"If I am affecting interstate commerce, surely I am affecting international commerce by the exact same reasoning. "
You really don’t see a difference in scale between interstate and international commerce?
“Is this because I am growing citrus rather than marijuana or corn? Do I need to apply to the feds for a permit for the trees?”
I would say if you were growing an orchard you’d have issues. Again, 1 lemon tree doesn’t yield enough fruit to affect interstate commerce.
You really don’t see a difference in scale between interstate and international commerce?
Come on, commodore, stop getting all wrapped around the axle over interstate vs international. It’s an irrelevent point.
Is Art affecting interstate commerce with his fruit trees? Am I? I have a couple of apple trees, and 10 chickens. There is a large interstate commercial system for apples and eggs. Am I a player in that system?
Again, 1 lemon tree doesn’t yield enough fruit to affect interstate commerce.
Does a couple of pot plants for personal consumption yield enough weed to affect interstate commerce? How’s that? And how is the illegal drug trade all of a sudden interstate commerce? It isn’t, in fact, regulated by Congress- it’s banned.
OK, I’ve started reading the opinion… from what I can tell the reasoning is that allowing home production of marijuana undercuts the Fed’s ability to regulate the interstate commerce of marijuana as locally grown medicinal ot may be diverted into illegal interstate commerce.
Am I close?
Now you have really lost me, Slowguy. Didn’t the Supreme Court already establish 60 years ago that if a farmer were to grow grain and consume it on his own farm, the farmer is still subject to crop regulations because the growing and personal consumption of grain affects the supply and demand for the product and thus affects the interstate market, thus allowing federal regulation of his crops under the interstate commerce clause?
Didn’t the Supreme Court just cite that case to strike down state marijuana laws?
By this reasoning, aren’t I player in both the interstate and international citrus markets, and shouldn’t this make for a good bar pickup line?
I am a simple man who likes simple reasoning. This all works for me.
And how is the illegal drug trade all of a sudden interstate commerce? It isn’t, in fact, regulated by Congress- it’s banned.
Actually, you answered your own question - banning is a form of regulation.
Actually, you answered your own question - banning is a form of regulation.
Semantics. The fact is, the drug trade isn’t regulated by Congress as interstate commerce, or a form of economic activity. It’s outlawed as illicit activity.
(Though, from a policy point of view, if one really believed that medical marijuana affected the interstate trade of pot, wouldn’t one want to allow medical marijuana?)
(Though, from a policy point of view, if one really believed that medical marijuana affected the interstate trade of pot, wouldn’t one want to allow medical marijuana?)
Not if it affected it by supplying yet another source of marijuana to enter the illicit interstate commerce piepline… (at least that’s the majority reasoning).
I think the likelihood of medicinal marijuana hurting the fight against interstate trafficing of pot is pretty slim, but the way it stands is that the legal standard is pretty weak:
" In assessing the scope of Congress’ Commerce Clause authority, the Court need not determine whether respondents’ activities, taken in the aggregate, substantially affect interstate commerce in fact, but only whether a “rational basis” exists for so concluding. "
“top getting all wrapped around the axle over interstate vs international. It’s an irrelevent point.”
Who’s wrapped around any axles? I simply stated, in response to Art’s post, that interstate and international are different issues when dealing with this particular power of the federal govt.
“s Art affecting interstate commerce with his fruit trees? Am I? I have a couple of apple trees, and 10 chickens. There is a large interstate commercial system for apples and eggs. Am I a player in that system?”
No, as I already said, it’s a matter of scale. Your 10 chickens or 2 apple trees don’t affect the trade of apples or chicken or eggs. The same cannot be said of marijuana. You having marijuana plants in your yard affects interstate trade of marijuana because you could sell it, and that is prohibited by federal law. Nothing in federal law prohibits you from selling your apples to your neighbor across the border.
“Didn’t the Supreme Court already establish 60 years ago that if a farmer were to grow grain and consume it on his own farm, the farmer is still subject to crop regulations because the growing and personal consumption of grain affects the supply and demand for the product and thus affects the interstate market, thus allowing federal regulation of his crops under the interstate commerce clause?”
I suppose they did, but that isn’t the same thing as me growing some pumpkins in my backyard affecting the interstate pumpkin trade. Farmers have to be of a certain size to be regulated under interstate commerce if I remember correctly (which I may not).
Let’s not go crazy with rational conclusions based on an actual reading of the case.
Seriously, though, that’s the answer. That’s what Congress concluded and the question is not whether Congress is right or wrong (do we really want the judiciary making those types of judgments) but rather whether Congress’ conclusion was rational. The Court held it was, and the regulation of intrastate commerce in this case was therefore lawful. Once lawful, any state laws to the contrary are preempted.
No, as I already said, it’s a matter of scale. Your 10 chickens or 2 apple trees don’t affect the trade of apples or chicken or eggs. The same cannot be said of marijuana.
It isn’t a matter of scale. Scale has nothing to do with it. Let’s say I’m a cancer patient growing a couple of pot plants in my back yard for my own personal consumption. I’m licensed by my state to do so. That’s now prohibited on grounds that it affects interstate commerce.
How does that affect interstate commerce more than my chickens?
“How does that affect interstate commerce more than my chickens?”
It affects interstate commerce because Congress passed a federal law saying marijuana can’t be grown or sold for medicinal purposes. If a State passes a law saying you can, then Congress’ control of the interstate trade in medicinal marijuana has been superceded by State law, and that’s not legal.
It affects interstate commerce because Congress passed a federal law saying marijuana can’t be grown or sold for medicinal purposes.
You’re kidding, right?
“You’re kidding, right?”
No actually I’m not. Put the pot plant away and you’ll be just fine. I’m not really sure why you care about this so much, but the federal govt has precedence ove the States in several areas. This is just one of them.
From the article that started the thread:
“The Controlled Substances Act prevents the cultivation and possession of marijuana, even by people who claim personal “medicinal” use. The government argues its overall anti-drug campaign would be undermined by even limited patient exceptions.”
but the federal govt has precedence ove the States in several areas.
Fine, then why not just say that federal law supersedes state law in this instance, and leave it at that? Why the ridiculous argument based on interstate commerce?
Because interstate commerce is what gave the Feds the authority to ban pot in the first place.
interstate commerce is what gave the Feds the authority to ban pot in the first place.
And now explain that logic to me, please.
Maybe one of the resident lawyers can do better, but I’m pretty sure that’s the reasoning.
It might very well be the reasoning. My point is that such reasoning is just tortured beyond any meaning. What aspect of life couldn’t be covered under that reasoning?
Probably not that much…