U.S. Will Enforce Marijuana Laws, (California) State Vote Aside

NY TImes ^ | 10/15/10 | Adam Nagourny

[Bokababe]

LOS ANGELES — The Department of Justice says it intends to prosecute marijuana laws in California aggressively even if state voters approve an initiative on the Nov. 2 ballot to legalize the drug.

[Cheerio]

"Obama vs California" will be a real trip!

I find this real ironic considering how the Kenyan sued AZ for enforcing his FED LAWS.

[alancarp]

Curious: a state with such a crusade against tobacco smoking is set to allow the smoking of marijuana — something that’s 10-20 times more potent than tobacco? California is a funny place.

[Talf]

in California, possession of pot,
is no longer a crime

[freebilly]

It won’t pass. Not yet, anyway...

[publiusF27]

“Why was a constitutional amendment needed to outlaw liquor on a national basis, yet cannibis can be outlawed nationwide with simply a statute?”

I have asked that question repeatedly in the past and one of the few answers I got was that they didn’t really need to pass a constitutional amendment, they just did to make sure the people really wanted it (or some such nonsense).

Actually, the given reason is that an amendment is much harder to repeal and they wanted it to stick.

When I pointed out that the original federal drug laws were declared unconstitutional by the SC in the 1930’s...

Cite?

[publiusF27]

They already lost this fight in 2005, Gonzalez vs Raich.

Justice Thomas got that one right:

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).

[Vaduz]

Any bets the public smoking ban will be lifted next?,it’s why it came into play in the first place.

[prairiebreeze]

Are you concerned that after voting to legalize marijuana, the next initiative will be to legalize cocaine? PCP? Crack? Meth?

If the issue was in TX, I’d vote no. And it wouldn’t be about threats from Obama’s Dept of Unjustice either. It would be because overall, I don’t believe legalization of this drug benefits society and our children.

Since I’m not in CA, I’ll be watching with interest, but I hope it’s voted down.

[Delta 21]

Its good to be the king.

[thethirddegree]

I do not support legalization of marijuana, but I would like to see the same energy and resources applied to secure our southern border.

[red tie]

Big deal, they will enforce it just like the immigration laws.

[redgolum]

Don’t want marijuana legalized, but if they keep it in California then they can do it.

Though they don’t have a leg to stand on. The USSC said that wheat grown for your own consumption is interstate commerce, so I assume weed would be too.

[RKBA Democrat]

“The see it as interstate commerce and want to regulate it.”

I think the Federal government does and should have the right to ban or regulate importation. Arguably between states as well. But this is strictly intrastate commerce.

If we want to say that states should have the exclusive right over intrastate trade of guns or whether individuals have to purchase health insurance, then we need to accept that some states will use that 10th Amendment power to do things that we might not like so much.

[webstersII]

“California’s prop. 19 does not set a statutory limit for being under the influence”

That’s why they have Field Sobriety Tests.

[webstersII]

“If we want to say that states should have the exclusive right over intrastate trade of guns or whether individuals have to purchase health insurance, then we need to accept that some states will use that 10th Amendment power to do things that we might not like so much.”

Yep, that’s the sticky little problem with freedom, isn’t it? People (even people on FR who should know better) want to have it both ways when it comes to so many different issues.

[BlazingArizona]

Vote for it - if I were Californian, I would. Indications are that it will pass, and that the Obama DOJ will nullify it under federal preemption. I would love to see the liberals try to squirm their way out of that one. They will, of course, opt to take contradictory positions on federosauris vs California and federosaurus vs Arizona. We win again!

[Leo Farnsworth]

This is going to send shivers down the spine of the Apple Ping list, I bet.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Just look up the history of drug laws in the US.

[depressed in 06]

It will suppress the Bolshecrat turnout.

[tubebender]

Here is how one group of Eureka residents handled a grow house in their Neighborhood