state pot laws invalid?

Since the Supreme Court ruled that states' medical marijuana laws are
trumped by the fact that only Congress can regulate interstate commerce,
then are ALL state marijuana laws invalid? It would seem so.

--
---

jim frei
http://www.stormwatergroup.com

"jim frei" <jdfrei@ZZearthlinkZZ.net> wrote:

>Since the Supreme Court ruled that states' medical marijuana laws are
>trumped by the fact that only Congress can regulate interstate commerce,
>then are ALL state marijuana laws invalid? It would seem so.

nice try but I would bet the Supremos only invalidated those laws that
*contradict* existing Federal legislation.

>--
>---
>
>jim frei
>http://www.stormwatergroup.com
>
>

"Gregor" <Gregorio.NC@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:42acda46.215084968@news.west.earthlink.net...
> "jim frei" <jdfrei@ZZearthlinkZZ.net> wrote:
>
>>Since the Supreme Court ruled that states' medical marijuana laws are
>>trumped by the fact that only Congress can regulate interstate commerce,
>>then are ALL state marijuana laws invalid? It would seem so.
>
> nice try but I would bet the Supremos only invalidated those laws that
> *contradict* existing Federal legislation.
>

SC did not invalidate states' medical marijuana laws. SC sasid that fed can
prosecute for possession/dealing because only congress can regulate
interstate commerce.

North Carolina's laws against marijuana possession affect interstate
commerce. Thus it would seem no NC police can make an arrest for possessing
weed under NC statutes.

On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 21:44:17 GMT in <R6nre.3465$eM6.2641@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink. net> jim frei <jdfrei@ZZearthlinkZZ.net> wrote:
> "Gregor" <Gregorio.NC@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:42acda46.215084968@news.west.earthlink.net...
>> "jim frei" <jdfrei@ZZearthlinkZZ.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Since the Supreme Court ruled that states' medical marijuana laws are
>>>trumped by the fact that only Congress can regulate interstate commerce,
>>>then are ALL state marijuana laws invalid? It would seem so.
>>
>> nice try but I would bet the Supremos only invalidated those laws that
>> *contradict* existing Federal legislation.
>>
>
> SC did not invalidate states' medical marijuana laws. SC sasid that fed can
> prosecute for possession/dealing because only congress can regulate
> interstate commerce.
>
> North Carolina's laws against marijuana possession affect interstate
> commerce. Thus it would seem no NC police can make an arrest for possessing
> weed under NC statutes.

Has anyone contacted Ray Ubinger or Tom Bailey to try this in court?

(I'll let someone else take the drivers license potshot).

--
Chris Dukes
Suspicion breeds confidence -- Brazil

"jim frei" <jdfrei@ZZearthlinkZZ.net> wrote in message
news:R6nre.3465$eM6.2641@newsread3.news.atl.earthl ink.net...

> SC did not invalidate states' medical marijuana laws. SC sasid that fed
> can prosecute for possession/dealing because only congress can regulate
> interstate commerce.

Er, no. The Supreme Court said that the federal Controlled Substances Act
preempted state laws on the subject and that the federal law has the
constitutional right to preempt state law, notwithstanding the 10th
Amendment, because the area touches on interstate commerce.

> North Carolina's laws against marijuana possession affect interstate
> commerce. Thus it would seem no NC police can make an arrest for
> possessing weed under NC statutes.

Er, no. In some areas, federal preemption is absolute, i.e. no state may
make any laws on the subject. But because of the 10th Amendment reservation
of state's rights, these areas are rare, dealing with subjects such as
treaties or the military. In most cases where the feds legislate, states
are allowed to enact laws that are equivalent to or stronger than the
federal laws in question, but not weaken them as was the case with medical
marijuana. As long as the NC laws are at least as severe as the federal
laws, they can enforce them. The distinction really is moot, since state
police have the jurisdiction to enforce federal laws on their citizens and
their prosecutors to try violations of federal laws in state court. Where
is matters is in states such as the heavily Republican-voting Alaska, where
possession of less than 4 oz is legal, or states like Colorado, where minor
possession is considered a petty offense, less than a misdemeanor. The
federal laws make marijuana possession a misdemeanor and require a minimum
mandated sentence of at least 15 days for a second offense, 90 days for a
subsequent offense.

What I love about the federal laws is that the ring leader of an operation
with over 60,000 plants can be given a death sentence. Sure, that's one
hell of a lot of weed. But for a drug which is not physically addictive,
has no lethal maximum dose (i.e. it can't kill you no matter how much you
smoke), and is certainly more benign than alcohol, we're executing the major
dealers? What, are we in Malaysia? Why not put to death, say, the head of
the Coors Brewing Company, who has without a doubt caused more deaths
through the sale of his product than any marijuana kingpin?

"Greg Mossman" wrote

> Why not put to death, say, the head of the Coors Brewing Company, who has
> without a doubt caused more deaths through the sale of his product than
> any marijuana kingpin?

Good choice. He deserves death for putting his beer in cans that are too
tall for the soda machines at my boat club.

Lee

Greg Mossman wrote:
> ...
> What I love about the federal laws is that the ring leader of an operation
> with over 60,000 plants can be given a death sentence. Sure, that's one
> hell of a lot of weed. But for a drug which is not physically addictive,
> has no lethal maximum dose (i.e. it can't kill you no matter how much you
> smoke), and is certainly more benign than alcohol, we're executing the major
> dealers? What, are we in Malaysia? Why not put to death, say, the head of
> the Coors Brewing Company, who has without a doubt caused more deaths
> through the sale of his product than any marijuana kingpin?

Neither of the two men are responsible for the actions of others.

- Susan

"Susan Hogarth" <hogarth@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118715076.249273.317850@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...

>> through the sale of his product than any marijuana kingpin?
>
> Neither of the two men are responsible for the actions of others.

So you don't mind street corner crack dealers, "pill doctors", and
Kevorkian?

Greg Mossman wrote:
> "Susan Hogarth" <hogarth@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1118715076.249273.317850@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...
>
> >> through the sale of his product than any marijuana kingpin?
> >
> > Neither of the two men are responsible for the actions of others.
>
> So you don't mind street corner crack dealers, "pill doctors", and
> Kevorkian?

That's quite a leap. I 'mind' NASCAR, but I don't think people who
indulge in it are guilty of a crime. Mostly :)

I don't actually understand the term "pill doctors" - what do you mean
by it?

I'm not sure of the connection with Kevorkian, but the only thing I
mind about him is that he is in prison.

- Susan

"Lee Bell" <leebell@ix.remove.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:NZqre.3854$VK4.652@newsread1.news.atl.earthli nk.net...
> "Greg Mossman" wrote
>
> > Why not put to death, say, the head of the Coors Brewing Company, who
has
> > without a doubt caused more deaths through the sale of his product than
> > any marijuana kingpin?
>
> Good choice. He deserves death for putting his beer in cans that are too
> tall for the soda machines at my boat club.
>
> Lee

I'd have stopped with "cans"...