AG Barr touts federal approach to marijuana legalization for resolving 'intolerable' conflict

The Washington Times ^ | April 10, 2019 | Andrew Blake

[Ken H]

Attorney General William Barr testified Wednesday that he would rather see marijuana legalized nationwide than let states continue to defy federal prohibition.

Speaking during a hearing on Capitol Hill, Mr. Barr told members of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee that conflicting federal and state marijuana laws have created an “intolerable” situation for the Department of Justice. would prefer one of two approaches rather than where we are,” Mr. Barr told lawmakers.

"Personally, I would still favor one uniform federal rule against marijuana but, if there is not sufficient consensus to obtain that, then I think the way to go is to permit a more federal approach so states can make their own decisions within the framework of the federal law and so we’re not just ignoring the enforcement of federal law.”

[bingoplayer]

I am for you changing the law or you going to jail. That is Trumps sworn duty. We don’t pick and chose federal laws we agree with in this nation.

[wardaddy]

It won’t be if it’s legal everywhere

The high price is the illegality in some states

When Kali went legal the wholesale price of weed collapsed in source states and similar collapse in illegal states

Weed in Formerly med states like Kali Poregon and Wash and Michigan had kept wholesale weed prices around 1800-2300 for box buyers....(100 pounds is a box)

And the high end 15-32% bud had to fight off ultra cheap Zona bud which is beaner cartel bud smuggled in as cheap as a few hundred a pound near the border.....8-12% THCA

Colorado was legal but their sanctioned outlets sold a big chunk of their production and kept their sales to the grey market comparable price wise to the COW states and Michigan with Michigan being on the high end and NorCal and SW Oregon being cheapest....western slope Colorado fairly cheap too

Kali went legal recreational weed in 2016 and every tom dick and harry sets up shop

Go to Carpenteria and see 100s of acres of former orchid greenhouses now growing herb and they do sell out the back door

Dutch publicly traded companies

East side of downtown LA ...tent city and hipsters and fancy boutiques and condos and cool eateries and huge warehouses with indoor grows with state of the art double ended lights and LED lights ....not quite perfected in my view....churning out tons of weed per pull...staggered with pulls 6-8 times a year...5-10,000 light grows...

Same in Denver and Seattle and Oakland etc

Each Gavida double ended light produces 1-2 pounds of trimmed high grade bud

Cargill and ADM and Bunge and so forth are already in the game with the aforementioned Dutchies

That formerly 1800-2300 pound in L.A. or Seattle or Aspen or Williams Oregon or Traverse City Michigan is now far less

800-1200 in LA for indoor warehouse bud

Rural Oregon outdoor is maybe 700-1100

Colorado weed about like California

Seatttle 1000-1400....Seattle is very restrictive on legal sanctioned grows with bar codes and film required etc

Michigan has gone from 2000-2600 a pound to 1200-1800

You can buy Kali outdoor weed say 7-9 months old vac sealed for 2000 here in Nashville and less in Atlanta

My point Appy is if it’s legal everywhere....it’s over

Corporate weed is damn cheap and Cargill already has a forty acre turn key indoor site near Pueblo colorado ready to go

They lease it out now to licensed growers

To me anyhow the sustainable niches will be edibles with nice labels and marketing and those who grow super potent weed

Live Resin seems to be in vogue now too

Only caveat is maintaining top quality on huge indoor grows is difficult

Spider mites, mold and bud rot have cause many a huge crop to be cut down and trashed or made into shatter

But if legal everywhere the tropical Deep South from Texas to Tidewater VA will be awash in weed outdoor grows with huge Vietnam type yields per plant especially with 20 foot sativas

I remembe pr the old days as a kid in the late 70s guys in the swamps near Baton Rouge getting plants of original skunk bud ...a lost strain...these plants could yield 9-10 pounds of bud and 20 foot tall Christmas tree looking plants ....latitude matters with weed btw

Michigan outdoor is tough.....half a pound to maybe a pound per plant...
2-3 times that in Cave Junction Oregon or Trinity county Kali

Huge outdoors is Much easier to manage than indoors....and you can spray em with non toxic chems

Most states require that certification for legal grows btw...non toxic

Anyhow the salad days are over is my fear

[wardaddy]

Yeah right

From the same crowd that fought the Whiskey Rebellion..lol

Sure

[wardaddy]

Pot stays in a piss test a long time

Edibles not nearly as long

Not sure why

[wardaddy]

It’s already started in California

A buddy of mine already writes insurance for CBD production and licensed weed grows

One thing we ran into was getting anyone to write a title policy on real estate purchase

Nobody would...Chicago Land and Title is the big gorilla of title writers ....and they wouldn’t so nobody else would...2017

So we paid cash and said FU

[wardaddy]

I pay 18 for 70 pound alfalfa bales from Nebraska still sweet and green in winter middle Tenneseee

My horses gotta eat..I hate to see any rib on em in winter

Oats alfalfa and some Timothy pellets

Colder it gets more they need

They sniff at orchard grass bales like my wife would at fake Chanel

[trebb]

Wow - that’s a huge leap you made there.

[C210N]

Just re-applying the underlying logic - moving away from federalism and states rights.

[trebb]

Marijuana ain’t in the Constitution...the 10th Amendment applies....the 2nd Amendment (or anything else specified in the Constitution) can’t be usurped by the 10th....
Plus, Barr’s reasoning is solid...why have federal rules if the rules have been deemed unenforceable because States have opted to ignore them via their own laws? The logical choice is to either get rid of the fed rules or stomp on the States.

[AppyPappy]

My son has a hemp operation nearby. He’s got help from the Ag dept at Tech and he used to work in a research operation there. He tells me the problem is water, Hemp requires a huge amount of water. You are basically growing a tree in one year.
A large corporate operation has to figure out where to get that water. In states like Oregon and Washington, it’s not a problem. In eastern NC, it’s not a problem because the aquifer is close. But everywhere else (like where he is), it could be a problem. He has to haul it from the river.

[MrRelevant]

Well I mean they didnt need a state or federal policy to clean house. A private business can drug test/make personnel decisions based on anything they like if they reside in an “at will” state like Washington. An employer can fire an employee for any reason or no reason.

[NobleFree]

I demand that my government uphold the constitution

The Constitution grants the federal government no authority over within-state marijuana policy.

[NobleFree]

Your point is only consistent if you say get the govt out of all pharmaceuticals,

All pharmaceuticals that never cross a state border, yes - I'll bet that's a very small fraction of all pharmaceuticals.

including, I guess, the stuff the cartels are sending across the border.

Nope - the feds have jurisdiction over the national border.

[NobleFree]

while I agree that states rights are important, there are some pretty important national concerns here as well.

"National concerns" do not translate to Constitutional authority. States rights are not just "important" but are a foundational concept of our Constitutional republic: all authority not explicitly granted to the feds is reserved to the states and the people.

[samtheman]

“National concerns” do not translate to Constitutional authority. States rights are not just “important” but are a foundational concept of our Constitutional republic: all authority not explicitly granted to the feds is reserved to the states and the people.
—
agreed

[NobleFree]

Wickard v Filburn's "substantial effect" test would have made them [the Founders] puke - and then fetch their ropes.

Yeah right

From the same crowd that fought the Whiskey Rebellion..lol

Sure

Not getting your point here ... are you saying the Founders would have supported Wickard v Filburn's extension of federal authority, from intestate commerce to everything that has a "substantial effect" on intestate commerce (including, according to Congress, within-state marijuana policy)?

[NobleFree]

In Ventura California my son was just on a jury for that specific thing.

The guy was driving while under the influence of marijuana.

They found him not guilty because there are no limits in the law for marijuana.

From Driving under the Influence of Marijuana California Vehicle Code 23152(f):

A driver can be convicted without a chemical test

Chemical test results are not necessary to convict a driver of DUI of marijuana.¹⁷ They are just one piece of evidence the prosecutor can use to show impaired driving. ¹⁸

This means a prosecutor can charge someone with driving under the influence even if he or she is not offered, or he or she refuses to take, a chemical test.

What other evidence can be used to convict someone of DUI of cannabis?

In addition to (or instead of) chemical test results, evidence of driving under the influence of marijuana may include:

• The defendant's driving pattern;
• The defendant's statements to the police;
• The defendant's performance on Field Sobriety Tests (FSTs);
• The presence of marijuana or drug paraphernalia in the defendant's car or on the defendant's person;
• Physical symptoms of intoxication, such as:
  • Dilated pupils,
  • Rapid heart rate,
  • Rapid breathing,
  • The odor of marijuana coming from the defendant's body,
  • Red eyes,
  • Dry “cotton” mouth, and/or
  • Slowed reaction time; and/or
• Evidence showing that the defendant is addicted to marijuana. ¹⁹

[sparklite2]

Wickard v Filburn needs to be revisited by the Courts and thrown out entirely.

---

It already has been revisited. Part of Dubya’s dubious legacy is the case he pushed through the USSC, Gonzales v Raich. It dropped the ‘substantial’ limitation enabling, as per Justice Roberts in dissent, federal regulation down to the level of church suppers. Bush blew down the tent poles holding up the Republic. We are, IMO, a nation-state now.

[Magnum44]

I'll bet that's a very small fraction of all pharmaceuticals.

I would wager otherwise, particularly for the illegal stuff.

As I have stated, I get the states rights arguments, and the Constitutional Authority argument being made. This is not just a legal issue, its a moral and societal issue. Society must have a moral basis or there is no law. And laws are the means a society imposes its morals on itself to keep society civil. Thou shall not kill, thou shall not steal, etc. You are rightly arguing that local society (state and lower) can impose such constraints while the Fed is not authorized. Yet in a federal system in the modern age, the manufacture and sale of narcotics and illegal drugs in one state can and does effect the lives of people in other states.

Nope - the feds have jurisdiction over the national border.

So they can stop drugs at the border, but not the manufacture and sale of drugs by cartel interests in the interior? How do you tell the cartel drug from the homegrown one?

Lastly, in my opinion, it is a national security issue when the youth of our nation are allowed, passively or through encouragement, to spoil their lives on addictions. Drug dependents are a drain on our resources and its shown that drug dependency leads to increased crime and destroys families. Its takes away the potential we have as a country, in ways immeasurable, from able bodied fighting men ready to serve to technical expertise in critical areas (we currently have a brain drain in many areas of national security industry).

I realize my position on this is not the strict states authority position. But there is a higher authority than the constitution. The Bible teaches us to be selfless, not selfish. And indulgences for personal pleasure are selfish. While we are all guilty of sin, this is one indulgence I think we should do everything we can to discourage. Its toll on society is well known.

So we politely disagree as to whether a completely hands off approach is the right answer. It concerns me greatly that a fed law is even necessary because so many states have come to value the tax and financial interests of the drug industry over the lives of their citizens. We are a decaying society.

[NobleFree]

Gonzales v Raich. It dropped the ‘substantial’ limitation

Only 3 of the justices who participated in that ruling are still on the Court - and Thomas delivered a stinging dissent. With him joined by Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Roberts (see below) Raich is ripe for a fall and Wickard a re-revisiting.

enabling, as per Justice Roberts in dissent, federal regulation down to the level of church suppers.

Must be a different case - Roberts wasn't on that Court.