[TKDietz]

"I don't see how. All you have to do is examine the activity in question, and inquire whether regulation of that activity is within the constitutional purview of the federal government. Anything else just unnecessarily muddies the issue."

What activity are you examining? Are you looking at whether the federal government outlaw marijuana altogether, or whether a person can grow a small amount of marijuana and use it within his state or have someone grow it for him for use within his state? The federal laws make no mention of medical marijuana. Possession or manufacturing of marijuana is illegal under federal law regardless of the purpose for the possession or manufacturing? Something else that has to be considered under current interpretation of the commerce clause accepted by the Supreme Court is whether the activity has an effect on interstate commerce. This calls into question how narrowly tailored the state laws are that define the conduct in question.

Again, this is all relevant, but certainly not the whole ball of wax. There is a lot to look at here. But make no mistake about it, this is a states rights issue. We're looking at federalism and just how far the feds can encroach in areas traditionally left up to the states. When this country was founded the sovereign colonies were agreeing to join together under a central authority that had very limited powers. The federal government was there to see that things ran smoothly between the states, but the these states were supposed to keep a great measure of their sovereignty. Otherwise they never would have signed on. A lot of us believe that the Supreme Court has made some important errors in interpreting the Constitution that have taken a severely eroded the sovereignty of the individual states, and that's not a good thing. The Constitution was full of little checks and balances built in by design to keep the federal government and any of its individual branches from ever having too much power. We were getting out of a situation at the time where we felt like we were being run over by a tyrannical government in England, and we didn't want that situation to develop here with our own far central government. The founding fathers tried to build in safeguards to protect against this, and those safeguards are no less important today than they were over 200 years ago.

[inquest]

Are you looking at whether the federal government outlaw marijuana altogether, or whether a person can grow a small amount of marijuana and use it within his state or have someone grow it for him for use within his state?

If those second two types of activity are constitutionally off-limits to the federal government, then it doesn't have the full power to do the first. Again, it doesn't matter what state law says.

[TKDietz]

"A lot of us believe that the Supreme Court has made some important errors in interpreting the Constitution that have _taken a_ severely eroded the sovereignty of the individual states, and that's not a good thing."

Should say:
"A lot of us believe that the Supreme Court has made some important errors in interpreting the Constitution that have severely eroded the sovereignty of the individual states, and that's not a good thing."

"and we didn't want that situation to develop here with our own far central government."

Should say:
"and we didn't want that situation to develop here with our own far away central government."

[jrfaug06]

The real test will come when a state legailizes marijuana, that, too me, would have a better chance of getting by then this silly medical marijuana deal. John

[Beckwith]

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Doesn't say anything about cannabis being under the purview of the federal government. This is either a state's rights issue or personal issue. It's only a federal issue because of the tax.