Welfare weed: Berkeley orders dispensaries to give out FREE marijuana for low-income residents

http://www.dailymail.co.uk ^ | september 5, 2014 | Pedro Oliveira Jr.

[ladyjane]

Great idea. Maybe the marijuana will get these low income people motivated to go out and earn some money and better their lot in life. LOL

[OldNewYork]

I hope someone documents this thoroughly in media that will be accessible a few generations from now. Let’s see what happens when demotivational things are freely supplied to many of the already unmotivated...

[jiggyboy]

It is, of course, but if anybody puts up a fuss, the Council will say, fine, here’s a new 5% tax on gross receipts for dispensaries, done.

[RaveOn]

“Nice to see such respect for the 10th Amendment on this thread... < /s>”

The Code of Federal Regulations trumps the 10th Amendment. And believe it or not, the FDA is on the public’s side.

The FDA was created to enforce the Pure Food & Drug Act of 1906 which protects you, the consumer, from “the manufacture, sale, or transportation of adulterated or misbranded or poisonous or deleterious foods, drugs, medicines, and liquors, and for regulating traffic therein, and for other purposes.”

http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/legislation/ucm148690.htm

All I ask is that medical marijuana be regulated just like any other medicines. Otherwise it falls into the same “patent medicine” category that led to the creation of the FDA and government regulations in the first place.

Can’t have it both ways.

[Ken H]

The Code of Federal Regulations trumps the 10th Amendment.

I am uncertain whether you referring to case law, or to your view of what is legitimate under the Constitution. According to case law, fedgov controls health care, education, the environment and a host of other things that were never intended.

You seem to be supporting the most egregious reaches of the New Deal Commerce Clause. A sharp line was drawn in the Raich case. Justice Stevens says =>

Thus the case for the exemption comes down to the claim that a locally cultivated product that is used domestically rather than sold on the open market is not subject to federal regulation. Given the findings in the CSA and the undisputed magnitude of the commercial market for marijuana, our decisions in Wickard v. Filburn and the later cases endorsing its reasoning foreclose that claim.

J. Stevens, Opinion of the Court

_______________________________________________________________

Justice Thomas says =>

Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything–and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.

J. Thomas, dissenting

_______________________________________________________________

Which side do you support?

[CSM]

I was searching for something else and stumbled across this thread. I found it pretty amazing that they would do this considering that they just approved a soda tax....

Liberals are never consistent....