Replies

The law was not declared illegal in court. Basically the court said that CA and the US had their own laws and even though they were contradictory, both laws were left standing.

What is the basis for saying it is illegal?

Also, I've got to call you on saying you don't know enough to have an opinion on whether or not supplying medical marijuana in accordance with State law is aiding the terrorists.

You brought up the terrorist issue on a medical marijuana thread. Now you're saying you don't know enough to have an opinion.

Do I have that right?

The law was not declared illegal in court. Basically the court said that CA and the US had their own laws and even though they were contradictory, both laws were left standing. What is the basis for saying it is illegal?

I didn't read the opinion. I am familiar with the Constitution of the US, which says:

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 the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

My understanding is that the Controlled Substance Act of 1970 trumps any state law legalizing marijuana. It is on that basis that I say it is illegal. In other words, as I understand it, no state can legalize marijuana on any basis, without conflicting with the CSA of 1970. Maybe I am wrong about that. I am not sure.

You brought up the terrorist issue on a medical marijuana thread. Now you're saying you don't know enough to have an opinion. Do I have that right?

When I brought up the terror thing, I think I was speaking to what the public perception might be of the justice department spending time on medical marijuana. I imagine that it would open them--and the Administration--up to criticisms that they were operating under messed up priorities. They should be spending every second--the critics would say--looking under rocks for terrorists, not legalizing dope. On top of that, I speculated, there have been ads linking drug use to terror groups, saying that buying drugs is helping our enemies. Whether or not this instance fits that claim, it would open them up to that criticism. I am not saying any of that makes rational sense; I am saying that someone would take advantage of those political opportunities to attack the Administration, and then you would have Cheney, and Ari Fleisher, out there spending time defending the move. I am speculating on the political ramifications.