Q&A with Tom Ammiano CA State Assemblyman

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
Does not matter if they make it legal, it is still against Fed law.

Yeah, unfortunately SCOTUS has already ruled on it (an Interstate Commerce Clause matter).

I think even if it were to pass, SCOTUS would shoot it down on precedent.

Fern

shoot down what?

The CA bill to legalize pot.

Without going back and reviewing the SCOTUS cases, I'm guessing they are gonna say that fed law trumps state here because of the Interstate Commerce Clause.

Fern

You need to read the thread.

I'll repeat the point another poster already made, but is ignored in your response:

While the federal law does trump the state on this, enforcement is relevant, and the Obama administration has announced a halt to medical marijuana clinic raids.

So you have a very analogous situation - CA passes its own law on marijuana, the federal law is still enforced - but won't be enforced for this presidency at least.

That means that while federal law would trump this and that's fine to say, it's not the whole story. Would this drive federal laws to change? Would federal laws be enforced?

This is correct. However, legalization of pot is not popular. It gets shot down every time it is put on the ballot.

The public is mostly OK with medical pot. I have a feeling Obama would let the DEA enforce non-prescription marijuana law.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
Does not matter if they make it legal, it is still against Fed law.

Yeah, unfortunately SCOTUS has already ruled on it (an Interstate Commerce Clause matter).

I think even if it were to pass, SCOTUS would shoot it down on precedent.

Fern

shoot down what?

The CA bill to legalize pot.

Without going back and reviewing the SCOTUS cases, I'm guessing they are gonna say that fed law trumps state here because of the Interstate Commerce Clause.

Fern

You need to read the thread.

I'll repeat the point another poster already made, but is ignored in your response:

While the federal law does trump the state on this, enforcement is relevant, and the Obama administration has announced a halt to medical marijuana clinic raids.

So you have a very analogous situation - CA passes its own law on marijuana, the federal law is still enforced - but won't be enforced for this presidency at least.

That means that while federal law would trump this and that's fine to say, it's not the whole story. Would this drive federal laws to change? Would federal laws be enforced?

I ignored it for a reason.

It's hypothetical; someone's trying to extend 'medical' pot use to 'recreational' pot use. They can make that opinion if they want, likewise I can discount it as I wish.

Obama is sworn to uphold the laws of the USA, and not just the ones he likes. If this passes in CA and Obama refuses to override it and enforce federal law, well that's gonna inspire an interesting 'discussion'.

I don't believe it's politically viable for him to do so. If I were him I wouldn't proceeed that way. I rather take it a different route: Get rid of the federal law and let each state determine for itself want it wants. I believe that how the Contitution intended it to be anyway.

Simultaneousy I'd be liberal and conservative. Liberal in relaxing fed anti-pot laws, conservative in returning states' rights

Fern