Clarence Thomas says federal laws against marijuana may no longer be necessary

[SaysWho?]

Clarence Thomas says federal laws against marijuana may no longer be necessary

WWW.NBCNEWS.COM

---

"The federal government's current approach is a half-in, half-out regime that simultaneously tolerates and forbids local use of marijuana,” the conservative Supreme Court justice wrote.

 

Quote

Clarence Thomas, one of the Supreme Court's most conservative justices, said Monday that because of the hodgepodge of federal policies on marijuana, federal laws against its use or cultivation may no longer make sense.

 

"A prohibition on interstate use or cultivation of marijuana may no longer be necessary or proper to support the federal government's piecemeal approach," he wrote.

 

His views came as the court declined to hear the appeal of a Colorado medical marijuana dispensary that was denied federal tax breaks that other businesses are allowed.

 

Thomas said the Supreme Court's ruling in 2005 upholding federal laws making marijuana possession illegal may now be out of date.

 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

Clarence gets totally baked confirmed.

[Jason]

7 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

Clarence gets totally baked confirmed.

 

No wonder he's always falling asleep during oral arguments.

[silentbob]

8 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

No wonder he's always falling asleep during oral arguments.

Must be his edible kicking in.

[mclumber1]

22 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

Clarence gets totally baked confirmed.

 

He THINKS he is asking questions during oral arguments, but in reality he is literally just thinking he is asking questions, because he is high AF. 

[SoberChef]

OK, love & appreciate all the jokes of course, but considering who the individual is stating such an obvious fact, hopefully this will get the ball rolling further to amend, reform, or just outright change/dissolve the current federal laws governing all things marijuana based. 

 

We are have roughly 2/5ths of this country's states enacting recreational use & legalization. Granted, most are "blue" states but I wouldn't be surprised if many "red" states don't have serious debates as to changing their sentiment on the topic at hand either. Furthermore, 37 states have at least medical use allowed. We as a nation need to take a long hard look at the prospect of fully federally backed legalization to then coopt farmers to grow, further dive into scientific research for any & all medical properties inherent with this plant, and also allow those businesses that operate in the recreational states to be allowed the opportunity to utilize banks for payroll, profits, investments, etc. 

[SoberChef]

Also, one other thing, if the government can finally step in, then perhaps they can also curtail the issue at hand where many of the states that already have recreational dispensaries, are almost exclusively monopolistic in nature. A wider free market for all, not just those in a position of economic power reaping the rewards & benefits solely. 

[Jason]

7 minutes ago, SoberChef said:

then perhaps they can also curtail the issue at hand where many of the states that already have recreational dispensaries, are almost exclusively monopolistic in nature

 

This isn't going to be different than alcohol legalization, and I know Virginia and I think Utah have state monopolies on hard liquor sales.

[Jason]

[Jason]

And NJ isn't technically a monopoly state but ho boy the liquor laws in NJ...NY has lots of bizarre liquor laws too, despite the overall liberalness of the NYC liquor laws, and PA had that law about having to buy a case a time until recently.