Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 18 of 18

Thread: Supreme Court action upholds medical marijuana law

  1. #11
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,719

    Re: Supreme Court action upholds medical marijuana law

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Again, so what? This isnt a vindication of any sort of law or policy re: MJ, but the resolutuion of a question of intratstate power that had a pre-determined answer.


    Agree there.
    This was a case where local officials were abusing their authority, and a stop got put to it. That's the so what.

    On your second comment, I agree on the agreement.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

  2. #12
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Supreme Court action upholds medical marijuana law

    Quote Originally Posted by LowRevs View Post
    I don't know why this even got to a federal court.
    The issue in question was the veracity of the argument that state LEOS --must-- enforce federal law. This is a federal question, and was more or less settled in 1997.

  3. #13
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,719

    Re: Supreme Court action upholds medical marijuana law

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    The issue in question was the veracity of the argument that state LEOS --must-- enforce federal law. This is a federal question, and was more or less settled in 1997.
    I thought the decision in 1997 only partially settled the issue.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

  4. #14
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Supreme Court action upholds medical marijuana law

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    This was a case where local officials were abusing their authority, and a stop got put to it. That's the so what.
    That's fine, so long as you dont derive some vindication of the CA MMJ law/policy from the ruling. Obviously, FEDERAL law enforcement officers can still enforce relevant federal laws, and so those acting under CA's MMJ laws may still be subject to federal prosecution.

    On your second comment, I agree on the agreement.
    And I agree orn your agreement of the agreement.

  5. #15
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Supreme Court action upholds medical marijuana law

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    I thought the decision in 1997 only partially settled the issue.
    Perhaps. It did clearly say that the federal government cannot force state LEAs from enforcing federal laws, and so it seems pretty hard to argue that state LEAs must enforce federal law, absent any state provisions to that effect.

  6. #16
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,719

    Re: Supreme Court action upholds medical marijuana law

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    That's fine, so long as you dont derive some vindication of the CA MMJ law/policy from the ruling. Obviously, FEDERAL law enforcement officers can still enforce relevant federal laws, and so those acting under CA's MMJ laws may still be subject to federal prosecution.


    And I agree orn your agreement of the agreement.
    Actually, now that you have clarified your position, I agree with you on that. I do like the fact that Holder is not going to enforce the Federal laws in most cases, and leave it to the states, and I hope that future Attorneys General will do the same. There are many more important places that we need to sink law enforcement resources into.

    And I agree on your agreement of my agreement of your agreement. LOL.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

  7. #17
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Supreme Court action upholds medical marijuana law

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    The Supreme Court has refused to hear members of California law enforcement contest of California's medical marijuana law, which means that police in California are required to uphold that law by not busting anyone who has a prescription for their joints, and they can no longer raid marijuana pharmacies, hiding behind Federal law. In a statement, the Supremes made it clear that Federal law does not trump state law in this case.

    Excellent decision, and it's a good start towards dismantling the bogus war on drugs.

    Article is here.
    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    So what? Here's the deal. Local agencies in California attempted to claim that they had to uphold Federal law, and that is a reason they were continuing to bust people who used weed for medical purposes. Now that the SCOTUS has rendered its opinion, the locals no longer have that excuse to harass and intimidate people, as they now MUST abide by California law.
    This isn't quite right.

    -It wasn't a dispute over local LEOs busting people, it was about the county offices refusing to give out medicinal marijuana cards because they believed it violated federal law.

    -There was no opinion, the court merely refused to grant cert on this issue. So while it does mean that the lower court's ruling will stand, it doesn't indicate anything about what the SC thinks on the issue and has no precedential effect.

    Quote Originally Posted by LowRevs View Post
    I don't know why this even got to a federal court. Counties in a state refusing to do what the state legislature said would be controlled by a state constitution. Battles between the state and the federal authority would be taken up in the federal court, suit brought by the state or federal entity being wronged. I think the U.S. supreme court simply found that it was not the place for the argument which it often does (was returned without any comment whatsoever).

    I noticed in the article that the California supreme court also refused to hear the case. Seems to me that they should have ruled on an unresolved state issue which had no business in the U.S. Supreme court. Are they slackin'?

    But I'm no lawyer. . .I could be wrong.
    This actually was a case for the federal court system, because it was a question of whether a federal law preempted a state law.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  8. #18
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Nashville/Little Mexico Tennessee
    Last Seen
    06-02-09 @ 12:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    523

    Re: Supreme Court action upholds medical marijuana law

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    Actually, now that you have clarified your position, I agree with you on that. I do like the fact that Holder is not going to enforce the Federal laws in most cases, and leave it to the states, and I hope that future Attorneys General will do the same. There are many more important places that we need to sink law enforcement resources into.

    And I agree on your agreement of my agreement of your agreement. LOL.
    ...,and there are many more important drugs to fight a war against.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •