• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Did the US Congress accidentally legalize medical marijuana?

Squisher

Squisher

Lifer
http://www.theweedblog.com/medical-marijuana-in-washington-could-help-other-states-fight-off-the-feds/


Since the US congress has providence over Washington DC and has allowed the voters there to allow the dispensing of medical marijuana can the Equal Protection clause be applied across the nation and free all states from federal control because congress is allowing it in DC? No more federal prosecution of marijuana laws if used medicinally? Hmmm?

Let's not turn this into should they or shouldn't they. It's becoming tiresome. This is more did they or didn't they put their foot in it?
 
Congress will probably realize at some point what, exactly, they did, and will fix it with some law to restrict it again.

/cynical
 
Kadarin said:
Congress will probably realize at some point what, exactly, they did, and will fix it with some law to restrict it again.

/cynical
Click to expand...

Yeah, it does seem like wishful thinking. There isn't enough support in congress to decriminalize MJ, but there are enough lobbyists who want the status quo to remain.
 
Kadarin said:
Congress will probably realize at some point what, exactly, they did, and will fix it with some law to restrict it again.

/cynical
Click to expand...

But, according to the article they're in a conundrum in that they can't do for DC and not do for the rest of the country. It is be going to awfully tough to write legislation doesn't apply across the board. They can pass the responsibility on to the states, but they can't say here, but not there.
 
It's an interesting and perhaps novel argument indeed. The notion is that if Congress legalizes medical MJ in one place, it is treating various areas differentially. It would undoubtedly be rational basis review since residents of states, per se, aren't a "suspect class." Still, I can't imagine the fed's argument as to what would be the rational basis for permitting it in one area and not another. I would think the plaintiff in such a case would be AG's of states that have legalized medical MJ, the point being to enjoin the fed's interference with it in their states.

I suspect, however, that should there be a serious challenge on equal protection grounds, let alone an actual victory by the complaining states, that Congress could and would simply revoke the approval of MMJ in DC, which would then make the issue go away.
 
Simple, they revoke the medical marijuana approval for DC. There is waaaay to much money in the drug enforcement, border patrol, and all around "security" racket for this war on drugs to ever just go away overnight, just like that.
 
Triumph said:
Simple, they revoke the medical marijuana approval for DC. There is waaaay to much money in the drug enforcement, border patrol, and all around "security" racket for this war on drugs to ever just go away overnight, just like that.
Click to expand...

Legalizing Pot won't make the WoD go away, at all. There's still plenty to keep them busy, like heroin, cocaine, meth & psychedelics... It would likely ruin the economy in some parts of Mexico, however.

I'm sure the G-men can find something to do...

Here in Colorado, anybody & their dog can get a prescription for MMJ, and it seems obvious that a fair amount of it is redistributed. And yet nothing has changed at all. There's no epidemic of crazed dope fiends raising Hell, no stupendous increase in immorality, traffic fatalities, nothing. Even fairly conservative people are beginning to see that, and the will to lock people up for MJ is fading.

I suspect that applying the equal protection principle to MMJ in places other than DC would disallow federal enforcement, and I suspect that Congress likely won't find the will to act to re-instate it.

It'd be particularly embarrassing for the usual States' Rights advocates to do so, but their supporters seem to be able to embrace all sorts of contradictions effortlessly...
 
woolfe9999 said:
....that Congress could and would simply revoke the approval of MMJ in DC, which would then make the issue go away.
Click to expand...

But, then the citizens of DC become the injured party in that they are not being allowed to have the rights other states have given their citizens. And, if it can be proven that congress revoked their approval just as a matter of convenience it would make their case even stronger.

I'm not sure of the methods that DC has for redress when it puts congress in the role of the defendant.
 
Companies that service nuclear power plants and gas pipelines have mandatory drug testing (government requirements) and at this time there's no exclusions for MMJ. The government also has mandatory drug testing for Commercial Drivers License. I don't see any of this going away anytime soon.

Another thing that going to be an issue for most is drug prescription insurance companies doesn't recognize MMJ so it's not covered. I know this is true for the drug prescription insurance company I have through work.
 
SilthDraeth said:
Just what we need. Another "pure form" of part of a plant that offers benefits.

That worked out so well for ephedrine.
Click to expand...

Nice apples and oranges debate style. Instead we should avail ourselves of the topic at hand - are you against any other form of medical pot other than the kind you smoke and get high from?
 
Londo_Jowo said:
Companies that service nuclear power plants and gas pipelines have mandatory drug testing (government requirements) and at this time there's no exclusions for MMJ. The government also has mandatory drug testing for Commercial Drivers License. I don't see any of this going away anytime soon.

Another thing that going to be an issue for most is drug prescription insurance companies doesn't recognize MMJ so it's not covered. I know this is true for the drug prescription insurance company I have through work.
Click to expand...

That will be the next two lawsuits.
 
Squisher said:
But, then the citizens of DC become the injured party in that they are not being allowed to have the rights other states have given their citizens. And, if it can be proven that congress revoked their approval just as a matter of convenience it would make their case even stronger.

I'm not sure of the methods that DC has for redress when it puts congress in the role of the defendant.
Click to expand...

That's not a viable legal argument. Congress has jurisdiction over DC. They can pass a law. They can repeal that same law. The citizens of DC don't have a Constitutional right to keep whatever a law has given them. And it wouldn't be differential treatment under equal protection because it is the state governments, not Congress, who have legalized MMJ in those states, while the feds continue to treat it as illegal even in those states.

I am, however, not so sure that Congress would repeal the DC law. MMJ has strong national popular support, IIRC around 60% these days. While I don't see there being the political will to legalize it nationally, I'm not so sure there would be the will the repeal something already passed either, particularly since a Senate filibuster is possible.
 
Last edited:
Jhhnn said:
From the article-



Delta 9-THC is the part of marijuana that gets you high... along with some of the other isomers that "color" the high...
Click to expand...

Also from the article:

"Patients take the drug by spraying it into their mouths like a breath spray with a dosage meter. This way, GW Pharmaceuticals says people can derive maximum benefit from the drug without feeling a “high.”"

That still doesn't answer my basic question - do you or any other posters that support medical pot distribution - is the only way you'd support medical pot use is if it's smoked and given a high? Why if there are alternatives that doesn't produce carcinogens and still allows the user to maintain control of their facilities so they can drive, etc?

There is a reported "dizziness" that dissipates over a couple of weeks.
 
Last edited:
woolfe9999 said:
That's not a viable legal argument. Congress has jurisdiction over DC. They can pass a law. They can repeal that same law. The citizens of DC don't have a Constitutional right to keep whatever a law has given them. And it wouldn't be differential treatment under equal protection because it is the state governments, not Congress, who have legalized MMJ in those states, while the feds continue to treat it as illegal even in those states.
Click to expand...

You don't think that if congress passed a law that said that Ohio cannot vote on a law that other states are allowed to vote in favor of, that the citizens of Ohio wouldn't have a valid argument that that law was unconstitutional?
 
ky54 said:
Also from the article:

"Patients take the drug by spraying it into their mouths like a breath spray with a dosage meter. This way, GW Pharmaceuticals says people can derive maximum benefit from the drug without feeling a “high.”"

That still doesn't answer my basic question - do you or any other posters that support medical pot distribution - is the only way you'd support medical pot use is if it's smoked and given a high? Why if there are alternatives that doesn't produce carcinogens and still allows the user to maintain control of their facilities so they can drive, etc?

There is a reported "dizziness" that dissipates over a couple of weeks.
Click to expand...

So it should be fine if a pharmaceutical company creates a drug in a lab, but a natural plant that has not killed a single person in human history should be illegal? You do realize that the THC drugs pharmaceutical companies make have killed people right?

Hell, water is deadlier then pot, that is a fact.
 
ky54 said:
Also from the article:

"Patients take the drug by spraying it into their mouths like a breath spray with a dosage meter. This way, GW Pharmaceuticals says people can derive maximum benefit from the drug without feeling a “high.”"

That still doesn't answer my basic question - do you or any other posters that support medical pot distribution - is the only way you'd support medical pot use is if it's smoked and given a high? Why if there are alternatives that doesn't produce carcinogens and still allows the user to maintain control of their facilities so they can drive, etc?

There is a reported "dizziness" that dissipates over a couple of weeks.
Click to expand...

You can make marijuana butter, and use it for baking, and get the benefits without smoking it, as well as other alternatives to smoking.

I support that government needs to not be involved in it. Why get it from a pharmaceutical, what I can grown in my own house/backyard easily?

They only reason is for profit.
 
jruchko said:
So it should be fine if a pharmaceutical company creates a drug in a lab, but a natural plant that has not killed a single person in human history should be illegal? You do realize that the THC drugs pharmaceutical companies make have killed people right?

Hell, water is deadlier then pot, that is a fact.
Click to expand...

I agree. I used to smoke pot and still would if I could but the question still remains that if there is an extract of pot that can be safely used is there any reason why the whole medical pot community shouldn't be behind 100%? After all the effect should be to help the user with pain and nausea relief not getting high, right?
 
Squisher said:
http://www.theweedblog.com/medical-marijuana-in-washington-could-help-other-states-fight-off-the-feds/


Since the US congress has providence over Washington DC and has allowed the voters there to allow the dispensing of medical marijuana can the Equal Protection clause be applied across the nation and free all states from federal control because congress is allowing it in DC? No more federal prosecution of marijuana laws if used medicinally? Hmmm?

Let's not turn this into should they or shouldn't they. It's becoming tiresome. This is more did they or didn't they put their foot in it?
Click to expand...

Dream on!
 
Squisher said:
That will be the next two lawsuits.
Click to expand...

Until marijuana is legalized at the federal level both lawsuits will be lost as federal trumps state laws.

https://www.conspire2hire.com/index...letter/75-mmj-federal-and-state-laws-conflict

State Medical Marijuana Laws Conflict with Federal Law
As an employer, you have the right to deny employment to someone who tests positive for THC, even if they have a medical marijuana (MMJ) card. If you have a Drug-free Workplace Policy in place, you also have the right to fire someone who tests positive for THC even if they have an MMJ card.
Click to expand...

Drug prescription insurance plans only cover/dispense drugs that are approved by the FDA.

If your state has legalized medical marijuana, federal law over-rides state law. Marijuana is still illegal on the federal level. MMJ is not approved or regulated by the FDA. MMJ will never be FDA approved because dosing cannot be regulated and the Surgeon General has already issued warnings on the hazards of smoking.
Click to expand...
 
Londo_Jowo said:
Until marijuana is legalized at the federal level both lawsuits will be lost as federal trumps state laws.

https://www.conspire2hire.com/index...letter/75-mmj-federal-and-state-laws-conflict



Drug prescription insurance plans only cover/dispense drugs that are approved by the FDA.
Click to expand...

The entire thread involves the unintended removal of the federal prohibitions. After that is settled for good (ha ha ha), the NEXT two lawsuits could go forth to make testing irrelevant if they have a prescription and then force FDA approval paving the way for payments by healthcare providers.
 
Squisher said:
The entire thread involves the unintended removal of the federal prohibitions. After that is settled for good (ha ha ha), the NEXT two lawsuits could go forth to make testing irrelevant if they have a prescription and then force FDA approval paving the way for payments by healthcare providers.
Click to expand...

I'm sure that the prohibitions will be reinstated and don't hold your breath on the FDA being forced to approve any drug or substance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top