behind the legislation and therefore showing that there is control when pot is legal in any way shape or form, then bring it on. The truth is that all it will come from it is CA having Fed power behind closing down the thousands of illegal pot dispensaries (which theyve been trying to for a year now), living the other thousands of legal dispensaries alone and putting out any kind of fire that was stoking the anti-pot activist fire pointing at CA for a good example as to how pot will always run out of control even when legal.


I could be wrong.... but since none of us actually know whats the actual intent of this feds push, my guess is as good as any of yours.

now, i have to go refill my back pain medecine prescription at my legal dispensary around the corner, ta ta.

20_RC51_00 said:

I wan't referring to the supremacy clause but the fact that anything not explicitly outlined in the constitution as federal is then state responsibilty

Click to expand...

Just a guess but probably has more to do with the Bill of Rights than the Constitution specifically the Tenth Amendment to the United States which is part of the Bill of Rights:

In Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority (1985), the Court changed the analytic framework to be applied in Tenth Amendment cases. Prior to the Garcia decision, the determination of whether there was state immunity from federal regulation turned on whether the state activity was "traditional" for or "integral" to the state government. The Court noted that this analysis was "unsound in principle and unworkable in practice," and rejected it without providing a replacement. The Court's holding declined to set any formula to provide guidance in future cases. Instead, it simply held "...we need go no further than to state that we perceive nothing in the overtime and minimum-wage requirements of the FLSA ... that is destructive of state sovereignty or violative of any constitutional provision." It left to future courts how best to determine when a particular federal regulation may be "destructive of state sovereignty or violative of any constitutional provision."
In United States v. Lopez 514 U.S. 549 (1995), a federal law mandating a "gun-free zone" on and around public school campuses was struck down because, the Supreme Court ruled, there was no clause in the Constitution authorizing it. This was the first modern Supreme Court opinion to limit the government's power under the Commerce Clause. The opinion did not mention the Tenth Amendment, and the Court's 1985 Garcia opinion remains the controlling authority on that subject.
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 it 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.

Found this today:

The Justice Department today announced that it is targeting dozens of medical-marijuana operations that it claims are fronts for illegal drug dealing and are not legal under the state's 15-year-old Compassionate Use Act.
Update at 5:20 p.m. ET: Federal prosecutors said at a news conference that the crackdown is directed at the "commercial marijuana industry," particularly operations near schools, parks and athletic fields.
"We want to put to rest the notion that large marijuana businesses can shelter themselves under state law," said U.S. Attorney Melinda Haag, the top federal prosecutor in San Francisco. She joined U.S attorneys from Sacramento, San Diego and Los Angeles in Sacramento.
Haag said the 1996 voter-approved law "has been hijacked by profiteers ... using the cover to make enormous amounts of money."
In a separate statement, the U.S. attorney for the central district of California, André Birotte Jr., said: "It is important to note that for-profit, commercial marijuana operations are illegal not only under federal law, but also under California law. While California law permits collective cultivation of marijuana in limited circumstances, it does not allow commercial distribution through the store-front model we see across California."
Criminal complaints targeted operators or landlords across California and against a Florida man who moved to the state to allegedly grow and distribute marijuana.
The Justice Department also issued warning letters to 38 medical-marijuana dispensaries, the Los Angeles Times says.
In Northern California, the Justice Department has ordered landlords to evict at least four Bay Area outlets within 45 days or face prosecution, The Bay Citizen reports.
The Sacramento Bee has more details from today's news conference.
Update at 7:36 a.m. ET: The four U.S. attorneys in California, the first state to pass a law legalizing marijuana use for patients with doctors' recommendations, have scheduled a joint news conference today to "outline actions targeting the sale, distribution and cultivation of marijuana."
Their offices refused to provide details in advance of what moves the officials are taking or how many of the state's hundreds of storefront pot shops would be affected, the Associated Press reports.
Initial stories indicated that all medical-marijuanja dispensaries in California had been ordered to shut down, but the actual target remains unclear.
At least 16 pot shops or their landlords received letters this week warning they would face criminal charges and confiscation of their property if the dispensaries do not shut down in 45 days, the AP reports.
The news agency obtained copies of the letters that a prosecutor sent to at least 12 San Diego dispensaries. They state that federal law "takes precedence over state law and applies regardless of the particular uses for which a dispensary is selling and distributing marijuana."
The Los Angeles Times says that one letter to the Marin Alliance notes that the dispensary is within a prohibited distance of a park, raising the possibility that enforcement will zero in on stores near schools and playgrounds.
The newspaper, quoting an unidentified source, says the U.S. prosecutor in Los Angeles would not initially focus on dispensaries in that city. The Times also quotes Dale Gieringer, the director of California NORML, which backs legalizing marijuana, as saying the crackdown apparently will be tailored to fit the regional differences in the state.
"They want to do a clean sweep in San Diego, whereas in Northern California they can't possibly do a clean sweep," he tells the newspaper. "There's no political support for it. It would be devastating."
Original post: The Obama administration has ordered all medical-marijuana dispensaries in California to shut down within 45 days or they will be prosecuted and have their property confiscated for violating federal drugs laws, the Associated Press reports.
Even licensed outlets operating under the 1996 voter-approved medical-marijuana law are subject to the federal crackdown. California's four U.S. attorneys plan an announcement Friday.
AP says the federal prosecutors have notified at least 16 pot shops or their landlords.

U.S. crackdown targets dozens of Calif. pot shops