| |
|
The decision did come done to the supremacy clause in the general sense, but more importantly cited was the Federal Governments ability to regulate inter/intrastate commerce. Essentially the feds are able to exert there force over state sanctioned medical cannabis dispenseiaries simply because of the illict trade that will undoubtedly (in the feds opinion) be fueld by the legal purchase and distribution of cannabis.
The way I understood the decision, the feds are complaining that they won't be able to effectively control the illict weed trade if the legal trade is occuring at the same time, in the same geographical locations.
One other interesting thing to note, is that near the end of the opinion (not sure if it was majority of dissenting) was the recommendation that the cannabis be reschedualed, with a lengthly citation of how Congress is to go about this under provisions in the Controlled Substances Act. Also, don't know about other states, but as soon as the ruling came back the Attorney General of California, almost instantly held a press conffrence declaring that CA state laws will remain unchanged.
As for federal intervention in state and muncipal jurisdictions, I know for a fact (cause i voted for it) that Oakland is the first city in California to effectively decriminalize the private sale, use, production, and pruchase of cannabis, by placing on the local law enforcements "lowest priority" which has the effect of disallowing local law enforcement to spend virtually any money whatsoever on the prosocution of cannabis related offences. Just go to show that certainn communties are becoming fed up with current state of drug affairs that is gripping the nation.
The OPD even runs a Cannabis Club to raise funds for the department, and it situated right in the middle of Oaksterdam.
It's looking pretty bright from were I'm sitting, then again, I've got a front row seat. |
|
|
