Photo: AP/Jae C. Hong
It appears that the claim last Fall by California medical marijuana entrepreneur Richard Lee that his proposed statewide initiative to legalize small quantities of pot for Californians over 21 would qualify for the ballot this November was accurate. News outlets are reporting that California Secretary of State Deborah Bowen has certified the California pot legalization measure for placement on the ballot this coming Election Day, November 2, 2010, after it had gained hundreds of thousands more signatures than the required 433,971. In California, many measures, including some that are far-reaching and controversial, are decided by direct voter initiative, rather than in the state legislature.
However, even if the "Regulate, Control, and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010" is approved by California voters this November, it faces a questionable future. Federal law classifies marijuana as a "controlled substance" whose possession and distribution is illegal. California and about 14 other states have stretched (indeed, violated) this law by permitting the use of marijuana for medical purposes. The Obama administration has stated that it will permit such use of medical marijuana which strictly complies with applicable state law. However, it would be quite a leap to expect the Obama Justice Department similarly to ignore the federal Controlled Substances Act regarding the proposed California initiative, which would legalize pot for any purpose, including recreational use, in direct contravention of the federal law.
© 2010 Matthew Emmer -- All Rights Reserved
Enjoy this article? Receive email alerts when new articles have been published. Just click on the "Subscribe" button above.
Comments
I don't think the Federal government has the "power" to tell California what to do. California taxes pay for most of the federal government...and consider how many reps California has in Washington.
Time to legalize the dang plant. Then spend the "failed drug war money" to actually educate people about the plant...it's good and bad...
Thanks John. I'm not sure if you meant what you wrote about the Federal government literally, since you put "power" in quotes, or if you meant that the fed. gov't. ought not to have such power for the reasons you gave. Of course, it does have the power, under the "supremacy" clause in Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, which states, in part, "the Laws of the United States" (i.e., federal laws) "shall be the supreme Law of the Land." That's the principle of federalism, the glue that puts the "United" in "United States."
Thus, if folks really want to legalize pot, they'll likely have to lobby their members of Congress to vote to change the federal Controlled Substances Act.
Tenth amendment.
I suppose someone could challenge the Controlled Substances Act on 10th Amendment grounds. Not sure if that's been tried. But the 10th Amendment only gives powers to states when such powers are "not delegated to the United States," & I can think of at least one way in which the power to pass the Controlled Substances Act & other drug laws is delegated to the United States. Article I, Sec. 8: "The Congress shall have Power To ... provide for the ... general Welfare of the United States ...."
Congress seems to have thought of just that in writing the preamble to the Controlled Substances Act: "(2) The illegal importation, manufacture, distribution, and possession and improper use of controlled substances have a substantial and detrimental effect on the health and general welfare of the American people."
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!