←back to thread

662 points JacobHenner | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.216s | source
Show context
andrewxdiamond ◴[] No.40213760[source]
Weed being illegal on a federal level has had some interesting effects. Because of these laws, all legal weed has to be grown, processed, and retailed within a single state. So much industry and local employment has been created by the legal barriers in place.

It’s probably still a net positive to release the federal restriction, but I hope all these small/mid sized businesses don’t get gulped up by big tobacco or other mega corps

replies(18): >>40213812 #>>40214163 #>>40214201 #>>40214244 #>>40214266 #>>40214279 #>>40214281 #>>40214722 #>>40214865 #>>40215132 #>>40215210 #>>40215250 #>>40215640 #>>40215792 #>>40218541 #>>40219533 #>>40222689 #>>40228530 #
beaeglebeachh ◴[] No.40214722[source]
Keeping in state doesn't help. It's still interstate commerce even just picking a plant and smoking on site non-commercially. Just walking an object within 1000 ft of a school, non-commercially, is interstate commerce.
replies(1): >>40214772 #
NewJazz ◴[] No.40214772[source]
According to a really old SC decision that rests on shaky foundations at best.
replies(1): >>40214876 #
beaeglebeachh ◴[] No.40214876[source]
They'll never give it up. It would mean the end of the civil rights act, and tons of popular regulatory regimes that apply to in-state only trade. And the return of in state over the counter machine guns.
replies(1): >>40215723 #
1. mr_spothawk ◴[] No.40215723[source]
Relevant case:

Wickard v. Filburn United States Supreme Court case Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111, is a United States Supreme Court decision that dramatically increased the regulatory power of the federal government. It remains as one of the most important and far-reaching cases concerning the New Deal, and it set a precedent for an expansive reading of the U.S. Constitution's Commerce Clause for decades to come. The goal of the legal challenge was to end the entire federal crop support program by declaring it unconstitutional. An Ohio farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat to feed animals on his own farm. The U.S. government had established limits on wheat production, based on the acreage owned by a farmer, to stabilize wheat prices and supplies. Filburn grew more than was permitted and so was ordered to pay a penalty. In response, he said that because his wheat was not sold, it could not be regulated as commerce, let alone "interstate" commerce. [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn)