Slowly but surely, the prohibition of cannabis is coming to an end. The optimal result will be people growing cannabis as legally and non-nonchalantly as they do with tomatoes. For now, it just needs to be de-scheduled completely.
don’t see it changing anything. SCOTUS likely won’t even take it up.
I predict national “legalization” by the year 2024.
up to congress and the president. there is no legal remedy in the courts. i hope it does change, but courts can’t do it.
According to the Missouri Constitution, cannabis is not only a medicine, but an essential agricultural crop (Missouri Right to Farm Amendment  and Missouri Amendment 2 ). Our State’s constitution is in direct conflict with federal policy, as we have declared our rights on this issue.
There does not appear to be any other setting in which this can be resolved sooner rather than later. Waiting on Congress… well, congress.
feds don’t seem interested in enforcing much anyway. That said, state constitution has no bearing on federal law.
No bearing, but when there’s a conflict of interest between the State and Fed, that’s precisely what I always figured the SCOTUS was for.
Hell, I hear bringing cannabis over State lines is a federal offense, yet Oklahoma has out-of-state cannabis cards so medical patients from other states can come to buy from them.
Oregon and Washington are doing the same IIRC.
It is what SCOTUS is for. They tend to take a dim view of nullification. It threatens their own authority. I’ll be shocked if they take up the case, but if they do it will be to strike down the states constitutional provision. The case won’t be about marijuana scheduling, it will be about nullification. Can a state, by constitutional amendment effectively nullify federal law? no, that argument was lost long ago.
Not without a bill legalizing it passing both houses and being signed into law.
May happen in a decade or so but it would take a complete sweep by the dem’s in all likelihood to get it done any sooner and I seriously don’t see that happening.
Should be dismissed. Currently canibus can not be declasified as it is part of a treaty. Courts can’t change a treaty. Only congress or the president is able to do that.
Dorrection, your states constitution is in conflict with a federal treaty, and federal law. NOT policy.
Here come the legal “experts” with a clear bias.
Can a judge just say – it should be legal make is so when there are A) laws against it and B) a signed treaty behind the law? And sub question C) – has the courts ever ruled a treaty as unconstitutional?
Reid v. Covert
It has not happened, but yes, it can. The Constitution is the Law of the Land.
That doesn’t have anything to do with a treaty.
Yes, it does.
“The court also held…”
A treaty cannot violate the Constitution.
What section of the constitution does a treaty criminalizing drugs? Please and thank you.
I don’t understand the question. I didn’t say anything about drugs.
Implying that a treaty somehow overrides the Constitution. That is incorrect, it doesn’t. I answered the questions that were posed.
The operation of treaties as laws (Federalist 75) gives rise to the judicial review process the SCOTUS gave itself in Marbury, just as any other law.
It was also addressed in Goldwater v. Carter although in that case they refused to take it up, claiming it to be a political question because Congress failed to issue a formal opposition. Procedural, not authority.
Nothing overrides the Constitution.
If you are asking what part of the Constitution it could possibly be in violation of, obviously the 4th, 5th, 9th and 10th Amendments come immediately to mind.
What is the delegated authority for making a plant illegal to possess or use?