Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Drug Policy
In reply to the discussion: U.S. Supreme Court: Federal Law Does Not Pre-empt State MMJ Law [View all]RainDog
(28,784 posts)16. here's a link
http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2012/02/congress_oks_medical_marijuana_everywhere_with_dc.php
This is something that would have to be argued - but it would be an "easy" way for Congress to deal with this issue without actually dealing with it - to say... oops. I guess that bad policy and law can no longer be upheld. Not that I think that will happen...
D.C.'s medical marijuana law was the first time that the United States Congress had ever given its explicit assent to any state or local law that permits the medicinal use of marijuana -- and, according to a California attorney who specializes in health care compliance, that is enormously significant under the Equal Protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.
In 2009, noting that it was "allowing" the voters of Washington, D.C., to vote on and implement that city's Legalization of Marijuana for Medical Treatment law, Congress approved medicinal cannabis in the federal District of Columbia, over which it has all governmental power.
Matthew Pappas: "Congress has turned over the area of medical marijuana to state and local governments"
On December 2, 2011, in anticipation of the opening of medical marijuana dispensaries and cultivation centers, the District's mayor released final rules for the program. Last month, the D.C. Council compromised on medical marijuana cultivation centers, a compromise agreement that limited the number of centers in each ward to six. The District of Columbia's medical marijuana program is now being implemented.
"States with medical marijuana programs should now be free from federal interference since Congress has allowed local control," attorney Matthew Pappas at Pappas Law Group, based in Long Beach, California, told Toke of the Town Monday afternoon. "Congress being the legislative branch of the federal sovereign and the only body that can change these laws has now done so by recognizing the voting rights of Washington, D.C., citizens."
In 2009, noting that it was "allowing" the voters of Washington, D.C., to vote on and implement that city's Legalization of Marijuana for Medical Treatment law, Congress approved medicinal cannabis in the federal District of Columbia, over which it has all governmental power.
Matthew Pappas: "Congress has turned over the area of medical marijuana to state and local governments"
On December 2, 2011, in anticipation of the opening of medical marijuana dispensaries and cultivation centers, the District's mayor released final rules for the program. Last month, the D.C. Council compromised on medical marijuana cultivation centers, a compromise agreement that limited the number of centers in each ward to six. The District of Columbia's medical marijuana program is now being implemented.
"States with medical marijuana programs should now be free from federal interference since Congress has allowed local control," attorney Matthew Pappas at Pappas Law Group, based in Long Beach, California, told Toke of the Town Monday afternoon. "Congress being the legislative branch of the federal sovereign and the only body that can change these laws has now done so by recognizing the voting rights of Washington, D.C., citizens."
This is something that would have to be argued - but it would be an "easy" way for Congress to deal with this issue without actually dealing with it - to say... oops. I guess that bad policy and law can no longer be upheld. Not that I think that will happen...
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
28 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
![](du4img/smicon-reply-new.gif)
The executive branch and Congress need to respond to the will of the American people
RainDog
May 2012
#4
i agree but not because a majority of people, that's a slippery slope I won't go near.
Lionessa
May 2012
#5
I agree - but the reason a majority want the law to change is because of the science
RainDog
May 2012
#6
I see this as a win for human rights, not because of the origin of the law. I'm encouraged by it.
freshwest
May 2012
#12
Misleading headline -- Actually, as stated in the story, "The U.S. Supreme Court REFUSED TO REVIEW
AnotherMcIntosh
May 2012
#18
Of course that's what that means. In contrast, it does not mean (as improperly implied by the
AnotherMcIntosh
May 2012
#23