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

RainDog

(28,784 posts)
22. Federal agencies can make arrests in states.
Tue May 8, 2012, 11:16 PM
May 2012

What this said was that local law enforcement couldn't make arrests based upon federal law when the state law did not want people arrested for the same reason.

It's about the actions of local law enforcement in states with mmj laws.

http://reason.com/blog/2011/12/07/scotus-declines-to-review-appeals-court

U.S. Supreme Court declined to review a California appeals court ruling that said the state's medical marijuana laws are not pre-empted by the federal Controlled Substances Act

That leaves the legal situation as I described it in the October issue of Reason: While the Court has held, based on a ridiculously broad reading of the Commerce Clause, that Congress has the authority to stop patients from growing and possessing marijuana for their own medical use, even when such use is allowed by state law, it has never held that states are obligated to ban what Congress bans or punish what Congress punishes. Such a ruling would render states mere subsidiaries of the national government, forced to mimic its laws and policies, thereby obliterating what remains of the federalist system established by the Constitution. Fortunately, the Court does not seem ready to go that far.

There remains the question of whether federal law bars state or local goverrnments from formally authorizing, as opposed to merely decriminalizing, production and distribution of medical marijuana. Two months ago, California's 2nd District Court of Appeal said it does and therefore overturned Long Beach's licensing system for medical marijuana dispensaries. Although that decision still allows local governments to regulate dispensaries, it has created uncertainties that will have to be resolved by the California Supreme Court.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

What next? Gay marriage? MannyGoldstein May 2012 #1
Now if we can just get the feds to quit ignoring state laws. Lionessa May 2012 #2
Sadly, this administration shares that knack with its predecessors villager May 2012 #3
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
Well we hope that's the reason, but in the end it doesn't matter, Lionessa May 2012 #7
Since the govt can no longer control information about this topic RainDog May 2012 #9
Thanks for fighting the good fight RainDog. iscooterliberally May 2012 #24
thanks for those kind words RainDog May 2012 #26
That's pretty much what Arizona is arguing at the SC in regard to SB1070 CactusJak May 2012 #8
Yes, however the OPs title is inaccurate. Fed law does outrank State law for Lionessa May 2012 #10
it is indeed a very tough road to walk - if you are a federal truedelphi May 2012 #14
Arizona is arguing against human rights RainDog May 2012 #11
You say: truedelphi May 2012 #15
here's a link RainDog May 2012 #16
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
Same hear. And a big shout out to raindog for truedelphi May 2012 #13
It's from Dec. 2011 RainDog May 2012 #17
I'd have never known if you hadn't. This is the first I heard. Thanks! freshwest May 2012 #20
Misleading headline -- Actually, as stated in the story, "The U.S. Supreme Court REFUSED TO REVIEW AnotherMcIntosh May 2012 #18
Excuse me but doesn't the USSC refusal to review a case mean bupkus May 2012 #21
Of course that's what that means. In contrast, it does not mean (as improperly implied by the AnotherMcIntosh May 2012 #23
Does This Mean DallasNE May 2012 #19
Federal agencies can make arrests in states. RainDog May 2012 #22
Even though Meiko May 2012 #25
Do you know that Arizona has had to vote for the same law three times? RainDog May 2012 #27
kick b/c I'm so pissed at what is going on now. n/t RainDog Dec 2012 #28
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Drug Policy»U.S. Supreme Court: Feder...»Reply #22