One of the worst things about MJ ban was the legal explanation given in Gonzales vs Raich: growing MJ plants in your own home for your personal use does somehow influence interstate commerce and thus Congress can ban it under the Interstate Commerce Clause.
This explanation, endorsed by the SCOTUS, is so expansive that it is hard to imagine any activity that would still not be covered by the Interstate Commerce Clause.
Just to add some context to this, this expansive interpretation of the Commerce Clause really began with Wickard v. Filburn (1942) [1], more often just called Filburn.
The essence of this decision was Federal policy in the Great Depression was to control wheat production to stop overproduction and the below-cost prices that resulted. The court decided that a farmer growing wheat for his own use was still within the jurisdiction of the commerce clause as that production would result in that farmer not purchasing wheat. That wheat that wasn't purchased would in turn affect interstates wheat sales and thus fell under the Commerce Clause.
To me, this is a ridiculous example of judicial overreach as it basically covers everything and in an ideal world SCOTUS would overturn that precedent.
So the Gonzalez decision just continues that earlier interpretation and gives the Federal government sweeping powers for what reasonable people might otherwise agree are state issues.
Interestingly, I just looked up the Gonzalez decision [2] and I think I've found possibly the only Thomas opinion I've ever agreed with. He dissents:
> Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything—and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.
Somewhat surprising (at least to me), Scalia concurred with the majority opinion although wrote separate reasoning for it.
This argument came up during the Affordable Care Act debate. The question was, if the feds can make you buy health insurance, could they also make you buy broccoli? There's this famous exchange from Justice Kagan's confirmation hearing:
Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, who is also a medical doctor, asked, “If I wanted to sponsor a bill and it said, ‘Americans, you have to eat three vegetables and three fruits every day,’ and I got it through Congress and it’s now the law of the land, got to do it, does that violate the commerce clause?”
“Sounds like a dumb law,” Ms. Kagan replied.
She declined to presume that it would be unconstitutional. Justice Ginsburg had a similar interpretation.
They believe the constitutionality of enforcing such transactions depends on the details of its application, and is not facially unconstitutional. So if the legislature could be convinced that pot is health supporting, SCOTUS may well find it to be within their power to mandate.
The idea that the constitution doesn't allow the government to force me to say something, but might allow them to force me to put something into my body, is completely wild to me.
The argument is that by growing your own marijuana you affect Congress's ability to regulate the interstate commerce of marijuana, which is consistent with Filburn.
But where does that end? Can Congress prohibit you from earning an income because you might use that income to buy marijuana?
This wiki-article specifically mentions that the legal doctrine which allows interstate commerce clause to apply here stems from this 1942 precedence, where someone's growing of wheat locally for only his own farm animals was considered participation in interstate commerce (!): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
The thing is, there is no natural limit to this thinking.
By flossing regularly you almost certainly impact the interstate commerce in dentures (negatively). Fortunately, no one has come with the idea to limit legal flossing time to 20 seconds a day to protect the denture business. Yet. I hope the Congress does not feel inspired to do so right now.
Didn't Wickard v. Filburn set this precedent? Growing feed for animals on your own farm shouldn't affect interstate commerce significantly either, but it became the precedent.
so if i understand this correctly through the dark veil of my millennial cynicism:
the 35 year grass-roots collaborative effort between medical professionals, scientists, and civically minded enthusiasts to modernize and legalize recreational cannabis was a complete and total pointless waste, when one of the five largest corporations in the world can bring legislation that has stalled, failed or never even made it out of committee, to vote in under 72 hours to the house of congress because it cant find enough people willing to drive a truck for poverty wages.
I try to see these corporate politics more as a thermometer of society. If a huge corporation is willing to throw marketing or lobbying behind your cause, it means it has reached high enough acceptance in society. And that acceptance definitely only came about because of those decades of effort by social movements
So it's a good sign, isn't it? Even though I understand it might taste bittersweet.
I don't think its cynical at all. It is basically how most of the US policy is being done. It certainly helps that average US household doesn't care about MJ anymore, which allows Amazon not spend PR time on ensuring the populace that their widgets are gathered by non-high individuals.
But yeah, the worker 'shortage' forced the biggest companies to rethink their policies and they do happen to spend a lot in Washington.
>Separately, a proposal to federally deschedule marijuana that does not include social equity components was filed by a pair of Republican congressmen in May.
A perfect example of a party willing to wash its hands of all the harm the previous policy has caused. No remorse whatsoever for the years of life and opportunities stolen from people, families and communities ripped apart over five decades of an explicitly racist[1] War on Drugs.
1. “The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and Black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or Black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and Blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”
-President Richard Nixon’s domestic policy chief, John Ehrlichman
Would you prefer that a party never change its views over time? Because I doubt that standard would work out for modern morality if it were applied across the spectrum.
I would prefer that a solution that didn't include reparations for prior harms wasn't even on the table. I would prefer that both parties felt extreme shame for their participation in the destruction of American communities. That any party would be embarrassed to see Americans still imprisoned for participating in an economy that they then later pivoted to opening to everyone.
I've learned bill coming out of the House means nothing nowadays. If this came out of the Senate then maybe this would be something to hype, but coming from the house where over 90% of bills have died so far this year my expectation is rather muted because of that.
It's posturing for the 2022 midterms. The Dems want to be able to point to the Repubs stalling on MJ legalization. The Repubs want to point to the Dems wanting to take away everyone's guns and kill everybody's babies. I think it's utterly ridiculous but, these parties spend millions of dollars on elections analysis and I'm assuming they're not blowing their money, so I must conclude these tactics work.
Many states have legalized MJ this way or another, and there was no tsunami of bad consequences, so even the federal politicians start to be moderately brave.
Also, legal stuff can be taxed and this is one tax that even GOP won't hate.
Are there any other sources for this? I've tried looking for this, but have had trouble finding anything. Does anyone have a source to tell how realistic it is to expect this bill to go anywhere when countless other have flopped? Cannabis-focused news sources like this one tend to paint overly optimistic pictures.
The houses passes headline bills all the time, knowing that the senate won't pass. Is this presumably one of those with 0 chance of actually passing or is their actually potentially the votes in the Senate? If so I would assume this would be on non .net, news site.
Edit: Y’all, I am no Amazon fan, but I am all for marijuana legalization and expunging records for those previously convicted. If it takes Amazon to do that, so be it. The enemy of bad policy is temporarily a friend.
I chuckled. About 5 years ago I remember listening to an interview and there was an interesting collage of various students' responses as to why they are smoking marijuana if they know it will limit their chances in the work market. One surprisingly direct answer was, and I am paraphrasing: 'heh, if they don't want to have anyone to work, that is their choice'.
Amazon probably doesn't actually want national legalization. That would mean their perk of no drug testing isn't worth as much. The whole point of this stance is that it helps their recruitment machine, not because they actually care about marijuana usage.
Maybe from an employment perspective, but I'd expect Amazon's sales, distribution, and delivery systems to make boatloads of money selling cannabis online. Maybe not immediately, but 5 years after legalization, Prime Weed (tm) will be a huge moneymaker.
I guess it depends on the state. I'm betting that the likelihood of Amazon being allowed to sell marijuana in my state(illinois) within the next decade is right around 0%.
I would bet Amazon would envision the long game of the potential for participating in legal marijuana deliveries would vastly outweigh the benefits of maintaining a recruiting advantage from no drug testing (which would possibly remain a draw for users of other drugs).
This explanation, endorsed by the SCOTUS, is so expansive that it is hard to imagine any activity that would still not be covered by the Interstate Commerce Clause.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich
This is a legal abomination.