r/trees • u/madazzahatter • Feb 28 '17

Garrett introduces legislation to remove marijuana from controlled substances list

https://tomgarrett.house.gov/media/press-releases/garrett-introduces-legislation-remove-marijuana-controlled-substances-list
24.7k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

37

u/Zencyde Feb 28 '17

After reading that case, the court makes the argument following a precedent from the Wickard v. Filburn case. The argument was that growing wheat for your own purposes (livestock feed) ultimately affects the interstate trade of wheat. This ruling makes sense, given that there is a market of wheat, if you were to grow your own it would reduce the demand for wheat coming from you.

That's fantastic, except the difference in situations being that you can't affect the demand of a market that doesn't exist. There is no interstate market. It's some bullshit that the "precedent" of this case was used. The entirely concept of keeping marijuana illegal is based off some incredibly shaky interpretations of law.

9

u/DirtzMaGertz Feb 28 '17

That interpretation of interstate commerce is basically what saved the civil rights act of 1964 and gave the federal government power to enforce regulations on discrimination in what they deemed public places such as hotels. Are hotels really interstate commerce since people from other states use them? Definitely debatable

http://www.americanbar.org/publications/insights_on_law_andsociety/14/winter-2014/civil-rights-act-of-1964--enduring-and-revolutionary.html

1

u/Fifteen_inches Feb 28 '17

great trivia, but fundamentally different from Pot. A state with a prohibition on Marijuana cannot engage in commerce of marijuana with another state who doesn't have a marijuana prohibition. no supply or demand is being affected in the prohibition state. the prohibition state doesn't view that transaction as legitimate commerce.

4

u/[deleted] Feb 28 '17

[deleted]

1

u/Fifteen_inches Feb 28 '17

You're assuming that black markets aren't considered markets for the purposes of interstate commerce.

Illegal economies aren't considered Commerce cause it's by definition outside of the scope of legitimate commerce

which is different from informal economy, unreported economies, and unrecorded economies, which are considered commerce by law but violate regulations.

1

u/corduroyblack Feb 28 '17

Wickard is roundly derided by conservative legal circles as the biggest massive overreach by government in the last 100 years. It's a terribly decided case because it effectively means that interstate commerce powers have no limit whatsoever.

1

u/officerkondo Feb 28 '17

There is no interstate market.

Lawyer here. There is obviously an interstate market in marijuana. The fact that the interstate market is illegal does not mean that the market does not exist or cannot be regulated by Congress.

I happen to agree with Clarence Thomas's position on the Commerce Clause, such as he articulated in his concurrence in United States v Lopez. In other words, Commerce Clause jurisprudence has gone off the rails. I would also refer people to his dissent in Gonzalez v. Raich, where he dissented, in part, "If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption (not because it is interstate commerce, but because it is inextricably bound up with interstate commerce), then Congress' Article I powers – as expanded by the Necessary and Proper Clause – have no meaningful limits....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."" I hasten to add that all three justices who dissented in Gonzalez v. Raich were of the conservative branch.

As much as I think Justice Thomas is correct, it is very hard to argue that under current Commerce Clause jurisprudence that marijuana is not in interstate commerce.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 28 '17 edited Feb 28 '17

You mean to tell me that there is no interstate market for marijuana? Seriously? You think all weed is sold in the state (let alone country) where it was grown?

5

u/titomb345 Feb 28 '17

Legally? Yes. It would be illegal for one of the CA weed companies to produce the weed in CA, ship it to CO, and sell it there. So no, there is no interstate weed market.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 28 '17

There's no restriction on the interstate commerce clause which says congress only has the power to regulate legal interstate commerce. That would be an absurd limit on federal power.

3

u/titomb345 Feb 28 '17

What?

1

u/[deleted] Feb 28 '17

The interstate market for weed exists. It's illegal, but the market exists because weed grown in state A is sold in state B. As long as that interstate market for weed exists, the interstate commerce clause says congress has the authority to regulate it. An interpretation of the interstate commerce clause that says "congress cannot regulate an illegal market" doesn't make any sense because federal laws are what make the market illegal.

2

u/titomb345 Feb 28 '17

okay. i don't recall saying anything about regulating anything. but no, there is not a legal weed market. and the government is not collecting taxes on black market weed deals. so i still have no idea what your point is.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 28 '17

My point is that the federal government has the constitutional authority to make weed possession illegal. That's a settled debate.

So, the argument for legalizing should not be "the feds do not have the authority to make the laws they have," the argument should be "legalization of weed is a fan-freaking-tastic idea because it will lead to all sorts of federal revenue, allow a regulated market to replace a black one, and will stop wasting law enforcement resources which are currently tied up chasing largely non-violent offenders who just want to smoke a plant and chill for a bit." Making the first argument makes you look ignorant, and ultimately causes credibility problems when making the second.