Nevadans Weigh Proposal to Make Marijuana Legal

NYTimes ^ | 8/2/02 | MICHAEL JANOFSKY

[RJCogburn]

what it would do is place enormous pressure on Congress to take a rational look at the nation's drug laws

That would be a good step forward.

[Linda Liberty]

Has anybody challenged the constitutionality of federal
marijuana laws in court? Arguably a law prohibiting
any product is not concerned with interstate commerce,
even under the cockamamie theories the SC has accepted,
since there is no legal commerce interstate, but if the
product were made in state one could still imagine commerce
intrastate.

[RJCogburn]

So far, the most outspoken critics have been two recent visitors from Washington — Asa Hutchinson, chief of the Drug Enforcement Administration, and John Walters, head of the Office of National Drug Control Policy.

Gee, whiz.

[Fee]

The Chicoms would love it. To paraphrase the words of one of the 19th Century Imperial commissioner sent to observe the effects of British Opium on the Chinese population - "in one generation China will have neither soldiers or farmers". Legalize marijuana and we will have a population that can neither fight or work.

[dirtboy]

"It is highly unlikely the federal government would allow a state to create a legal market for the sale of drugs in which the state licenses the sale or sets up stores to sell it," he said

Love the use of that word, "allow", here ... yep, the Constitution has been turned on its ear, and now the feds decide what the states and the people are allowed to do, instead of vice versa. Guess what? The 10th Amendment will be reclaimed, not by SCOTUS, but by the states taking back the powers usurped by the feds.

[steve50]

I believe the SC has accepted the arguement that the interstate commerce clause allows the feds to outlaw in state commerce, just another insane twisting of intent.

Stossel made them look like the fools they are the other nite, haven't seen any comment on the program on the rest of the media

[tacticalogic]

I believe the SC has accepted the arguement that the interstate commerce clause allows the feds to outlaw in state commerce, just another insane twisting of intent.

Actually it's worse than that. They can outlaw potential commerce, and can even penalize you for doing something that might result in you not engaging in commerce. See Wickard v. Filburn for an example.

[janee]

Just curious what the drug policy is of the largest employers in Nevada - the casinos? Our experience with marijuana users is poor work performance. Perhaps legalization will make them more productive citizens! Ha!

[RJCogburn]

Legalize marijuana and we will have a population that can neither fight or work.

It is already readily available.

[BikerNYC]

Legalize marijuana and we will have a population that can neither fight or work.

It should be, "Outlaw alcohol, so we can once again have a population that can fight and work."

[RJCogburn]

Our experience with marijuana users is poor work performance

There are some good studies that demonstrate no difference in injury rates between those who test positive and negative for marijuana. That does not mean the same as quality of work performance, of course.

[SkunkPunk]

I say keep it illegal. It's already so easy to get, and the quality's so good, that I think the government would only screw things up. In high school, getting weed was much easier then getting beer. As it should be. Papers written while stoned always got higher marks those written while drunk.

[eno_]

It's even worse than that: If you read the commerce clause, it allows the FedGov to act to prevent states from interfering in interstate commerce. It has plainly been stretched to absurd lengths.

At least Nevada will bring the debate out into the open, in a place where pot can be compared with prostitution and gambling as a subject for federal regulation.

[PaxMacian]

Prediction:

If this passes, Nevada will become the fastest growing state in the country within the first year.

[headsonpikes]

Prediction:

Doritos opens new warehouse in Vegas.

[Linda Liberty]

Actually it's worse than that. They can outlaw potential commerce, and can even penalize you for doing something that might result in you not engaging in commerce. See Wickard v. Filburn for an example.

I had Wickard in mind in my original post (#2). The logic in Wickard was that growing wheat on your field and feeding it to your chicken affected interstate prices, because if you didn't grow the wheat you might have bought some, thus affecting prices. (Pretty ridiculous, but that's what they said.) But even that broad an interpretation could be argued not to apply to an outright prohibition: if nevadan's grow and sell within the state, it doesn't affect any prices in any legal interstate transaction, or any legal transactions in any other state for that matter. I can imagine that the current court, which is trying to be vaguely federalist, could conceivably buy that argument (although i wouldn't hold my breath.)

[Britton J Wingfield]

Legalize marijuana and we will have a population that can neither fight or work.

That is a very silly assertion. I smoked my fair share when I was a teen, then I got over it and served for 6 years. You really need some more accurate data on the effects of marijuana.

[tacticalogic]

I think the federal government will approach it more along the lines of equating it with posession of a sawed off shotgun. They claim the authority to make it illegal to have one under the Commerce Clause, because you might sell it to someone in another state, even if you aren't breaking any state laws by having it.

[Jesse]

pressure on Congress to take a rational look

Congress doens't take a rational look at anything anymore, but I agree it would be a good idea even if they take an inrrational look at our freedom destroying drug laws.

[AZLiberty]

Follow the money. With the competition from Indian gaming, Nevada needs a new source of revenue.

What about those random drug tests at major employers? Will evidence of a recent trip to Las Vegas serve as an excuse?