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

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

[steve86]

Marijuana is neither an opiate or opioid, not a CNS depressant, not a general anesthetic at any dose: Not a narcotic.

[NobleFree]

Are federal laws against within-state marijuana transactions consistent with the Tenth Amendment?

Get off this states rights crap

So to you the Tenth Amendment is a dead letter? Maybe this pro-Constitution site is the wrong place for you.

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

The funds to stop criminal activity . The stuff done by DEA every day. Change the law or comply or go to jail.

The Rohrbacher-Farr, now, Rohrabacher–Blumenauer amendment prohibits the DEA from spending money to enforce marijuana prohibition in states that have passed medical marijuana laws.

So again I ask, using what funds?

[Hildy]

It’s a nightmare. It’s happening...may as well regulate and tax. In Needles, CA which is shaping up to be the POT CAPITAL of California, companies have to pay everything to the City in Cash. Hundreds of thousands of dollars. The tiny city had to lease a Brinks car.

[NobleFree]

I am amazed at the misguided pot heads on here. My Gosh!!you should be ashamed.

If you don't like pro-liberty, pro-Constitution arguments, the door is that way, n00b.

[Hildy]

Where do you live? Nevada, California and Colorado are three.

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

Article VI of the U.S. Constitution declares the constitution, laws, and treaties of the federal government to be the supreme law of the land to which judges in every state are bound regardless of state law to the contrary. Civil war settled that. Get off this states rights crap or try to stop abortion.

Since 1992, the Supreme Court has declared laws unconstitutional for violating the Tenth Amendment when the federal government compelled the states to enforce federal statutes. See: New York v. United States (1992), Printz v. United States (1997), Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (2018).

The federal system limits the ability of the federal government to use state governments as an instrument of the national government, as held in Printz v. United States.

[NorthMountain]

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

Their ropes were made of hemp.

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

Where do you live? Nevada, California and Colorado are three.

Yeah, no.

A narcotic is physically addictive and produces acute withdrawal symptoms when usage subsides.

Pot is habit-forming, but not physically-addictive in the same way as tobacco, alcohol, barbiturates, amphetamines, or opiates.

[missthethunder]

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.

[NorthMountain]

What do you think ‘legalizing’ at the Federal level looks like?

Good question.

Is it ok for military to smoke pot now?

Doesn't have to be. Shouldn't be.

Other federal employees where their ability to perform has an impact on tax payers?

Doesn't have to be. Shouldn't be.

Govt contractors building military hardware that soldiers depend on?

Doesn't have to be. Shouldn't be.

Simple: If you want a position of trust, stay clean and sober.

[Wuli]

Mr Barr sounds like too rational of a person to have to waste his time speaking to the Congress critters.

[AzNASCARfan]

Great idea... I vote we treat it like we treat the far more dangerous man made poison that is alcohol and let adults decide for themself!

[Magnum44]

Well, I agree. And this problem IMO is this another camels nose under the tent. Once society starts normalizing drugs, like same sex marriage, like letting gays or trannies serve in the military, its a whole lot of extra effort to clean up the mess afterward. So while I agree that states rights are important, there are some pretty important national concerns here as well. We should think carefully and consider consequences before taking rash action. Be careful what we wish for, so to speak. There are lots of examples in states already to show the down side of going hands off on this.

[AppyPappy]

We would probably only be able to grow 5 plants. I can do that in pots under grow lights. “Legal” weed in DC goes for $75 for an eighth. Even if it drops to $25 an eighth, I am making money on 5 plants, not to mention selling them to an cannabis oil manufacturer.
This is Appalachia. We suck at following rules.

[Svartalfiar]

What do you think ‘legalizing’ at the Federal level looks like? Is it ok for military to smoke pot now? Other federal employees where their ability to perform has an impact on tax payers? Govt contractors building military hardware that soldiers depend on?

I agree with states rights, but blanket legalizing federally would lead to bad things as well. Being intoxicated driving or on the job, regardless of alcohol or drugs, cant be tolerated.

Simple, FedGov gets out of putting laws in places the FedGov doesn't belong. We needed a Constitutional amendment to ban alcohol; so what makes pot different where banning it falls under ArtIISec8, yet alcohol didn't?

As for Fed workers, they're allowed to do lots of things: drink alcohol, smoke tobacco, take all sorts of over-the-counter drugs, take crazy powerful narcotics (and if you're military, the MTF will give em to you at no cost!), and lots of stuff, yet there's no cry to ban any of that. What is so different about pot? Also, there's a HUGE difference between setting employment standards (drug-free), and banning the entire populace from growing a plant. You don't have to join the military/work for FedGov, but you do 'have' to obey the ban on weed!

As for being intoxicated on the job, weed is the same as alcohol. You (should) get fired. Obviously the union will fight it, but that's a whole different animal that needs a separate beating.

[Ouderkirk]

There needs to be a MAJOR rewrite of the “social contract”

That was my fault for not indicating that was a concept rather than a line item.

[AppyPappy]

You miss the point. The Feds say marijuana is illegal. Some states say it is not. The Feds are unwilling to enforce the federal law. Then get rid of the law. It will not necessarily legalize weed in all states. States can still make it illegal. It will only mean the planes looking for it are State Police planes, not the DEA.

[NorthMountain]

Drug prohibition began during the 1900-1920 “progressive” era. Somehow, we made it through the 1800s with no drug laws. I think it’s time to examine the results of our century-long experiment with banning drugs. What have we accomplished with drug laws and drug law enforcement? What has been the cost of these laws and their enforcement? Does the Congress even have the constitutional authority to ban drugs? Have the limits of constitutional authority been breached?

[NorthMountain]

Do you, by any chance, live at the end of Copperhead Road?