One of the most conservative U.S. Supreme Court justices on Monday denounced the federal government\u2019s inconsistent approach to marijuana policy, suggesting that outright national prohibition may be unconstitutional.<\/p>\n
While the court declined to take up a new case related to an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) investigation into tax deductions claimed by a Colorado marijuana dispensary, Justice Clarence Thomas issued a statement that more broadly addressed the federal-state marijuana disconnect.<\/p>\n
He specifically discussed a 2005 ruling in Gonzales v. Raich, wherein the court narrowly determined that the federal government could enforce prohibition against cannabis cultivation that took place wholly within California based on its authority to regulate interstate commerce.<\/p>\n
\u201cWhatever the merits of Raich when it was decided, federal policies of the past 16 years have greatly undermined its reasoning,\u201d Thomas wrote. \u201cOnce comprehensive, the Federal Government\u2019s current approach is a half-in, half-out regime that simultaneously tolerates and forbids local use of marijuana.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cThis contradictory and unstable state of affairs strains basic principles of federalism and conceals traps for the unwary,\u201d he said, adding that \u201cthough federal law still flatly forbids the intrastate possession, cultivation, or distribution of marijuana\u2026the Government, post-Raich, has sent mixed signals on its views.\u201d<\/p>\n
Case in point: the Justice Department under President Barack Obama twice issued memorandums signaling that the government would tolerate certain marijuana-related activity if it\u2019s lawful in the state where it took place. The so-called Cole memo laid out enforcement priorities for federal prosecutors, signaling that low-level cannabis offenses shouldn\u2019t be pursued.<\/p>\n
Further, Thomas noted, Congress has repeatedly approved a spending bill rider that prohibits the Justice Department from using its funds to interfere in the implementation of state-level medical marijuana programs.<\/p>\n
\u201cGiven all these developments, one can certainly understand why an ordinary person might think that the Federal Government has retreated from its once-absolute ban on marijuana,\u201d he wrote. \u201cOne can also perhaps understand why business owners in Colorado\u2026may think that their intrastate marijuana operations will be treated like any other enterprise that is legal under state law.\u201d<\/p>\n
While Thomas\u2019s five-page statement itself won\u2019t resolve the problem, it\u2019s remarkable to see a Supreme Court justice\u2014a very conservative one at that\u2014make such a thorough and forceful criticism of federal cannabis policy. In the case<\/a> at hand, petitioners were seeking to prevent IRS from requiring disclosures of tax deductions that it made for its medical marijuana dispensary business expenses.<\/p>\n \u201cIn other words, petitioners have found that the Government\u2019s willingness to often look the other way on marijuana is more episodic than coherent,\u201d Thomas said. \u201cThis disjuncture between the Government\u2019s recent laissez-faire policies on marijuana and the actual operation of specific laws is not limited to the tax context.\u201d<\/p>\n The justice also flagged a related consequence of federal prohibition, noting that many state-legal cannabis businesses operate on a largely cash-only basis because of restrictions on using federally backed financial institutions for dealing in a controlled substance. That makes those businesses \u201cunderstandably enticing to burglars and robbers.\u201d<\/p>\n That\u2019s also a main argument in favor of a congressional bill\u2014the Secure and Fair Enforcement (SAFE) Banking Act\u2014that would protect banks that service state-legal marijuana businesses from being penalized<\/a> by federal regulators. It\u2019s already passed the House this Congress and may be incorporated into a federal legalization bill that\u2019s being drafted in the Senate.<\/p>\n \u201cI could go on. Suffice it to say, the Federal Government\u2019s current approach to marijuana bears little resemblance to the watertight nationwide prohibition that a closely divided Court found necessary to justify the Government\u2019s blanket prohibition in Raich,\u201d Thomas wrote. \u201cIf the Government is now content to allow States to act \u2018as laboratories\u2019 \u2018and try novel social and economic experiments,\u2019\u2026then it might no longer have authority to intrude on \u2018[t]he States\u2019 core police powers\u2026to define criminal law and to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens.’\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cA prohibition on intrastate use or cultivation of marijuana may no longer be necessary or proper to support the Federal Government\u2019s piecemeal approach,\u201d the justice concluded<\/a>.<\/p>\n Though not actionable, advocates view the statement as a welcome recognition of an issue that has rarely been directly addressed by the high court. Last year, justices declined to hear a case challenging the constitutionality of federal marijuana prohibition<\/a>.<\/p>\n In contrast, Mexico\u2019s Supreme Court in 2018 declared the criminalizing people for personal possession and cultivation of cannabis is unconstitutional and ordered lawmakers to enact a policy change<\/a>. The body is expected to vote on nullifying prohibition itself<\/a> on Monday after legislators were unable to legalize by its deadline.<\/p>\n Delaware Marijuana Legalization Effort Dead For This Session, Bill Sponsor Says Following Equity Disagreements<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n Photo elements courtesy of rawpixel<\/a> and Philip Steffan<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n The post Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas Slams Feds\u2019 Marijuana Stance As \u2018Contradictory\u2019 And \u2018Unstable\u2019<\/a> appeared first on Marijuana Moment<\/a>.<\/p>\n
One of the most conservative U.S. Supreme Court justices on Monday denounced the federal government\u2019s inconsistent approach to marijuana policy, suggesting that outright national prohibition may be unconstitutional. While the court declined to take up a new case related to an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) investigation into tax deductions claimedContinue Reading<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":458,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"false","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[18,81],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/48523"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/458"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=48523"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/48523\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":48524,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/48523\/revisions\/48524"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=48523"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=48523"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=48523"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}\n
\n
\nRead More: Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas Slams Feds\u2019 Marijuana Stance As \u2018Contradictory\u2019 And \u2018Unstable\u2019<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"