Sorry Ms. Raich, the drug war is more important than your life

Stage>> One thing to keep in mind is that laws don't get changed or repealedbecause some bored representative decides to look through the books to find redundancies on his/her own. Laws gain the necessary attention to be repealed when enough of the public makes a loud enough voice that their representatives can't ignore the public outcry. To simply sit quietly with the notion of "it's a law, so there's no point in questioning," is a great way to give up what powers of representation we have left. Apathy has already shown its destructiveness time and again within so many issues, this is just one of many examples. If you want to get a good look at how it affects our society, stop anyone on the street and ask them the latest details of "Survivor" or "Who Wants to be a Star", and I'll bet you'll get every detail with names and examples. But then ask them who their state representatives are and what issues are currently being supported by them and you'll likely get a unified blank stare. So simply stating "change the laws . . ." isn't going to do anything in that direction. Laws don't change without a strong public demand, support, and follow-through.
 
Last edited:
2. Most of it is grown within the US and either way the pot that was relevant to this case was not only grown in the US but grown in California for a Californian and never left the state thus never entering into interstate commerce.
Click to expand...

Not a chance. There is home grown weed, but a majority of pot sold on the street is from outside the USA.
 
2. Most of it is grown within the US and either way the pot that was relevant to this case was not only grown in the US but grown in California for a Californian and never left the state thus never entering into interstate commerce.
Click to expand...
Not a chance. There is home grown weed, but a majority of pot sold on the street is from outside the USA.
Click to expand...
Note "relevant to this case?" The marijuana in this case was medically prescribed and dispensed. I doubt it came from Joey down on the corner. It was, I'm assuming, grown at the behest of the state of California in California. We have similarly designated growers here in Montana (or you can grow your own).

EDIT: Or, if you were referring to the first statement, I can tell you that huge amounts of marijuana are grown in the US. From backyard gardens, to hydro out in people's garages/basement, to what are practically plantations in the backwoods of Appalachia. Maybe I should go find that article I read declaring marijuana the US's number one cash crop. Obviously part of that is due to the price it fetches...but seriously, we grow a ton of weed in the US.
 
Note "relevant to this case?" The marijuana in this case was medically prescribed and dispensed. I doubt it came from Joey down on the corner. It was, I'm assuming, grown at the behest of the state of California in California. We have similarly designated growers here in Montana (or you can grow your own).
Click to expand...

Thats fine. And if you had what I said a couple of posts earlier, practically speaking it won't matter. Though if the pot is truly grown in state and not intended for sale anywhere else, then the court should have said that it's not in interstate commerce.

My point with a majority of pot being brought into the US is that a reversal of Raich won't have much effect on people who have it for recreational use. Some guy gets busted for carrying a small amount of pot. "But it's for my recreational use and not for sale" isn't going to cut it, because the court is going to ask "where did you get it from?" "Umm... johnny down the street". "And where did he get it from?" "I don't know."

That's how it's going to go down, and he's rightfully going to go to jail. If you smoke dope, you'd better be prepared to show where it came from. The burden will be on the defendant to show that it hasn't come from out of the country, and unless they are growing it in their backyard they aren't going to be able to do that.

Even if Raich is overturned, it's not going to make the huge commotion that many think it will.
 
That's fine. And if you had what I said a couple of posts earlier, practically speaking it won't matter. Though if the pot is truly grown in state and not intended for sale anywhere else, then the court should have said that it's not in interstate commerce.

My point with a majority of pot being brought into the US is that a reversal of Raich won't have much effect on people who have it for recreational use. Some guy gets busted for carrying a small amount of pot. "But it's for my recreational use and not for sale" isn't going to cut it, because the court is going to ask "where did you get it from?" "Umm... johnny down the street". "And where did he get it from?" "I don't know."

Thats how it's going to go down, and he's rightfully going to go to jail. If you smoke dope, you'd better be prepared to show where it came from. The burden will be on the defendant to show that it hasn't come from out of the country, and unless they are growing it in their back yard they aren't going to be able to do that.

Even if Raich is overturned, it's not going to make the huge commotion that many think it will.
Click to expand...

Except that at this point individual states should be able to legalize marijuana for recreational use, no? If it's being sold through legitimate channels (such as in stores) and taxed, I see no reason why the average recreational user would not at this point be able to tell you exactly where his marijuana came from. I can tell you where the cucumbers I bought last night came from, and this should be no different.

Also, the laws you seem to support enforcing (regardless of whether you support them) say that even if I grow my own weed on my own property, and dry and smoke it on my own property (in other words, even if it never leaves my property) then I am still breaking the law...because by growing the weed now I'm not buying weed from out of state, and thus it falls under interstate commerce. Or some such garbage. Maybe Antipitas can come along and verify...he seems pretty knowledgeable on the subject.
 
Not a chance. There is home grown weed, but a majority of pot sold on the street is from outside the USA.
Click to expand...
No, not necessarily. The USA is listed by some as the worlds leading producer of marijuana. Hard to believe but it is true.

I read a report (while I was an LEO produced by the DEA) back in the 90's that said that more tons of marijuana are seized and destroyed in the USA every year than the total amount produced in most other countries. The USA's production was estimated at the time to be around 15,000-20,000 metric tons of marijuana a year. Mexico was rated as the second place producer.

I also read a report not too long ago listing marijuana as the highest grossing cash crop produced in Oregon. Since it cannot be listed as a legal cash crop landscaping plants get listed as number one.

If this is even close to be true today there would be absolutely no need to import marijuana from an outside source.

And as a side note...I have known a lot of pot dealers in my day. Marijuana is to difficult to smuggle because of it pungent nature. It also takes up alot of room. It is pretty hard to get enough of it into the country at a time to make it worth it. Most distributers produce their own (often on public lands) and sell locally. It is just much easier to start a crop in a field and sell that than it is to import it. Chances are, if you buy a pot in Oregon or Cali or any state you are doing your part to support the local economy. :)
 
Not a chance. There is home grown weed, but a majority of pot sold on the street is from outside the USA.
Click to expand...

You can believe that if you want. It doesn't dovetail with what I hear regularly on the news.

The opposite is the reason I don't buy land as an investment. I don't have time to run out and check it for being turned into a pot field. Should that happen, the government would charge my land (not me) with manufacturing a controlled substance and confiscate it. No charges against me or anyone else would be needed.
 
Not a chance. There is home grown weed, but a majority of pot sold on the street is from outside the USA.
Click to expand...
No sorry, that's not accurate. Yet it still doesn't change the fact that the weed in question in this case was grown in California for use by a Californian.
 
Also, the laws you seem to support enforcing (regardless of whether you support them) say that even if I grow my own weed on my own property, and dry and smoke it on my own property (in other words, even if it never leaves my property) then I am still breaking the law...because by growing the weed now I'm not buying weed from out of state, and thus it falls under interstate commerce.
Click to expand...

And if such is the case then I disagree with them. Interstate commerce is eactly that. The lemons I grow in my yard that I use in my home are not by any stretch of the imagination in interstate commerce. Pot grown like this should be either.
 
And if such is the case then I disagree with them. Interstate commerce is eactly that. The lemons I grow in my yard that I use in my home are not by any stretch of the imagination in interstate commerce. Pot grown like this should be either.
Click to expand...
Yet you're agreeing with the illegality of pot and that very thing you disagree with is the only legal justification the government has for its war on drugs.
 
Stage 2:

Why don't you and your doctor decide what's the best treatment for you and yours and let this lady and her doctor make their own decisions.

Unless you feel that our government knows more about what's best for us than we do.

Kowboy
 
Yet you're agreeing with the illegality of pot and that very thing you disagree with is the only legal justification the government has for its war on drugs.
Click to expand...

I don't quite understand what exactly you're saying so I'll spell out my position. The feds can ban any pot that's in interstate commerce. Period. End of discussion. Any pot that comes in from other countries is in interstate commerce. That too isn't debatable.

Unless you can clearly show that your pot was grown in your backyard and for your personal use, then you're out of luck. I'd wager that most recreational pot users would fall under this part. Most people don't have the time or inclination to grow their own stuff. They get it from a guy who gets it from some guy. As a result they put themselves at risk.

But if you can show that your pot isn't in interstate commerce, then the feds shouldn't have the authority to regulate it. This ISN'T the state of the law today, but it should be. However, if the law were to change to reflect this consistency, then the feds would just withhold funds until the states fell into lock step.

Practically speaking things would be no different, it's just the state and not the feds that would be doing a majority of the punishment.


Why don't you and your doctor decide what's the best treatment for you and yours and let this lady and her doctor make their own decisions.

Unless you feel that our government knows more about what's best for us than we do.
Click to expand...

Because I believe in the rule of law. If most of America shares your sentiment then the law shouldn't be that hard to change, money or otherwise.
 
STAGE 2 said:
This ISN'T the state of the law today, but it should be.
Click to expand...
No. What IS the state of the law today would allow the federal government to ban any form of home gardening. Afterall, it affects the economic interests of all commercial lemon growers who ship their product via interstate commerce... According to the Majority opinion in Raich.

SO DROP THAT LEMON!
 
Wow! To hell with the lemons, I must REALLY upset the state of things since I make my own wine and mead (get my honey from a keeper down the road--delicious stuff indeed!) from the apricot tree in my back yard, and even have a fantastic apricot ale that goes down really well on hot summer afternoons. Oh, and did I mention I blend my own pipe tobacco from the three kinds growing off the corner of the house? I love smoking my pipe in the evening. I use real maple in the curing, which I have to import from New England because I don't have a maple tree--so that ought to really stir things up... Alcohol, tobacco, and firearms... Come 4th of july I'll have everything in question covered. But if I had a lemon tree, you can be sure I'd be making my own lemonade, too.

So what's all this huff about people growing their own stuff again?? :D
 
I think a lot of people on this thread are under-estimating how much pot is actually grown in the US rather than smuggled in. Parts of northern Califorina and Oregon have towns where the economy is basically propped up by illegal pot sales, hence the decriminalization. Nobody's trying to cut the hippies a break out there.

Also, there is a ton of pot being grown in the midwest as well as up north in NY state. I'd say nowadays, a majority of the pot being sold and smoked in the US is coming from the above listed places. Canada is also a big spot for pot, Victoria and such. It's a lot easier to smuggle in. And that's just it, pot is very hard to smuggle. When you are dealing with the risk of international drug trafficking, you'd better make it worth your while. People getting 1500-2000 on the street for a single pound of pot just aren't covering the risk cost, let alone what you pay to get it over here. You need a truck load of it to make it worth your while and it's just not worth it to try to get that over the border.

I think a few years back the pot dealers realized they could rent houses in northern Cali, grow just under the limit of a felony, and make a ton of money. It also allowed for the product to become better maintained, thus a better product, hence a ton more profit. You rent on a couple of houses, throw some hippies room and board and all the pot they can smoke and presto! Instant drug business. The distribution is also no problem with it being grown in the country as the highways are wide open. Just the fact fellas. I think they should sandbag the hippies, legalize and make them all get haircuts and jobs. Now that would be justice. Lousy hippies.
 
teifmen1948

You seem to know an awful lot about growing, transporting, and selling marijuana.;)

Just kidding, I said pretty much the same things in post #86.
 
But if you can show that your pot isn't in interstate commerce, then the feds shouldn't have the authority to regulate it. This ISN'T the state of the law today, but it should be. However, if the law were to change to reflect this
Click to expand...

Changing the law does nothing to change the authority under which the law was written. Medical marijuana is part of a much larger problem with the commerce clause, and Justice Thomas was right to say that it is past time for the SC to revisit the issue and revise their reasoning.

Rangefinder,
I want to visit you! But all of your activities do indeed fall under the federal authority under the current commerce clause interpretation. They may not fall under any current federal LAW, but laws can change, and they do fall under federal AUTHORITY. That is what we must change, IMO.

Justice Thomas, from his dissent in Raich:

Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything–and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.

...

If the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States. This makes a mockery of Madison’s assurance to the people of New York that the “powers delegated” to the Federal Government are “few and defined,” while those of the States are “numerous and indefinite.” The Federalist No. 45, at 313 (J. Madison).
Click to expand...
 
Ref from Justice Thomas on revisiting the authority, not the law, we are talking about here:

One searches the Court’s opinion in vain for any hint of what aspect of American life is reserved to the States. Yet this Court knows that “ ‘[t]he Constitution created a Federal Government of limited powers.’ ” New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 155 (1992) (quoting Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 457 (1991)). That is why today’s decision will add no measure of stability to our Commerce Clause jurisprudence: This Court is willing neither to enforce limits on federal power, nor to declare the Tenth Amendment a dead letter. If stability is possible, it is only by discarding the stand-alone substantial effects test and revisiting our definition of “Commerce among the several States.” Congress may regulate interstate commerce–not things that affect it, even when summed together, unless truly “necessary and proper” to regulating interstate commerce.
Click to expand...
 
As far as the origin of marijuanna being of legal significance forget it. Not my opinion it is the USSC's opinion. They consider many goods to be fungible. Doesn't matter how or where it is produced it will still affect interstate commerce.
IIRC it dates back to a case brought about by the "New Deal" involving a farmer who grew too much wheat under federal rules. Try googlin Wickard and word fungible and see what you get.

I do not have to like or agree with the situation and as always IANAL so I could be wrong.

NukemJim
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top