Send comments, tips,
and suggestions to:
DrugWarRant
Join us on Pete's couch.
couch

DrugWarRant.com, the longest running single-issue blog devoted to drug policy, is published by the Prohibition Isn't Free Foundation
facebooktwitterrss
April 2011
M T W T F S S
« Mar   May »
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Archives

Authors

Pot laws ruled unconstitutional

Now, don’t get too excited… it was one judge in Ontario, Canada. And he’s given the government 3 months to fix the problem.

But still…

Ontario judge declares criminalization of pot unconstitutional

Ontario is one step closer to the legalization of marijuana after the Ontario Superior Court struck down two key parts of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act that prohibit the possession and production of pot.

The court declared the rules that govern medical marijuana access and the prohibitions laid out in Sections 4 and 7 of the act “constitutionally invalid and of no force and effect” on Monday, effectively paving the way for legalization.

If the government does not respond within 90 days with a successful delay or re-regulation of marijuana, the drug will be legal to possess and produce in Ontario, where the decision is binding.

This all stems from medical marijuana. The judge ruled that since the government has not come up with a good way for people to obtain medical marijuana, nor provided the necessary guidance to help doctors utilizing the federal medical marijuana program, it’s forcing people to crime, and that was the rather unusual basis behind the ruling.

Star: In an April 11 ruling, Justice Donald Taliano found that doctors across the country have “massively boycotted” the medical marijuana program and largely refuse to sign off on forms giving sick people access to necessary medication.

As a result, legitimately sick people cannot access medical marijuana through appropriate means and must resort to illegal actions.

Doctors’ “overwhelming refusal to participate in the medicinal marijuana program completely undermines the effectiveness of the program,” the judge wrote in his ruling.

“The effect of this blind delegation is that seriously ill people who need marijuana to treat their symptoms are branded criminals simply because they are unable to overcome the barriers to legal access put in place by the legislative scheme.”

Taliano declared the program to be invalid, as well as the criminal laws prohibiting possession and production of cannabis.

So essentially the judge is saying that unless the government fixes its atrocious federal medical marijuana program, he’ll make marijuana legal for everyone to insure that sick people will be able to get it without having to go to criminals. Fascinating.

[Thanks, Tom]

The notion of federal laws against marijuana used to be considered unconstitutional in this country, too.

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to Reddit Post to StumbleUpon

35 comments to Pot laws ruled unconstitutional

  • darkcycle

    “Now don’t get too excited…” Who, us?
    darkcycle to room: “Roger that….WOOO-HOOOO! YIPEEE-SKIPPY! WHERE’S MY BONG?!”
    And, yeah, of course the laws governing Marijuana are unconstitutional here in the U.S. But we have “the commerce clause” That wonderful little device that they can use to claim federal jurisdiction over anything that they damn well want to. Even breathing, should they choose. After all, the court case that set the precedent was the Federal Government taking away some poor subsistence Farmer’s crops. Because if he was somehow able to feed his family, the economy would have suffered (?!).

  • Benjamin

    The best part about this: absolutely PERFECT timing. Right in the middle of an election campaign in Canada. The conservatives will be forced to trot out their drug-war rhetoric, while the liberals will have a political opportunity dropped right in their laps. Let’s hope they’re smart enough to run with it.

  • denmark

    This is excellent news. Sanity really needs to be returned to our society over certain archaic policies.

    Not sure if we’ll ever recognize that one little thing that tipped the iceberg over in ending the drug war. Perhaps this action on the part of the Judge will take a large chunk out of an already unstable iceberg.

    You basically summed up the Washington state snafu in your second paragraph except it’s the state not the Federal. After seven months of searching for a strain to relieve my physical pain and discomfort I finally found a strain that’s working, and now there will be no place for me to get my medicine other than the black market if M. Ormsby has his way.

    His brother doesn’t agree with him.
    http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2011/04/eastern_washington_us_attorney_michael_ormsby_state_rep_timm_medical_marijuana.php

  • kaptinemo

    That this is happening on the heels of the parliamentary ouster of the Harper Regime in Canada is not coincidental.

    Harper’s NeoCon/Tory base has always hated cannabis and anything to do with it, wanting to adopt a US-styled DrugWar, complete with expensive bureaucracies, fascistic police and slave-pen, for-profit prisons which his backers intended to fill with non-violent cannabists.

    Needless to say that didn’t sit well with many of his opposition, particularly with NDP ridings in the West.

    This is a big slap in the face of the Tories up there. And they deserve lots more of the same. Long past time to heel the wannabe fascist dog…

  • Plant down Babylon

    Nice to get some good news for once! Da Big Island’s got your back, Canada.
    Darkcycle, kaptinemo, Duncan and others, we appreciate all the wisdom/knowledge that you share!

  • DdC

    Like the summer of freedom tour, it was on its way and also declared unconstitutional if memory serves. Then the US threats to close down the border and cut off trade sanctions put an end to the whoopteedo. I think Marc Emery got 3 months in Saskookiewon for passing a joint. I’ll believes it when I sees it. Moneysluts still rule the planet…. Macy hits Mexico’s WoD with an article…

    Canada’s Supremes Cower Under DEAth Threats – 12/24/03

    Canada’s Supreme Court upholds anti-pot laws
    Canada’s Supreme Court has proven that our society is a prison, and that we are but prisoners, whose inalienable rights may be suppressed by political whimsy and ridiculous twists of reasoning more suitable to a genie granting wishes than judges appointed to uphold humane standards.

    6 to 3 Canada Shows its Puppets
    Loosen Pot Laws and Face Tighter Border U.S. Warns!
    Drug Czar Talks About Tightening at Border
    Relaxed Pot Laws May Affect Border
    Canadian Pot Legislation Could Snarl Border
    Danger On Our Northern Border
    Pot Bill Could Bog Down Border
    U.S. Warns Pot Plan To Clog Border
    A Border War Over Pot
    140 More Agents Will Be Sent To Border
    Canada, U.S. Bolster Border Security
    Potent Marijuana, Lax Laws Frustrate U.S. Border
    Police Smoke Out Cross-Border Marijuana Trade
    U.S. Faults Canada for Letting Drugs Across Border
    Marine Anti-Drug Border Patrol Suspended
    Looking Over the Northern Border
    Opposite Side of Border, Opposite Pot Issue
    Border Crossers Fall Victim to Profit-Takers
    Fired Border Patrol Agent Blames Hemp Bar
    Italy Police Battle Reefer Madness at Swiss Border
    Unmanned Planes Tested in Border Watch

    Mexican, US Drug Legalization Necessary to End War
    US LA: Edu: Column: Macy Linton, Columnist 12 Apr 2011

    • DdC

      Ontario Judge Rules Canada’s Marijuana Laws Unconstitutional
      In a case with wide-ranging implications, an Ontario Superior Court judge struck down Canada’s laws prohibiting the possession and production of marijuana on Tuesday, giving the federal government 90 days to fix the country’s medical marijuana program before the ruling comes into effect and effectively legalizes cannabis. full story

      As Smoke Clears, Tories, Liberals React to Pot Ruling
      A day after an Ontario court stayed charges of growing and possessing marijuana against him, Matthew Mernagh wasted no time exercising his newly acquired freedom to consume medicinal cannabis, setting some seeds germinating in a paper towel and paying a visit to Vapour Central in downtown Toronto. full story

      Pot Ruling Expected to Face Federal Appeal
      Marijuana will be legal to possess and produce in Canada after 90 days if the ruling is not challenged. full story

      U2b Canadian Pot Hero Matt Mernagh On Historic Court Ruling

  • Righty

    Im pretty sure no matter what party got in Marihuana will still be Illegal. Only Hope is Liberty threw Written Rights.

    A Judge who cares about our rights, this kinda is a shock.

    The Left is trying too lure Youth Voters with there stance on pot, there not seriouse about legalizing it.

  • Dante

    Pot laws unconstitutional?

    Of course they are, and our government (U.S.) knows this. That’s why our government blocks research, and ignores judges rulings they don’t agree with politically, and applies major weaponry to handle the vigilant labradors who bark at them as they invade the wrong house.

    The war on drugs is not about drugs. It is all about control of political opposition, and getting re-elected.

  • Hope

    Get excited!

    Gov. Schweitzer Vetoes Repeal of Montana’s Medical Marijuana Law

    Comment 5

    http://cannabisnews.com/news/26/thread26460.shtml#5

  • Chris

    Would be nice to see a legal medical marijuana trade between Ontario and Michigan… legal in both places but not at the border!

  • State by state. Eventually, the feds will have to follow.

  • Scott

    “The notion of federal laws against marijuana used to be considered unconstitutional in this country, too.”

    Used to? Please clarify.

    It is obvious that the Commerce Clause (“to regulate Commerce, with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;”) is the sole constitutional basis for marijuana prohibition, according to the public record as provided by our Supreme Court.

    It is obvious that rationality must apply when interpreting law. Imagine what this country would do if our Supreme Court interpreted the first amendment to ban buying steak and lettuce at the supermarket. Without rationality, there is no point in having a Constitution.

    To interpret those 16 words to authorize a ban (not regulation) against the free growth, free distribution, and free possession of marijuana, all within a single state (the ruling of Gonzales v. Raich in 2005), is completely irrational and sets arguably the most dangerous legal precedence against our unalienable right to liberty.

    This means that at some point along the legal precedence related to the Commerce Clause, our Supreme Court must have stopped doing their job to just interpret our laws, and started illegally legislating from the bench (a.k.a. judicial activism).

    I cannot help but be frustrated by the nearly complete absence of a serious effort in our movement to go after Sean “I support our nation’s drug laws.” Hannity and his ilk, to humiliate them on the truly pathetic connection those laws have to our Constitution (a connection grounded entirely in the liberal/progressive agenda, no less).

    I have craved the opportunity to publicly dig into John Walters and his kind on the Commerce Clause front, but continue to lack even the tiniest of resources to pursue it.

    A continuing public relations campaign to correct Republicans on the lacking constitutional basis for marijuana prohibition is urgently needed to heavily tilt the scales in our favor (we need dominant support by both Democrats and Republicans to have a chance).

    This is not about challenging our judicial branch on their home turf. This is about challenging our opponents in the court of public opinion to gain growing support against the undermining of everything our nation is supposed to stand for.

    To understand that I am not some crazy, exaggerating idiot on this front, I leave you with the words of Justice Clarence Thomas (the first paragraph of his dissent in the case of Gonzales v. Raich):

    “Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything–and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.”

    • David Marsh

      @Scott,
      The following is some of the pertinent case law concerning the Commerce Clause.
      It begins…
      Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 9 Wheat. 1 1 (1824)

      Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251 (1918)

      United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100 (1941)

      United States v. Wrightwood Dairy Co., 315 U.S. 110 (1942)

      Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942)

      Perez v. United States, 402 U.S. 146 (1971)

      In Perez…MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court.

      The Commerce Clause reaches, in the main, three categories of problems.

      First, the use of channels of interstate or foreign commerce which Congress deems are being misused, as, for example, the shipment of stolen goods (18 U.S.C. §§ 2312-2315) or of persons who have been kidnaped (18 U.S.C. § 1201).

      Second, protection of the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, as, for example, the destruction of an aircraft (18 U.S.C. § 32), or persons or things in commerce, as, for example, thefts from interstate shipments (18 U.S.C. § 659).

      Third, those activities affecting commerce.

      It is with this last category that we are here concerned.

      Chief Justice Marshall, in @ 21U.S 195 said:
      “The genius and character of the whole government seem to be that its action is to be applied to all the external concerns of the nation, and to (Page 402 U. S. 151) those internal concerns which affect the States generally, but not to those which are completely within a particular State, which do not affect other States, and with which it is not necessary to interfere for the purpose of executing some of the general powers of the government. The completely internal commerce of a State, then, may be considered as reserved for the State itself.”

      And finally…

      Gonzales v. Raich – 03-1454(2005)

      You can start here at Raich and work your way back.

      http://supreme.justia.com/us/545/03-1454/case.html

      This may not be the resource you were looking for, but here it is.

      Taliano has a set of brass ones… Wow….

      • darkcycle

        Just reading the initial case and the findings in the chain, Gibbons v. Ogden should set your hair afire. From the very first, the commerce clause was the biggest and most sweeping Federal power grab ever. In that case, the government went after a SUBSISTENCE FARMER for growing wheat to feed his own FAMILY. Not to digress, but the only truly free people are those who do not need to depend upon anybody to live. The last truely free people in this country were small, subsistence level farmers. That was a condition the Government could not allow. Free people actually living among the rest of us slaves. The commerce clause made the Federal government everything the founding Fathers sought to prevent.

    • Duncan20903

      I can see the SWAT team in Mayberry taking out Aunt Bea and her fellow conspirators at the quilting party.

  • vicky vampire

    Wow I want to hug and kiss that judge God Bless him, I mean it sincerely, some sense prevailing a bit in Canada and my Lord Bless Governor Sweitzer lets hope he also vetoes that other upcoming very restrictive other bill that would restrict Medical use almost out of existence.

    Its nice to have a little good news today, in this still on going drug War insane daily situation, and with the Medical Marijuana raids, threatening Doctors, this news is at least a little relief from the weird Ides of March, we just had with Earthquake,on going Wars revolution Egypt,Libya,and whatever any one else has been have issues with on a personal level it’s just good to hear a little good news let’s hope more in coming days.

  • ezrydn

    Pardon me. However, the “Commerce Clause” has been turned into a big condom, capable of matching the size of any “dick.” And the Final Nine agree? Why did I move again?

  • kaptinemo

    No, Scott, you needn’t worry about seeming a fool.

    As an ersatz historian, I am continually amazed at the lack of a sense of history that seems to bedevil most Americans.

    The past is always prolog, but too many of my fellow Americans never seem to be able to look back more than a month, and they base their decisions on that dearth of perspective…and then wonder why things go so terribly, horribly, predictably wrong…as the DrugWar has.

    It’s a deadly failing we have, and one that only our vast arsenal has saved us from becoming a footnote in a history book as reward for our transgressions against other nations, courtesy of our blindness and hubris…but even that arsenal cannot save us from ourselves. Lincoln told us this a long time ago, and his words still ring true, but as usual, few listen.

    Yes, terrible ‘liberties’ (what an irony, that) were taken with our liberties, purportedly with the best of intentions, courtesy of the Progressive Movement of the early 20th century, which saddled us with the present bloated and unConstitutional Federal behemoth. It became, just as the Ant-Federalists warned it would early in our history, a vast and unresponsive body suborned by ‘special interests’ and it now threatens all it was supposed to preserve.

    But, with the advent of ‘libertarian’ becoming swear word in certain supposedly ‘liberal’ and ‘enlightened’ circles, it’s becoming ever harder to make the case that personal freedoms are the font of government, and such freedoms are not dispensed by it.

    I fear it’s going to take some kind of awful, nation-wide shock before many of our fellow citizens realize just how far we’ve slid down the slippery slope to The Pit that awaits any nation that forgets its’ core principles. Principles that many who claim to want to ‘conserve’ them are secretly contemptuous of…

    • Windy

      “Yes, terrible ‘liberties’ (what an irony, that) were taken with our liberties, purportedly with the best of intentions, courtesy of the Progressive Movement of the early 20th century, which saddled us with the present bloated and unConstitutional Federal behemoth.” — kaptinemo

      Yep

      “It is indeed probable that more harm and misery have been caused by men determined to use coercion to stamp out a moral evil than by men intent on doing evil.” — Fredrich von Hayek, Nobel Laureate in Economics, from “The Constitution of Liberty”

      “The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others.” -Thomas Jefferson

  • Scott

    Thank you for the information, David.

    I appreciate all of the replies, and just wanted to quickly add one back, before I get back to work.

    I tried to squeeze in a better grasp of the full legal path (e.g. search “switch in time that saved nine”) related to the Commerce Clause in my very busy life, but I have way too little time for this, frustratingly (though I keep working on securing the resources needed to free me from this limit).

    Having read your blog for years now, Pete (you are part of my RSS collection), my main point is I find it unfortunate that I cannot recall you mentioning “Commerce Clause” even once (my apologies, if I simply missed it).

    The Commerce Clause issue is far larger than the already large drug war issue, and effects all Americans, making it an easier sell when it comes to persuading them that we are in the right.

    Relative silence regarding the Commerce Clause issue does not only remain at this blog, but across our movement, as far as I can tell (if I don’t know about it, it isn’t prominent enough).

    As I have said within comments many times, Republicans (love through hate them, it does not matter) hold the key to repealing the CSA, due to the unavoidable hypocrisy they embrace when opposing such repeal.

    We witnessed Glenn Beck chuckle and laugh at Rob Kampia when interviewing him, and then one week later, come out in favor of legalizing marijuana.

    Republicans are easy to persuade (or humiliate, if need be) on the Commerce Clause front.

    If the CSA is not law by any rational interpretation of our Constitution (which it is not), then the CSA is not law in the United States. Plain and simple.

    Our major opponent is all about the law. If the law is not on their side, and Americans know this, our opponents lose.

    We lose that argument in the corrupted judicial system.

    It is impossible to lose that argument in the court of public opinion.

    The Commerce Clause is the ace up our sleeve, and our movement (at least generally) ignores it.

    Why?

    • darkcycle

      Because time after time, in case after case, the C.C. gets upheld and strengthened every time it is challenged. The Courts understand that MUCH of the power of the Federal Government rests with that clause. The Raich decision is an excellent example. Thomas’ dissent was the crux of the issue. He was correct but the point is, that was a dissent from the majority decision, not the decision itself. As a dissent it is just an opinion, with no weight of law behind it. That we happen to agree with Justice Thomas matters little. As a judicial interpretation of a Constitutional issue, the ‘court of public opinion’ counts not one little bit. There was never and will never be a vote on the Commerce Clause.

  • kaptinemo

    “The Commerce Clause is the ace up our sleeve, and our movement (at least generally) ignores it.

    Why?”

    Actually, those of us who do their homework on the general issue of drug laws bumps into this early on.

    The problem is that since 1937, the Federal Government was given carte blanche to expand, expand EXPAND after FDR won out over the Supreme Court in his ‘packing threat’; the Supremes rolled on their back and wet themselves, like good little lapdogs, and from that point on, ‘States Rights’ became a joke. As did any real limits on Fed power.

    It is from that period that the encroachment upon said States Rights began to make the states provinces in an empire, not sovereign political entities as they once were.

    And, needless to say, with the accrual of such vast powers, the Feds don’t want to give them up; a ruling in favor of Raich would have led to the legal dismantling of the huge Fed bureaucracies, courtesy of court challenges by the States to regain those lost powers.

    The present day Supremes, people who never had any experience with a State successfully telling the Feds “No! You may not do this!” and get away with it, people who have never ever known any significant limits on Fed power from spending their entire lives in a period when such ideas as States Rights are considered ‘quaint’, people who’ve grown up in a culture where the ‘habit’ of the Fed behemoth running roughshod over the States as a matter of custom…were understandably afraid of the ramifications of such a positive ruling.

    This is why we have such a tough time with this Commerce Clause crap. A positive ruling in Raich would have had a negative effect on Wickard (the case used to justify the expansion of Fed power) and endangered the entire Fed edifice. It would have led to an inevitable showdown between the States and the Feds…and the Feds would have legally, ethically and morally lost. And that would have overturned everything the Feds have done for the past 7 decades…including this damnable DrugWar.

  • David Marsh

    Scott, I believe the commerce clause discussion with regards to its effect on drug policy is anecdotal because it does not lie at the center of the prohibition problem. It is clear that the federal government has the authority to regulate commerce interstate and intrastate. You may not like how commerce is specifically regulated but congress has the constitutional authority to do so.

    In my opinion central prohibition issue is the specific regulation of cannabis through the CSA and the application of administrative law to that regulation. It is clear to all of us here that cannabis should not be prohibited. It is however a commodity and a subject of both interstate and intrastate commerce and subject to congressional regulation. The question is should it be regulated, and if so, How?

    There are states’ rights issues associated with the regulation of cannabis in the CSA, primarily the “accepted medical use” aspect of Schedule I. However no state with a medical use statute has exercised their right to challenge the federal Schedule I classification and engage the regulatory process only they have standing to influence. Only one “medical” state has even changed their state CSA Schedule I classification. No one wants to regulate in a practical way.

    The interesting aspect of Taliano’s ruling, at least as reported, is his assertation that because sections of the law created conflict with the ability of the law to regulate cannabis as intended, he declared it unconstitutional. The regulation that did not regulate. Sounds like our situation here. Prohibition that does not prohibit, in a practical sense.

  • Servetus

    The commerce clause debate is certainly one that conservatives can get their teeth into, and one that ultra-conservative organizations such as the Federalist Society focus upon. They have done so here:

    http://www.fed-soc.org/search/default.asp?q=commerce+clause&x=21&y=5

    If nothing else, promoting the debate on the commerce clause is good for keeping prohibition under a conservative spotlight. There are problems for reformers wanting to get behind the idea, however.

    I think the reason the topic doesn’t take off among anti-prohibitionists is there isn’t much hope the Supreme Court will treat federal drug prohibition as a matter of mere commerce.

    Rather, legal reformers expect to see the Court treat cases involving drugs as a conservative social and religious issue, particularly with the likes ṻber-Catholic and Republican Mafioso Tony ‘the Ant’ Scalia on board. Scalia also happens to be a proud and happy member of the Federalist Society.

    I’ve read all the Supreme Court decisions related to separation of church and state. What I found in those cases was that while the Court generally follows an objective and secular approach to most other judicial cases, decisions involving social issues are subjective and take on a lot of cultural baggage and false history. These types of cases are where the split decisions occur, along with huge amounts of specious casuistry.

    Justices such as Scalia, who operate on their own perverse wavelengths in flagrant disregard of those who wrote the Constitution, are the crux of the problem. In short, we have a dysfunctional judicial system, one that is bottlenecked and broken, and one which is highly reluctant under any circumstances to betray the Holy Office of the Prohibition.

    • kaptinemo

      WRT to the Federalist Society, they talk the talk…but rarely walk the walk.

      Raich would have been a perfect example for all those FS Supremes to come down hard on the side of true conservatism by ruling in favor of Raich…and the majority didn’t. Only amongst the putative conservatives had Thomas so ruled…and for the reasons that this was exactly the kind of thing you’d expect a FS member and sitting judge to do. All the others dropped their FS ‘principles’ in the trash can outside the door before they entered the chamber to make their ruling.

      The other supposed conservatives who joined Scalia (who had admitted that he had originally thought of Wickard as an anachronism, but was happy it allowed him to rule according to his ignorant and benighted understanding of the issue; he called the WAMM hospice center a “200 person commune” evoking images of ‘hippies laying around smoking dope’) knew that Raich would have knocked the cornerstone out of the foundation of their beloved (increasingly brutal and authoritarian) Federal castle and sent it tumbling in ruins.

      The black-robed crypto-fascists on the bench were not about to let that happen. They knew which side of the bread the butter is on, and weren’t going to drop it.

  • darkcycle

    Bingo. Constitutional or not, the judiciary is going to protect this interpretation of the commerce clause because it is the foundation of their (Federal) power.

  • Duncan20903

    .
    .
    Oh my word, Governor Schwietzer vetoed the repeal of Montana’s medical cannabis laws. I was actually kind of looking forward to the 2012 election and seeing the repeal shoved back down the throats of the enemies of freedom, and seeing the Montana legislature lose it’s ability to change voter initiated laws with a simple majority. Oh well that’s just a petty personal desire. Weighed against the cost of sick people suffering until 2013 it sure wouldn’t have been worth it.

  • Scott

    Thank you, again, for weighing in on the Commerce Clause issue, but I am surprised by the replies.

    I understand that challenging prohibition in the courts has failed. That much is clear, and my focus on the Commerce Clause is outside of the court system (to eventually effect what happens therein through public pressure).

    People here apparently fail to understand that the masses are always stronger than government.

    An example that is extreme solely for clarity, if literally everyone focused on destroying the government, they will succeed. Even if the military somehow remained loyal to protecting that government, and killed the roughly 300,000,000 Americans in defending that government, there would be no more government power (there would be no one left to rule over).

    For government to keep their power, the masses must submit to that power. Based on your replies, you have submitted.

    I have not.

    The masses have been lied to in order for our public servants to secure power.

    This is a huge lie that seriously, negatively effects all Americans throughout posterity, one that we should never ignore in defeat, continuing to watch things get worse from the sidelines for another handful of decades.

    Justice Clarence Thomas’ dissent does not effect law, but it is an example of a legal expert briefly and sensibly (emphasis added, because these are great qualities when promoting a point-of-view to the masses) stating that our Constitution has been undermined (no small statement, to put it mildly). That is not worthless. It is valuable, because unlike the ruling, it makes sense.

    Granted the Commerce Clause is not “sexy”, but the right form of entertainment can overcome that (in part by playing on that lack of “sex appeal”). The right form of entertainment is another key part in persuading the masses.

    It makes for a slam-dunk argument against a Republican. I listen to conservative radio. I know how these people think. Most of them have no clue that the Commerce Clause is the sole constitutional basis for the CSA, and one can quickly defeat Hannity and his kind by sticking solely to that point.

    “The court held Congress may regulate a non-economic good, which is intrastate, if it does so as part of a complete scheme of legislation designed to regulate Interstate Commerce.” – Wikipedia

    That is simply outrageous. Where is the limit of government power? Wherever the government’s “scheme of legislation” places that limit!

    “Writing for the Court, Justice Stevens found that the power of Congress to regulate local activities as part of a ‘class of activities’ that substantially affect interstate commerce was ‘well established.'” – some legal site

    Yes. Well established illegally, while the masses ignored that ‘legal disease’ for decades.

    The Commerce Clause does not replace unalienable rights, despite what the government says to the contrary!

    We will see a major spotlight on the Commerce Clause when ObamaCare reaches the Supreme Court (which it likely will).

    Republicans hate ObamaCare. Republicans need to know that if simply possessing a plant can be banned, then forcing people to buy insurance is easily legal.

    The Commerce Clause is essentially what the Tea Party movement is truly about. They just do not realize that yet.

    Sadly, our movement is apparently going to watch that “wave” go by, instead of “surfing” it. Big mistake.

  • I personally can’t wait for the US Federal Government to pull their heads out of their asses and get with the program. I also have a great idea that would never work due to lack of support. Everyone just stop paying their taxes until marijuana is outright legalized.

  • Tim

    Well, this didn’t take long…

    Ottawa is appealing an Ontario court ruling that, if left to stand, could make the possession of marijuana legal in the province.

    The Public Prosecution Office of Canada announced Tuesday that it has filed a notice of appeal with Ontario’s top court in respect to Justice Donald Taliano’s April 11 ruling.

    The appeal states that Taliano made critical errors in law by declaring the federal medical marijuana program unconstitutional.

    Taliano ordered that Ottawa fix the program by July or face the prospect of effectively legalizing marijuana.