Trump says he is likely to support ending federal ban on marijuana

The Los Angeles Times ^ | June 8th, 2018 | By Evan Halper

[Mariner]

President Trump said he likely will support a congressional effort to end the federal ban on marijuana, a major step that would reshape the pot industry and end the threat of a Justice Department crackdown.

Trump’s remarks put him sharply at odds with Atty. Gen. Jeff Sessions on the issue. The bill in question, pushed by a bipartisan coalition, would allow states to go forward with legalization unencumbered by threats of federal prosecution.

Trump made his comments to a gaggle of reporters Friday morning just before he boarded a helicopter on his way to the G-7 summit in Canada. His remarks came the day after the bipartisan group of lawmakers proposed their measure.

One of the lead sponsors is Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.), who is aligned with Trump on several issues but recently has tangled with the administration over the Justice Department’s threatened crackdowns on marijuana.

“I support Sen. Gardner,” Trump said when asked about the bill. “I know exactly what he’s doing. We’re looking at it. But I probably will end up supporting that, yes.”

[fireman15]

I have used marijuana, and my life was not ravaged.

Well thank goodness for that. But I was referring to people whose lives have been radished. Have a good day my friend. ; )

[BeauBo]

“all federal drug laws are unconstitutional unless the drugs cross state lines.”

We have constitutionally ratified treaties that require drug control.

[BeauBo]

“We’re not talking about heroine or meth or cocaine. People don’t die from overdosing on pot.”

Those other drugs are concentrated extracts, not the source plant. Huge doses of concentrated THC will have different effects from old fashioned pot smoking - we haven’t really yet publicly seen what happens to people who take 1,000 or 10,000 doses at a time. My understanding is that it is like LSD. Cost is currently an obstacle to such dosages, but that could change given full legalization.

[Ken H]

“We have constitutionally ratified treaties that require drug control.”

Treaties must be made in pursuance of the Constitution. Fedgov cannot nullify the Tenth Amendment with a treaty. Would you defend a treaty that signed away your Second Amendment rights? I’m guessing you wouldn’t.

So why would you defend a treaty that signs away the Tenth Amendment?

[BeauBo]

I am saying that such treaties exist, were ratified constitutionally, and have the force of law.

The Supreme Court could rule them unconstitutional, but they have not, as of this date.

Those are the facts. Based on those facts, there is currently a separate legal basis for Federal laws restricting Marijuana, besides the Interstate commerce clause.

If you want to legalize marijuana at the Federal level, it will require addressing treaty obligations.

[Ken H]

So you apparently would defend a treaty that nullified the Second Amendment - so long as it was “ratified constitutionally” and the Supreme Court didn’t rule it unconstitutional.

Sad.

[BeauBo]

Ken,

I am not stating my opinion, I am stating facts.

You made an argument that the only legal basis (for Federal marijuana laws) was the commerce clause, and I am correcting your factual error.

Laws and treaties can change, and there is a process for doing so.

[Ken H]

I know what case law says. I know what case law says about murder of the unborn, as well.

The fact is, you are defending a power fedgov does not legitimately have. It has no power to alter or nullify sections of the Constitution.

Since you cited the treaty, let me ask you this. Does it have a provision dealing with state laws? If so, would you quote the section?

[BeauBo]

Treaties are not case law.

Please get your mind around the fact that I am not advocating for a position - I am correcting a technical misstatement on your part. If you want to advocate for a position, you would be best served to base your argument on a sound legal basis.

Here is info on the treaties, from a cursory Google search (https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/index.html):

Drug-Related Treaties
Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961 as amended by the 1972 Protocol
Commentary on the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961

Commentary on the Protocol Amending the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961: English French Spanish

Convention on Psychotropic Substances of 1971
Commentary on the Convention on Psychotropic Substances, 1971

United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances of 1988
Commentary on the United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, 1988

The three major international drug control treaties are mutually supportive and complementary. An important purpose of the first two treaties is to codify internationally applicable control measures in order to ensure the availability of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances for medical and scientific purposes, and to prevent their diversion into illicit channels. They also include general provisions on trafficking and drug abuse.

[Ken H]

“Please get your mind around the fact that I am not advocating for a position - I am correcting a technical misstatement on your part.”

No misstatement here. You are defending an unconstitutional power grab by claiming the treaty can legitimately nullify the Tenth Amendment. It is not a legitimate exercise of federal power.

All academic anyway. The reality is that Trump just de-nutted the mj prohibitionists => https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6M53XLBd54Y

[sargon]

If any government can criminalize one of God's own plants—by bureaucratic edict, no less—then its power to criminalize contraband is effectively limitless, and Tyranny reigns.

The Constitution could never be construed to convey such arbitrary power to the federal government. Such extreme authoritarianism is patently antithetical to the concepts of Liberty and Natural Rights...

[BeauBo]

Here is your misstatement.

“all federal drug laws are unconstitutional unless the drugs cross state lines.”

The constitution establishes the process for treaties, establishes them as superior to laws passed by the legislature, and specifies a higher standard for ratifying them.

It is a specifically enumerated power of the Federal Government, in the Constitution. The Tenth Amendment only covers “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution”.

[NobleFree]

Here is your misstatement.

“all federal drug laws are unconstitutional unless the drugs cross state lines.”

The constitution establishes the process for treaties, establishes them as superior to laws passed by the legislature

I don't see that in Article VI, nor your implied premise that treaties can be legitimate which require the federal government to exercise powers that the Constitution doesn't give it (such as the power to legislate within-state marijuana matters):

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land".

And you still haven't addressed Ken's 2nd Amendment point: if 0bama had signed and obtained Congressional approval for a treaty that took away our 2nd Amendment rights, would that have been constitutionally legitimate?

[BeauBo]

“you still haven’t addressed Ken’s 2nd Amendment point”

Quite obviously, the second amendment is in the constitution, marijuana is not.

You not seeing something, does not mean it’s not true. Try some research, I am done spoon feeding for now

[NobleFree]

I don't see that in Article VI, nor your implied premise that treaties can be legitimate which require the federal government to exercise powers that the Constitution doesn't give it (such as the power to legislate within-state marijuana matters):

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land".

Quite obviously, the second amendment is in the constitution, marijuana is not.

Nor is the power to legislate within-state marijuana matters.

You not seeing something, does not mean it’s not true. Try some research

I did - I read, and quoted, the Constitution, which gives no support to your claims.

[NobleFree]

The Supreme Court also disagrees with you:

"The treaty power, as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments, and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids" - Geofroy v. Riggs

"no agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or on any other branch of Government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution." - Reid v. Covert

[BeauBo]

You make my case right here:

“The treaty power, as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument.”

The second amendment is a restraint in the constitution, against infringing the right to keep and bear arms.

There is no specific restraint in the Constitution protecting drugs, from the otherwise unlimited treaty power.

There is nothing in the Constitution which forbids a treaty to outlaw drugs. The Federal Government is Constitutionally empowered to make legally enforceable treaties.

Because there is no specific protection of drug use (restraint) in the Constitution, Drugs are constitutionally, subject to the sovereign lawmaking authority, be that Federal, State, or both.

Constitutionally ratified treaties provide a Federal nexus for Federal jurisdiction.

[BeauBo]

“I don’t see that... treaties can be legitimate which require the federal government to exercise powers that the Constitution doesn’t give it”

That is the same with all laws.

The Constitution provides the authority to make laws and treaties - it does not specify their content.

Certain things are specifically prohibited within the Constitution. All the rest are to be determined according to the procedures that the Constitution dictates.

[morphing libertarian]

Certain things are specifically prohibited within the Constitution.

I believe it is the reverse. The constitution DEFINES the federal powers and restricts all other.

[BeauBo]

“The constitution DEFINES the federal powers and restricts all other.”

Among the powers the Constitution defines, are the powers to make laws and treaties. It does not specify the content of each possible potential law (e.g. murder, plane hijacking, or computer hacking) - it grants the power to make laws and treaties as they see fit, given that they follow the process in the Constitution (vote percentages), and it is not something that the Constitution specifically prohibits.