Always the fallback when the Commerce clause is overruled in an instance.
3 Likes
Seems that there may be an asterick attached to said oversight*
*only valid when it is in line with the constitution. There was no constitutional amendment for the controlled substances act impacting cannabisā¦ is it really constitutional? For comparison/reference, alcohol prohibition did go through the amendment process.
Itās been upheld for nearly a century in the courts, so no asterisk.
1 Like
Thatās the Commerce Clause, the Supremacy Clause is Art VI para 2:
āThis Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land(ā¦)ā
1 Like
Another key clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, Article I, Sect 8
āThe Congress shall have Powerā¦ To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.ā
When coupled with the Commerce Clause courts have upheld all sorts of federal regulations.
1 Like
Iām deeply skeptical about that. How often does the FDA fine private individuals (not manufacturing for sale), not businesses? Iām going to go out on a limb and say not often if ever.
1 Like
The Constitution is easily overlooked or considered meaningless whenever it fits their agenda.
Meaning our constitutional rights are abused on a regular basis.
Hell, I have even heard that folks wish to abolish the Constitution completely.
What is on paper and what happens in reality may differ greatly. 
We have been shown many examples of this recently.
1 Like
It depends upon how much money is involved. The FDA can easily determine any unregulated grow is a business subject to fines like any business. Itās very much an untapped revenue generation mechanism, and everything is all about the money. Not saying ti would happen immediately, or even with this administration, but is open for any future administration to exploit at will. If the past is any kind of a prediction model, loopholes in the laws and regulations, and how things are currently done in the bureaucracy, will eventually be exploited by an administration for itās own aims and agenda.
1 Like
The latest trend is stomping out the black market.
Currently they are throwing tons of money at this problem.
If home grows are considered as contributors to the black market and too difficult to control/police, they will simply make it illegal to grow at home.
They are already trying to do this today.
Could it get worse?
I think it could.
2 Likes
they wonāt pay for it because itās schedule 1 federally. when itās 3 they will. and donāt think iām not turning in every single receipt for my medicine on my federal tax return under medical expenses.
Thatās an extremely broad statementā¦ which rights?
People like to point to the 10th amendment like itās some sort of font of individual rights, and yetā¦ in practice itās almost meaningless.
1 Like
They are only using the black market as an excuse to go after home grows. Home grows represent lost revenue to their corporate masters and lost taxes to the state. Look at what Missouri did, requiring a $100/year registration fee in order to home grow. Now your home grow is in a state database which will make it easy to know who to go after when home grows are made illegal.
1 Like
Cops will violate every right you have, but most people simply give away their rights by doing what the cops ask and lie about without question.
1 Like
Can they treat an individual like itās a business, if itās not a business? Again, deep skepticism.
In a weird way it would suit the purposes of eventual outright legalization if the FDA went around broadly issuing high dollar fines to individualsā homegrowsā¦ but I donāt think that would ever happen.
1 Like
They have in the past, so why not. Look at what the FDA has done to homesteaders in the past.
1 Like
To be entirely honest, with both of you, you make such broad statements that it makes it pretty hard to take it seriously. One minute thereās a serious conversation replete with Commerce Clause references, and the next there are shadowy corporate masters demanding government bureaucrats knock down peopleās doors to issue them fines.
3 Likes
āHomesteadersā or people selling produce?
1 Like
FACT: Pharmaceutical companies own a good portion of the United States Congress through campaign donations and their lobbyists.
FACT: Large Cannabis corporations have been accomplishing the same on the state level.
Politicians do what keeps them in office, and politicians cannot win elections without funding from the likes of large corporations the PACs they donate to funding the campaigns. It costs millions of dollars to win one of 435 seats in the house, even more millions to win one of 100 seats in the Senate.
2 Likes
Hereās my issue: the fact is that pharmaceutical companies and their lobbying groups are major donors to congress, and they have access. Do theyā¦ own senators and representatives?
I donāt think that last part qualifies as a fact.*
Major industries do have a lot of sway, because states and the federal government make laws in part to encourage economic development. Whatās the Herbert Hoover quoteā¦ āThe business of the government is businessā?
The law is a discourse in political power, and businesses with lots of money are powerfulā¦ but that doesnāt equate to āthe government is bought and soldā itās far more complicated than that.
*Maybe Sinema.
1 Like
The funny thing to meā¦ the one savior that may come to the rescueā¦ is weirdo Clarence Thomas.
He totally has it out for the Commerce Clause, and the current majority among the Supremes have it out for federal agencies who make rules without specific direction from Congress.
1 Like