In Calif, voters are going to decide whether to legalize marijuana use in an effort to regulate and tax the sale of the drug as well as shift enforcement costs to more serious crimes. The question (concern) is, regardless of the California legalization result, the US Government has already confirmed that it intends to continue its enforcement of federal law, which bans the use of marijuana. As we have learned in recent months, federal law generally trumps state/local law. This power is given to the United States government and Congress by the US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8 - a provision known simply and infamously as "The Commerce Clause".
While legal scholars and experts have struggled with the interpretation of the Commerce Clause over the years, making for some rather interesting Supreme Court cases, the gist of the Clause is that, to the extent that a state tries to regulate commerce which may be considered "interstate" - that is, trade which may cross state lines - roadways, waterways, airways, railways, etc., the federal government trumps such state law.
It is a prime reason why Arizona's recently attempted Immigration Law failed. The US has the absolute right and obligation to regulate and enforce the entry into the United States (not only from its power provided by the Commerce Clause, mind you). Civil Rights Legislation really expanded equal rights in the 1960's due to the Commerce Clause.
Now, Prop 19 appears to be written in an effort to avoid the constraints of the Commerce Clause - it legalizes the use, but not the distribution for sale of marijuana, except under strict guidelines and, likely, taxation by the local governments. That said, it must be purchased with the specific intent to use here in California. If the user intends to sell the drug or use the drug while participating in interstate commerce (ie, traveling), it opens the door for the Feds to enforce federal law, and shut down the operation.
I am not necessarily opposed to Prop 19, to the extent it can be strictly enforced and regulated. Liquor is the simplest example. Driving or otherwise conducting oneself in a manner where being impaired by drugs could create safety issues to the user or others should, clearly, be against the law. DUI or DWI laws are there for a reason. But, if drinking a beer or two or having a glass of wine with dinner is legal, then you would imagine that smoking a minimal amount of marijuana (alone or in confined private space) should not bother anyone.
On the other hand, the clear reverse position is that marijuana users cannot use a minimal amount or otherwise use the drug privately without affecting others. Beer and wine stay in a glass (usually); marijuana, like cigarette smoke, wafts outside the user's body more readily and frequently.
So, what do you think??
Have a Great Day!
Well, after a great deal of discussion with you about this topic, I found the definitive answer in my Constitutional Law casebook. Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1(2005). THis was a challenge to the Controlled Substances Act for medicinal use of Marijauna, as legally permitted under CA law. The holding (as deliverred in the opinion from Justice Stevens) is that Congress can ciminalize the cultivation and use of marijuana, even if for a state law permitted purpose. That seems to answer how things will go if Proposition 19 passes, especially given the makeup of the Court today.
ReplyDelete