United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Medical Marijuana Becomes Legal in Ohio; Sets Foundation to Nullify Federal Prohibition in Practice
Source:
Tenth Amendment Center
URL Source: http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.co ... deral-prohibition-in-practice/
Published: Sep 9, 2016
Author: Mike Maharrey
Post Date: 2016-09-09 21:48:32 by Hondo68
Keywords: marijuana program in Ohio, access medicinal cannabis, Gov. John Kasich signed HB523
Views: 8810
Comments: 60
COLUMBUS, Ohio (Sept. 8, 2016) – Medical marijuana officially became legal in Ohio today, marking the step forward toward nullifying the unconstitutional federal prohibition on cannabis in practice. Rep. Stephen Huffman (R) introduced House Bill 523 (HB523) on April 14. The legislation sets in motion the creation of a limited medical marijuana program in Ohio. There is hereby established a medical marijuana control program in the department of commerce and the state board of pharmacy. The department shall provide for the licensure of medical marijuana cultivators and processors and the licensure of laboratories that test medical marijuana. The board shall provide for the licensure of retail dispensaries and the registration of patients and their caregivers. The department and board shall administer the program. The House passed the bill by a 71-25 margin on May 10. The Senate approved the measure 19-15 on May 25th. The House concurred with Senate amendments 67-29. The new law establishes a limited “seed-to-sale” system for growing, testing and dispensing marijuana. Patients suffering from 20 medical conditions will now be able to access medicinal cannabis with some limitations. The law prohibits smoking marijuana and does not allow for home cultivation of cannabis. The law permits patients to use patches, edibles and vaping products. Although the new law went into effect today, it will take up to two years for the program to get up and running. According to the Columbus Dispatch, “The system will be overseen by Ohio Department of Commerce, Ohio Board of Pharmacy, State Medical Board and an appointed advisory committee. Initial rules will be rolled out later this month, but marijuana is not expected to be available for 18 months to two years.” With passage of the bill, Ohioans for Medical Marijuana dropped its effort to put the issue on the November ballot, citing lack of money and other issues. “This is a joyous day for the thousands of Ohioans who will finally be able to safely access much-needed medicine,” Ohioans for Medical Marijuana spokesman Aaron Marshall said after Gov. John Kasich signed HB523. “We still have much work ahead of us to improve this imperfect law…” According to activists on the ground in Ohio, the success of the program will be determined in large part by the rule-making and implementation process over the next several months. “September 8 is the first step in a long process, and MPP and Ohioans for Medical Marijuana are watching that process closely. Many important policy decisions that will directly affect the success or failure of the system are yet to be made,” a Marijuana Policy Project spokesperson said on the organization’s website. Despite the federal prohibition on marijuana, measures such as HB523 remain perfectly constitutional, and the feds can do little if anything to stop them in practice. EFFECT ON FEDERAL PROHIBITION While somewhat limited, Ohio’s new statute does partially remove one layer of law prohibiting the possession and use of marijuana in the state, but federal prohibition remains in place. Of course, the federal government lacks any constitutional authority to ban or regulate marijuana within the borders of a state, despite the opinion of the politically connected lawyers on the Supreme Court. If you doubt this, ask yourself why it took a constitutional amendment to institute federal alcohol prohibition. While this Ohio law does not alter federal law, it takes an important step toward nullifying in effect the federal ban. FBI statistics show that law enforcement makes approximately 99 of 100 marijuana arrests under state, not federal law. By easing the state laws, the Ohio legislature would remove some of the basis for 99 percent of marijuana arrests. Furthermore, figures indicate it would take 40 percent of the DEA’s yearly-budget just to investigate and raid all of the dispensaries in Los Angeles – a single city in a single state. That doesn’t include the cost of prosecution. The lesson? The feds lack the resources to enforce marijuana prohibition without state assistance. Ohio joins a growing number of states simply ignoring federal prohibition. Colorado, Washington state and Alaska have all legalized both recreational and medical marijuana, and 23 states now allow cannabis for medical use. With nearly half the country legalizing marijuana, the feds find themselves in a position where they simply can’t enforce prohibition any more. The feds need state cooperation to fight the “drug war,” and that has rapidly evaporated in the last few years with state legalization, practically nullifying the ban. “The lesson here is pretty straight forward. When enough people say, ‘No!’ to the federal government, and enough states pass laws backing those people up, there’s not much the feds can do to shove their so-called laws, regulations or mandates down our throats,” Tenth Amendment Center founder and executive director Michael Boldin said. Poster Comment: John Boehner can quit crying now, they legalized his Medical Marijuana. Can you smell the freedom?
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 28.
#1. To: hondo68 (#0)
While this Ohio law does not alter federal law, it takes an important step toward nullifying in effect the federal ban. FBI statistics show that law enforcement makes approximately 99 of 100 marijuana arrests under state, not federal law. By easing the state laws, the Ohio legislature would remove some of the basis for 99 percent of marijuana arrests. Of course, that is utter bullshit. Possession of any amount remains a federal crime and Ohio can do nothing to change that. Federal law and international treaties are supreme and any state law in conflict with either is null and void. Gonzales v. Raich arose in California via the 9th Circuit Court and was decided in the U.S. Supreme Court. It remains good law and slaps down all state laws inconsistent with federal law. The Supreme Court clearly stated, "The Supremacy Clause unambiguously provides that if there is any conflict between federal and state law, federal law shall prevail." Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 27-29 (2005) Second, limiting the activity to marijuana possession and cultivation “in accordance with state law” cannot serve to place respondents’ activities beyond congressional reach. The Supremacy Clause unambiguously provides that if there is any conflict between federal and state law, federal law shall prevail. It is beyond peradventure that federal power over commerce is “‘superior to that of the States to provide for the welfare or necessities of their inhabitants,’” however legitimate or dire those necessities may be. Wirtz, 392 U. S., at 196 (quoting Sanitary Dist. of Chicago v. United States, 266 U. S. 405, 426 (1925)). See also 392 U. S., at 195–196; Wickard, 317 U. S., at 124 (“‘[N]o form of state activity can constitutionally thwart the regulatory power granted by the commerce clause to Congress’”). - - - - - - - - - - [37] We acknowledge that evidence proffered by respondents in this case regarding the effective medical uses for marijuana, if found credible after trial, would cast serious doubt on the accuracy of the findings that require marijuana to be listed in Schedule I. See, e. g., Institute of Medicine, Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base 179 (J. Joy, S. Watson, & J. Benson eds. 1999) (recognizing that “[s]cientific data indicate the potential therapeutic value of cannabinoid drugs, primarily THC [Tetrahydrocannabinol] for pain relief, control of nausea and vomiting, and appetite stimulation”); see also Conant v. Walters, 309 F. 3d 629, 640–643 (CA9 2002) (Kozinski, J., concurring) (chronicling medical studies recognizing valid medical uses for marijuana and its derivatives). But the possibility that the drug may be reclassified in the future has no relevance to the question whether Congress now has the power to regulate its production and distribution. Respondents’ submission, if accepted, would place all homegrown medical substances beyond the reach of Congress’ regulatory jurisdiction.
"The federal government lacks any constitutional authority to ban or regulate marijuana within the borders of a state, despite the opinion of the politically connected lawyers on the Supreme Court. If you doubt this, ask yourself why it took a constitutional amendment to institute federal alcohol prohibition." Only federal laws made "in pursuance thereof" (see Art VI) are constitutional -- despite what "armchair lawyer wannabes say".
Federal power is not derived from or diminished by the pronouncements of potheads on the internet. The Court says what the law is.
And their bosses, We The People, give the black robed tyrants the finger in our quest for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Gov bootlickers on the internet don't make illegal legislation, law.
Gov bootlickers on the internet don't make illegal legislation, law. The Legislature writes laws, the Courts say what the law is, they interpret is. The government makes the laws, and they decide what is constitutional. Dopers on the internet do not. Patriots who give the law the finger and currently in prison is great numbers for all sorts of things, including drugs. Current law does not restrain Federal funding for protections in Ohio.
Government legislators, under constitutional restraints, make the laws, and the SCOTUS issues opinions on constitutionality in contested cases, - opinions that are NOT law, and can be reversed. Nolu hates our Constitution and our republican form of government.
tpaine, Chief Justice of the Imaginary Patriot Supreme Court has spoken. It is obvious that when he speaks, nobody that matters listens. SCOTUS and other courts use the term good law rather frequently. Either they are all wrong, or tpaine is wrong. The tpaine pronouncement also implies that Westlaw and Lexis-Nexis do not know what they are doing or what they are talking about. Precedential court holdings are good law. They remain good law until they are no longer good law. tpaine has an amazing observation that SCOTUS opinions can be reversed. How true. And statute laws can be struck down, repealed, abrogated, or derogated. Any provision of the Constitution, including amendments, may be repealed. There is no law that cannot be changed or repealed. - - - - - - - - - - ABOUT GOOD LAW https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_law http://guides.libraries.uc.edu/c.php?g=222559&p=1472876 https://lawschool.westlaw.com/marketing/display/RE/10 It is therefore necessary to verify the validity of any case you cite by checking its history and finding other cases that have cited it. Only after doing so can you rest assured that the cases supporting your argument are good law. - - - - - - - - - - GOOD LAW AT SCOTUS Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203 (1997) - - - - - - - - - - Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002) - - - - - - - - - - Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364 (1993) - - - - - - - - - - Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004) - - - - - - - - - - Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993 - - - - - - - - - - Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996) - - - - - - - - - - F. C. C. v. Fox Television Stations, 556 U.S. 502 (2009) - - - - - - - - - - Hedges v. U.S., 404 F.3d 744 (3d Cir. 2005) - - - - - - - - - - Moses H. Cone Hospital v. Mercury Constr. Corp. 460 U.S. 1 (1983) - - - - - - - - - - Wright v. West, 505 U.S. 277 (1992) - - - - - - - - - - Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298 (1992) - - - - - - - - - - Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764 (1990) - - - - - - - - - -
nolu sham dreams on, --- Government legislators, under constitutional restraints, make the laws, and the SCOTUS issues opinions on constitutionality in contested cases, - opinions that are NOT law, and can be reversed. Nolu hates our Constitution and our republican form of government. Both publications are creatures of our legal 'system', which is totally compromised by socialistic law schools, which you have obviously never attended, -- poor soul. Good law for the big govt establishment, and its bootlickers, like you, nolu. Correct, except for your opinion about the basic principles and amendments to our Constitution. Our fundamental rights CANNOT be repealed. -- Your opinion that they can, -- outs you once again as a pathetic socialistic fascist. Thanks.
All the courts are wrong and we derive our laws from internet crackpots like you. Suuuure we do.
Correct, except for your opinion about the basic principles and amendments to our Constitution. Our fundamental rights CANNOT be repealed. -- Your opinion that they can, -- outs you once again as a pathetic socialistic fascist pawn. Thanks. Your sarcastic, but meaningless, babbling is noted, nolu. -- Now, -- go find some more opinionated spam you can use to avoid rational discourse.
#30. To: tpaine (#28)
Any part of the Constitution can be repealed. Such action does depend upon the approval of any crackpot on the internet.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestOf course, the federal government lacks any constitutional authority to ban or regulate marijuana within the borders of a state, despite the opinion of the politically connected lawyers on the Supreme Court. If you doubt this, ask yourself why it took a constitutional amendment to institute federal alcohol prohibition.
First, the fact that marijuana is used “for personal medical purposes on the advice of a physician” cannot itself serve as a distinguishing factor. Id., at 1229. The CSA designates marijuana as contraband for any purpose; in fact, by characterizing marijuana as a Schedule I drug, Congress expressly found that the drug has no acceptable medical uses. Moreover, the CSA is a comprehensive regulatory regime specifically designed to regulate which controlled substances can be utilized for medicinal purposes, and in what manner. Indeed, most of the substances classified in the CSA “have a useful and legitimate medical purpose.” 21 U. S. C. § 801(1). Thus, even if respondents are correct that marijuana does have accepted medical uses and thus should be redesignated as a lesser schedule drug, [37] the CSA would still impose controls beyond what is required by California law. The CSA requires manufacturers, physicians, pharmacies, and other handlers of controlled substances to comply with statutory and regulatory provisions mandating registration with the DEA, compliance with specific production quotas, security controls to guard against diversion, recordkeeping and reporting obligations, and prescription requirements. See §§ 821–830; 21 CFR § 1301 et seq. (2004). Furthermore, the dispensing of new drugs, even when doctors approve their use, must await federal approval. United States v. Rutherford, 442 U. S. 544 (1979). Accordingly, the mere fact that marijuana—like virtually every other controlled substance regulated by the CSA—is used for medicinal purposes cannot possibly serve to distinguish it from the core activities regulated by the CSA. Nor can it serve as an “objective marke[r]” or “objective facto[r]” to arbitrarily narrow the relevant class as the dissenters suggest, post, at 47 (opinion of O’Connor, J.); post, at 68 (opinion of Thomas, J.). More fundamentally, if, as the principal dissent contends, the personal cultivation, possession, and use of marijuana for medicinal purposes is beyond the “‘outer limits’ of Congress’ Commerce Clause authority,” post, at 42 (opinion of O’Connor, J.), it must also be true that such personal use of marijuana (or any other homegrown drug) for recreational purposes is also beyond those “‘outer limits,’” whether or not a State elects to authorize or even regulate such use. Justice Thomas’ separate dissent suffers from the same sweeping implications. That is, the dissenters’ rationale logically extends to place any federal regulation (including quality, prescription, or quantity controls) of any locally cultivated and possessed controlled substance for any purpose beyond the “‘outer limits’” of Congress’ Commerce Clause authority. One need not have a degree in economics to understand why a nationwide exemption for the vast quantity of marijuana (or other drugs) locally cultivated for personal use (which presumably would include use by friends, neighbors, and family members) may have a substantial impact on the interstate market for this extraordinarily popular substance. The congressional judgment that an exemption for such a significant segment of the total market would undermine the orderly enforcement of the entire regulatory scheme is entitled to a strong presumption of validity. Indeed, that judgment is not only rational, but “visible to the naked eye,” Lopez, 514 U. S., at 563, under any commonsense appraisal of the probable consequences of such an openended exemption.
#5. To: nolu spam, misterwhite, Y'ALL (#1)
(Edited)
Of course, that is utter bullshit. Possession of any amount remains a federal crime and Ohio can do nothing to change that. Federal law and international treaties are supreme --
#8. To: tpaine, misterwhite (#5)
Only federal laws made "in pursuance thereof" (see Art VI) are constitutional -- despite what "armchair lawyer wannabes say".
#10. To: nolu chan, tpaine, misterwhite, Hank Rearden, enumerated powers, *Bill of Rights-Constitution* (#8)
Federal power is not derived from or diminished by the pronouncements of potheads on the internet.
#12. To: hondo68 (#10)
And their bosses, We The People, give the black robed tyrants the finger in our quest for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
#13. To: nolu sham dreams on, --- (#12)
(Edited)
--- "The government makes the laws, and they decide what is constitutional."
#15. To: tpaine (#13)
SCOTUS issues opinions on constitutionality in contested cases, - opinions that are NOT law, and can be reversed.
Good law is the concept in jurisprudence that a legal decision is still valid. That is, that a decision has not been overturned (during an appeal) or otherwise rendered obsolete (such as by a change in the underlying law)
Remember, that you need to take into account the jurisdiction of your case and the cases citing your case in order to determine if your case is still good law.
Case Overview uses signals to indicate what kind of treatment a case has received and whether it can be relied on as good law.
A decision from an appellate court is binding on courts beneath it (inferior courts) when those courts decide similar issues. But your case law research does not end simply because you've found an appellate court case that appears to support your argument. Even a case directly on point may lose its authority if
School Dist. of Grand Rapids v. Ball, 473 U.S. 373, addressing a "Shared Time" program, are no longer good law. Pp. 215-236. (a) Under Rufo, supra, at 384, Rule 60(b)(5) — which states that, "upon such terms … whether the Court's later Establishment Clause cases have so undermined Aguilar that it is no longer good law. Pp. 215-218. (b) To answer that question, it is necessary to understand the rationale upon which … ask that we explicitly recognize what our more recent cases already dictate: Aguilar is no longer good law.
… system in Walton v. Arizona, 497 U.S. 639 (1990), and had stated in Apprendi that Walton remained good law.
… argues that Collins v. Lockhart, 754 F.2d 258 (CA8), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1013 (1985), is still good law despite our decision in Lowenfield v. Phelps, 484 U.S. 231 (1988), and urges us to decide this question … certiorari," we decide that question based on the Eighth Circuit's view that Collins is no longer good law. Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Services, Inc., 504 U.S. 451, 465-466, n. 10 (1992).
… this Court holding that a sentencing judge may consider virtually any reliable information still good law when juries, not judges, are required to determine the matter? See, e.g., United States v. Watts …
… questions: first, whether the rule of Frye v. United States, 54 App.D.C. 46, 293 F. 1013 (1923), remains good law after the enactment of the Federal Rules of Evidence; and second, if Frye remains valid, whether …
… held that persons advocating a certain practice may be denied the right to vote, it is no longer good law. Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) (per curiam). To the extent it held that the groups designated … that polygamy can be criminalized, and those engaging in that crime deprived of the vote, remains good law.
… indecent or would not be acted upon." It explicitly ruled that "any such interpretation is no longer good law." Ibid., ¶ 12. It "clarif[ied] . . . that the mere fact that specific words or phrases are not sustained … of inconsistent "prior Commission and staff action" and explicitly disavowing them as "no longer good law." Golden Globes Order, 19 FCC Rcd., at 4980, ¶ 12. To be sure, the (superfluous) explanation in … in light of the Golden Globes Order's specific declaration that its prior rulings were no longer good law, 19 FCC Rcd., at 4980, ¶ 12, and the Remand Order's disavowal of those staff rulings and Commission …
… decisions in Irwin, Brockamp, and Beggerly, we hold that our prior holding in Bovell is no longer good law.
More importantly, however, the decision in Idlewild cannot be good law after Coopers, supra.
Virginia's rule is reasonable, and has been accepted as good law against the backdrop of a general state sufficiency standard no less stringent than the Jackson … is the thief who took them, and it should come as no surprise that the rule had been accepted as good law against the backdrop of a general state sufficiency standard no less stringent than that of Jackson …
… rule in this area and the doctrine and principles of stare decisis indicate that the rule remains good law. Pp. 314-318. (d) The underlying issue here is one that Congress may be better qualified to resolve … conclusion that this evolution indicates that the Commerce Clause ruling of Bellas Hess is no longer good law.
… perverse for this Court to rely upon a Court of Appeals decision for a proposition that is no longer good law within the Circuit.
#24. To: nolu chan, outs himself, -- again. (#15)
-- "The government makes the laws, and they decide what is constitutional."
Tpaine, Chief Justice of the Imaginary Patriot Supreme Court has spoken. It is obvious that when he speaks, nobody that matters listens. --- SCOTUS and other courts use the term good law rather frequently. Either they are all wrong, or tpaine is wrong. --- The tpaine pronouncement also implies that Westlaw and Lexis- Nexis do not know what they are doing or what they are talking about.
Precedential court holdings are good law. They remain good law until they are no longer good law.
tpaine has an amazing observation that SCOTUS opinions can be reversed. How true. And statute laws can be struck down, repealed, abrogated, or derogated. Any provision of the Constitution, including amendments, may be repealed. There is no law that cannot be changed or repealed.
#26. To: tpaine (#24)
Good law for the big govt establishment, and its bootlickers, like you, nolu.
#28. To: nolu chan (#26)
tpaine has an amazing observation that SCOTUS opinions can be reversed. How true. And statute laws can be struck down, repealed, abrogated, or derogated. Any provision of the Constitution, including amendments, may be repealed. There is no law that cannot be changed or repealed.
All the courts are wrong and we derive our laws from internet crackpots like you. Suuuure we do.
Replies to Comment # 28. Our fundamental rights CANNOT be repealed.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 28.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]