Dying woman not immune to drug charges?!....

Dankdude

Well-Known Member
As the language is written "or to the people" does not give them a basis for prosecution. It would have applied under the 18th amendment, but it was overturned by the 21st amendment. Meaning (as it is written) there is no basis for prosecution.
If the federal government is using the 18th amendment as a basis, then they would be wrong, as it has been overturned.
They can not use the commerce clause, as no marijuana has not crossed state lines.

I have to go and pick up my daughter, I'll post more on this later.
 

Dankdude

Well-Known Member
OK I read my way through it, and yes the congress can regulate marijuana (or any other drug for that matter).
But as said before, in order for this to apply Ms. Raich would have had to been involved in commerce, meaning sales, distribution ECT.
This is where the Supreme Court ruled in error.

Once the congress (if it were to) rule in favor of marijuana, the DEA wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
Also if you read your way through the Dormant Commerce clause (and the rulings) you will find this law very contradictory.
It's sort of a pick and choose, what you want.

That is why this is at the top of the page:

"This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject.
Please help recruit one or improve this article yourself. See the talk page for details.
Please consider using {{Expert-subject}} to associate this request with a WikiProject"
 

7xstall

Well-Known Member
yeah, it's amazing to me how complicated they can make things in D.C., but you got what i was getting at with "to the people".


so, the basis of your understanding is, and i'm just trying to understand:

because she did not engage in commerce or transport, federal laws were not applicable. state sovereignty was unnecessarily usurped, bypassing the constitutional requirement that states police themselves.



.
 

7xstall

Well-Known Member
You are correct in your assumption 7x.
if that is the case, the attorney general has the obligation to prosecute the DEA, which was part of the justice department - directly accountable to the AG's office. now, i think it's under the DHS. it needs to prosecute itself, basically.

i have to wonder, who sent them on this mission to put this woman through so much??

i really need to read up on this old case, it sounds very interesting, if not scary.
 

altermad

Active Member
All of this political B.S. shouldn't we all have the right to live in less pain by the wonderful gift god has presented us with? I feel for this woman and I hope compassion will overcome the goverments "ethics" so this gal can keep on keeping on! They think she has nothing better to stress over than some plant? Before I was disease struck, I use to bounce at a bar and from experience I can tell you drunks are horrible, potheads are usually good peoples. Pray for change! Vote for change!
 

ViRedd

New Member
Its all about power. Here's a question: If it took a constitutional amendment to enact alcohol prohibition, and another constitutional amendment to end alcohol prohibition, where is the constitutional amendment prohibiting drugs ... in particular marijuana?

They regulate marijuana on the federal level through congress' power to tax. Have you bought your federal tax stamps for the marijuana in your possession? No? Too bad for you. *lol*

Vi

 

entropic

Well-Known Member
More about the stamp act.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the United States, the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act, Pub. 238, 75th Congress, 50 Stat. 551 (Aug. 2, 1937), was one of the cornerstone bills that led to the criminalization of cannabis. It was introduced to U.S. Congress by Harry Anslinger, then Commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics.
The act did not itself criminalize the possession or usage of cannabis, but levied a tax equalling roughly one dollar on anyone who dealt commercially in marijuana. It did, however, include penalty provisions. Violations of proper procedure could result in a fine of up to $2000 and five years' imprisonment. The net effect was to make it too risky for anyone to deal in the substance.
The bill was passed on the grounds that cannabis caused "murder, insanity and death". Today, it is generally accepted that these reasons were fictitious; in 1951, Anslinger himself claimed that he had no evidence to support such a thesis. However, new reasons had emerged by then, which pushed through a bill that superseded the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937.
In 1969 in Leary v. United States, this act was found to be unconstitutional since it violated the Fifth Amendment, since a person seeking the tax stamp would have to incriminate him/herself.[1] In response the Congress passed the Controlled Substances Act as Title II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970[2]. The 1937 Act was repealed by the 1970 Act.
Although modern America uses the spelling "marijuana", in keeping with the most common spelling, the correct spelling for the Marihuana Tax Act is "Marihuana". "Marihuana" was the spelling most commonly used in Federal Government documents at the time. In keeping with prior law, it is still spelled "Marihuana" in some congressional bills such as HR 3037, the Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2005.
 
the whole world is up there own arses, judging other people and laying laws down telling others what they can and cannot do just so they can protect their own image! up ontil the last centuryn the world didint give a flying fuck and now we live in the biggest bullshit timeline, legalize marijuana, legalize mushrooms let us live our own lives and be happier than most people in the world!! im sorry im pissed cus the headline today still isnt "Its Finally Legal"
 
Top