On Tuesday, the Supreme Court of the United States considered a case that could drastically change the way marijuana laws are enforced in the United States. The case, National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, is a somewhat complicated one that deals with the decision to withhold health care benefits from small business owners who had been operating under an invalid federal marijuana law for years.
On February 16th 2017, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg made an impassioned appeal at the annual convention of the American Civil Liberties Union, calling for the end of marijuana prohibition. This is not the first time that Justice Ginsburg has spoken out in support of the legalization of marijuana. In 2014 she said “I don’t think we should legalize marijuana. But I think decriminalization is a good idea.” In interviews she has also expressed skepticism that government should be in charge of enforcing marijuana laws.
The US Supreme Court took a major step toward ending the federal government’s prohibition on marijuana Tuesday, upholding the dismissal of a case that would have overturned the federal ban on the sale of medical marijuana. The unanimous decision was widely seen as a victory for the Obama administration and advocates of reform, who said it would free up state governments to decide for themselves whether to legalize the drug.. Read more about supreme court justices and let us know what you think.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said what most of us are thinking on Monday: The federal government’s long-standing ban on marijuana may be long overdue.
Thomas, considered by many to be one of the most conservative Supreme Court justices, made the comment in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision to reject the appeal of a Colorado medical cannabis dispensary that sought the same federal tax breaks as other businesses.
Citing Gonzales v. Reich, a 2005 case that upheld the federal government’s ban on marijuana, said Thomas said the law might have eventually lost its utility given the growing number of states and cities that have embraced legalization of medical and recreational use.
Sixteen years ago, this court ruled that Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce allowed it to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana, Thomas wrote in a statement. The reason for this, according to the Court, is that Congress has enacted comprehensive legislation to regulate the interstate market in interchangeable goods and that local use exceptions could undermine this comprehensive system. The court notes that Congress intended to prohibit the possession or use of [marijuana] altogether and defined marijuana as contraband for all purposes. Accordingly, the Court held that the ban on any intrastat use was necessary and appropriate to prevent a gaping hole in Congress’s closed regulatory system.
He added: Whatever the merits of Raich’s decision at the time, federal policy over the past 16 years has significantly undermined his argument. In general, the federal government’s current approach is a mix of tolerating and banning local marijuana use. This contradictory and unstable state of affairs disturbs the basic principles of federalism and creates a trap for the incompetent.
Thomas’ announcement is the latest sign that the federal ban on marijuana may finally be ending. Nearly 40 states have legalized medical marijuana and 18 states have legalized the recreational use of marijuana for adults.
Opinion polls show a large majority in favor of legalization, and there are increasing signs that Congress is also willing to seriously address the issue. In April, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said Democrats plan to push for legalization.
We’ll move on, Schumer said then. President Joe Biden has said he’s studying the issue, so I want to give him time to study it. I want to give him my arguments, as many other advocates will. But we will eventually move forward, period.
Last month, Democrats in the House introduced a bill that would do exactly that. The so-called MORE Act is intended to decriminalize and exempt cannabis, rehabilitate some of the people affected by the war on drugs, exempt some cannabis offenses, and for other purposes.
Thomas’ statement on Monday reflects the growing consensus between the two sides on the issue.
Prohibition of the domestic use or cultivation of marijuana may no longer be necessary or
adequately support the federal government’s piecemeal approach, Thomas wrote.
He added: Suffice it to say that the federal government’s current approach to marijuana bears little resemblance to the watertight national prohibition that the Court, divided in its opinion, found necessary to justify the government’s blanket ban in Reich. If the government is now content to allow the states to act as laboratories and try out new social and economic experiments, it may no longer have the right to interfere with the fundamental police powers of the states to establish criminal law and protect the health, safety and welfare of their citizens.At a recent public speaking engagement, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer discussed the issue of legal marijuana and how the U.S. government should be more concerned about the “harm of marijuana than the harm of tobacco, alcohol and so forth.” He also discussed how the criminalization of marijuana has led to a “huge” number of blacks being imprisoned.. Read more about federal legalization bill 2021 and let us know what you think.
supreme court justicesclarence thomas wifegonzales v raichmore act 2021federal legalization bill 2021thurgood marshall,People also search for,Privacy settings,How Search works,supreme court justices,clarence thomas wife,gonzales v raich,more act 2021,federal legalization bill 2021,thurgood marshall,federal legalization 2021,kathy ambush