DEA Raids Medical Marijuana Dispensaries in Seattle

[Kujako]

That's only regulation of commerce. Laws are different than regulations.

There's cases going on right now in the same sex marriage arena that shows state laws taking precedent. It will be interesting to see how it all works out, but I'm just saying that it's not as clear cut as "the fed always wins".

[Rukentuts]

There's cases going on right now in the same sex marriage arena that shows state laws taking precedent. It will be interesting to see how it all works out, but I'm just saying that it's not as clear cut as "the fed always wins".

There is no federal ban on marriage benefits anymore for same-sex, and marriages have always been by state.

[Beazy]

The court will have its hands tied. There is precedence that federal law supersedes state laws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altria_Group_v._Good

The federal government will do what it wants, when it wants. Doesnt mean they can or cant. They do.

Hell, people keep saying "if it crosses state lines" its legal, but its still not. Typical people thinking that there is actually a "commerce clause" in the Constitution, but there isnt. The commerce clause talks about REGULATION, which in 1785, meant something totally different than it does today. If you are trying to interpret the Constitution, you cant even begin until you have an old english dictionary.

In the late 1800s the word REGULATE meant to "make regular". This was added to the constitution specifically to keep states from charging taxes for commerce with other states. For example: The state of New Jersey is not allowed to charge a "Texas Tax" on goods from Texas, just because they dont like the state of Texas. The gov can step in and "MAKE IT REGULAR". . . . . .(based on the enumerated power given to them to make sure all indirect and direct taxes are REGULAR, meaning the same for everyone.) it has nothing to do with them taking control of something, simply because it crosses state lines. . . .

[Kujako]

There is no federal ban on marriage benefits anymore.

Yes. But at the state level they are still banning them. One current case is that a same sex couple doesn't get spousal protection where they can not be compelled to testify against each other because they are in a state that does not recognize their marriage, even though the federal government does.

[zephid]

So you're for the outlawing of alcohol, cigarets, caffeine etc? Or should only "they" need to live sober? Unlike the rest of us.

Yes those drugs should actually be illegal, but they would never be able to do that. The use of caffeine, alcohol and tobacco is too wide spread, you wouldn't be able to prohibit the use of it.

[Rukentuts]

Yes. But at the state level they are still banning them. One current case is that a same sex couple doesn't get spousal protection where they can not be compelled to testify against each other because they are in a state that does not recognize their marriage, even though the federal government does.

States can ban them when there isn't a federal law saying they can't.

The moment the federal government legalizes same-sex marriage, all their state constitutional amendments banning it mean jack-shit.

This is what federal preemption means.

[zephid]

The fact of the matter is that marijuana is illegal under federal law, which means that it's illegal in the entire united states. It doesn't matter if a state decriminalizes it or not since the federal law still says it's illegal, and the federal law supersedes state law.

[Dys]

All that work and manpower just to seize a pound of weed. Lol@DEA. They must've been really bored that day. Actually, $2500 in dispensary weed is probably much less than a pound now that I think about it.

Stupid people doing stupid things, these stupid people are just official with badges and federal laws behind them.

[Rukentuts]

Yes. But at the state level they are still banning them. One current case is that a same sex couple doesn't get spousal protection where they can not be compelled to testify against each other because they are in a state that does not recognize their marriage, even though the federal government does.

Which is still different, as the feds don't marry people.

In addition state and federal proceedings have tons of diff rules.

[Beazy]

States can ban them when there isn't a federal law saying they can't.

The moment the federal government legalizes same-sex marriage, all their state constitutional amendments banning it mean jack-shit.

This is what federal preemption means.

Yes and no. Only if they have the constitutional grounds to do so.

Slavery for example. The republicans realized that blacks were actually humans, so they upgraded slaves status from "property" to "humAan". When they went from property to "human" they were immediately covered by the constitution, so all any state law saying they were not human became null and void, simply because a group of people were now considered humans (the "things" the constitution was meant to protect). Which is why , im digressing a little bit here, but why we have to consider corps "people". We could get into why this is wrong/right in another thread, but its pretty much the same issue.

Now, if the feds tried to say well, we think there needs to be a law against speaking in public and saying the word "taco". Sure they could make it a federal law, but it does not mean the states have to abide by it, simply because it violates a clause in the constitution. This is exactly the issue with the war on drugs.

- - - Updated - - -

The fact of the matter is that marijuana is illegal under federal law, which means that it's illegal in the entire united states. It doesn't matter if a state decriminalizes it or not since the federal law still says it's illegal, and the federal law supersedes state law.

No, it does not. Not sure what school you went to, but that is 110% false. The federal gov only has the power that was enumerated to it in the constitution. Period. End of discussion. Ill edit this post for more clarity, and to not sound like such an ass hole. Your confusing the federal govs power to enforce the laws set forth by the constitution with "Hey lawmakers, make any law you want and the states will have to abide by it."

[Rukentuts]

Yes and no. Only if they have the constitutional grounds to do so.

i.e. if they challenge the constitutionality of the federal statute itself, and not the fact it supersedes their own law.

[jmumich]

Are you saying that we should abolish the FDA (Food and Drug Administration)?

Yes.

http://mercatus.org/publication/food...y-21st-century

[Rukentuts]

Yes.

http://mercatus.org/publication/food...y-21st-century

And the drastic increases in safety aren't the result of the FDA actually doing its job, right?

I suggest you read The Jungle before advocating for the abolition of the FDA.

[Willeonge]

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2004/2004_03_1454/

"In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court held that the commerce clause gave Congress authority to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana, despite state law to the contrary."

They didn't decriminalize it in WA. They legalized it at the state level.

Not technically true. When voters in November of 2012 passed initiative 502 in Washington, all of the regulations in that initiative did not go into place immediately. Marijuana possession by December 2012 was allowed, up to an ounce. But the way you would obtain that marijuana would still be illegal under state law. You can only legally buy marijuana from a state licensed store. The regulations setting up these stores do not yet exist. You cannot legally buy marijuana yet.

[Beazy]

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2004/2004_03_1454/

"In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court held that the commerce clause gave Congress authority to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana, despite state law to the contrary."

Of course they did, without that single clause, the federal gov loses all of its power in a single pen stroke. We both know thats not going to happen. Could you imagine the anarchy? Im not trying to be sarcastic either. Thousands of laws would have to be thrown out, the Tax code would have to be re written (LuLz there will be a WAR before that ever happens), hundreds of branches of gov would be forced to shut down. . . .

Were in a big fucking mess right now. A spider web, where each strand is dependent on the other. Remove one, and it all comes crashing down.

[oxymoronic]

Ah, no.

Both Washington and Colorado voted yes in favor of statewide -legalization- of marijuana, not just decriminalization. The DEA is acting on Federal law; at the state level, the dispensaries are 100% legal.

Federal law trumps state law. Hope they enjoy doing 85% of their sentence.

PS I smoke too, but don't give a fuck if these dispensaries get taken down. They are scum anyways that charge insane prices. You better off hooking up with somebody you know/trust.

[Rukentuts]

Of course they did, without that single clause, the federal gov loses all of its power in a single pen stroke. We both know thats not going to happen. Could you imagine the anarchy? Im not trying to be sarcastic either. Thousands of laws would have to be thrown out, the Tax code would have to be re written (LuLz there will be a WAR before that ever happens), hundreds of branches of gov would be forced to shut down. . . .

Were in a big fucking mess right now. A spider web, where each strand is dependent on the other. Remove one, and it all comes crashing down.

Without the Supremacy Clause we might as well be 50 different nations with the same name.

[oxymoronic]

No, it does not. Not sure what school you went to, but that is 110% false. The federal gov only has the power that was enumerated to it in the constitution. Period. End of discussion. Ill edit this post for more clarity, and to not sound like such an ass hole. Your confusing the federal govs power to enforce the laws set forth by the constitution with "Hey lawmakers, make any law you want and the states will have to abide by it."

Nah you're wrong or there wouldn't be the ATF/DEA/FBI and a bunch of other silly acronyms.
Period, end of discussion.
SEE I can do that too!

[Rukentuts]

Nah you're wrong or there wouldn't be the ATF/DEA/FBI and a bunch of other silly acronyms.

They just enforce the law. The Constitution gives the Federal Government power to make laws.

[jmumich]

And the drastic increases in safety aren't the result of the FDA actually doing its job, right?

I suggest you read The Jungle before advocating for the abolition of the FDA.

I have, and while it really has little to do with food safety, it was written in 1906. Things have changed in the last 107 years. And I do not advocate eliminating safety standards in general. If the FDA were eliminated, food producers would bend over backwards to show that their food is top quality and safe. Consumers demand safe food and producers will need to satisfy that demand, otherwise someone else will. Food and drug safety would improve, not the other way around.

And, you know, people would have the freedom to choose how to take care of themselves, who to buy from, and how much "safety" they actually need. Some choose their steak rare, others well done. No doubt one is safer than the other, but individuals should not be denied the choice.

The FDA will not even allow desperately terminal patients access to promising drugs that have not gone through the approval process. A process that takes years, which obviously these patients do not have. The FDA even went to court to protect their ability to restrict possibly life saving medication before it receives their blessing, even to those who will certainly die before the FDA can approve it. Review the Abigail Alliance case.

So yes, abolish the FDA, as soon as possible.