Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (119046)	6/9/2005 12:11:02 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793897

There IS interstate commerce in marijuana. It may not be legal commerce, but there is commerce. There is interstate commerce in millions of different products. If the feds can regulate them all the commerce clause becomes something close to the "the feds can do whatever they want clause". The rationale they use is that all marijuana or wheat is fungible so that, absent the capacity to grow and use small quantities at home, users would purchase them, thus engage in commerce. The rationale doesn't make growing your own drugs and using them or selling them to people in your state an example of interstate commerce. The feds have power to regulate interstate commerce, not anything that could theoretically turn in to interstate commerce. Trade in just about any good or service could theoretically turn in to interstate commerce. My initial reaction to the supreme court's decision was that it was a correct decision even if it produces a poor result, but on just a bit of reflection I realized that was incorrect. Federal law does supersede state law, but in this case the federal law has no constitutional basis. When the feds wanted to ban intoxicating substances in the past they did it the right way. Prohibition was enacted by an amendment (despite the fact that alcohol is a fungible commodity that can be moved across state lines). Prohibition was a bad law, but it wasn't an unconstitutional act by the feds. Tim