Supreme Court Justice Criticizes US Marijuana Policy, Is Legalization Next?

Clarence Thomas, a Conservative Supreme Court Justice, may have just dropped the mother of all bombs on the federal government for its “half in, half out” federal marijuana policy. As reported by NBC News, Thomas is not a fan of the federal government’s marijuana policies, writing:

“A ban on the interstate use or cultivation of marijuana may no longer be necessary or appropriate to support the federal government’s piecemeal approach. Federal politics for the past 16 years has severely undermined their reasoning, ”he said. “The federal government’s current approach is a half-in-half-out regime that both tolerates and prohibits the local use of marijuana.”

Judge Thomas wrote his after the court dismissed the appeal of a Colorado medical marijuana dispensary that was denied federal tax breaks that other businesses are allowed. This case was a challenge to the 280E IRS tax laws, not a challenge to federal marijuana legalization.

Judge Thomas said the 2005 Supreme Court ruling that upheld federal laws making marijuana possession illegal may now be out of date.

Thomas also wrote: “Under this rule, a company that is still in the red after paying its workers and leaving the lights on could still owe a substantial federal income tax. The ‘willingness of the federal government to turn a blind eye to marijuana is more’ episodically so coherent, “said Thomas.

The judiciary’s announcement comes from the tailwind of recent legalization advances in New York and New Jersey and efforts by Democrats to reform the current drug law comprehensively.

David Rabinovitz, noted marijuana expert and advisor, says, “What Thomas seems to be saying is that the federal disagreements are so serious that your conduct may have undermined the law. There is a clear discrepancy between what politicians say and what federal researchers, government research have repeatedly found that marijuana is not dangerous. In 1978, the FDA tacitly established the Compassionate Investigational New Drug Program to deliver U.S. government-made joints to patients, despite the government claiming marijuana had no recognized medical use, high potential for abuse, and lack of recognized safety for use among medical professionals At sight. In 1988, DEA administrative judge Francis Young found marijuana to be “one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man” and justified its Appendix 1 classification as “unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious.” The courts may need to legalize it soon to be faced with numerous government disagreements, and just as the government cannot change the laws of gravity, J. Thomas appears to be suggesting that the abolition of marijuana demonization, with government approval, is so advanced that the law can no longer to be valid.”

Take these factors into account:

• In 1925, the US Army (like the British occupying forces in India in the 1890s) was concerned that US soldiers in the Panama Canal Zone were relaxing by smoking marijuana. After a comprehensive study, the Army found that there was no evidence that marijuana “has any adverse effect on the people who use it.” Reports of soldiers freaking out after smoking the drug “do seem to have little basis … [marijuana] causes madness. “

• The British report was commissioned in 1893, completed in 1894, required 8 volumes and stated that “the moderate use of hemp drugs is practically not associated with any bad results”.

• At the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act hearings, Dr. William Woodward, legal advisor to the American Medical Association, states that cannabis is hardly the scourge Anslinger claims to be. Michigan Rep. John Dingell Sr. said, “We know it is a habit that is especially prevalent among teenagers … the number of victims is increasing every year,” to which Woodward admonished, “There is no evidence of this.” Dingell suggested, “The medical profession should do what they can to help suppress this curse that is eating up the livelihoods of the nation,” Woodward replied in amazement, “Is that you?” When the House of Representatives five weeks later for approval of the Agree with the MJ Tax Act, someone asked, “Has anyone consulted the AMA and got their opinion?” Rep. Fred Vinson: “Yes, we did. A Dr. Wharton and the AMA are completely in agreement. “

• In 1939, Dr. Walter Bromberg, the chief psychiatrist at Bellevue, NYC, did not reconcile what he read in the papers about marijuana with what he saw in the hospital. This led to a psychiatric study on marijuana in the Journal of the American Medical Association. Bromberg checked hospital records of 2,216 criminals familiar with marijuana and concluded that “marijuana is not addictive to opium and other drugs.”

• New York City Mayor Fiorello La Guardia was approached by mothers who were concerned that marijuana cigarettes were being sold to young children in schoolyards. La Guardia reached out to the New York Academy of Medicine, and for the next 5 years NYAM conducted the most comprehensive review of marijuana since the Indian Hemp Drug Commission in 1894. They found that peddlers in the schoolyard were selling loose cigarettes, not joints, and in 1944 they concluded that:

“No positive correlation could be established between violent crime and marijuana consumption.”

“No cases of murder or sex crimes related to marijuana have been recorded.”

The subjects were given the drug in a variety of situations

The results proved the opposite of Anslinger’s claims; Marijuana has softened criminals

The results of the 1944 La Guardia report included:

u Findings:

u Smoking marijuana is not addictive

u use was not widespread in children

u Marijuana does not lead to the consumption of morphine, cocaine or heroin

u Does not cause juvenile delinquency

u Does not cause any crime

u Anslinger was enraged to announce that “anyone who conducts marijuana research unapproved by the Federal Narcotics Bureau will be arrested and brought to trial on federal charges,” prompting the La Guardia report to be quietly forgotten

On May 19, 1969, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 was unconstitutional. The newly elected President Nixon responded with the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, which contains Title II: Controlled Substances Act (CSA). Marijuana was put on Schedule 1 alongside heroin and LSD:

List I drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as having drugs no currently accepted medical use, high potential for abuse, and Lack of recognized safety for use under medical supervision

To put the final nail in the coffin, Nixon appointed former Pennsylvania Governor Raymond Shafer to head a commission to confirm the drug’s dangerousness. The Shafer Commission began on March 22, 1971 and concluded the following year after an extensive study of 73 full-time and part-time employees holding hearings across the country and participating in over 50 projects and studies. The 1,184-page report was received with similar fanfare as the Mueller report in 20XX. The Shafer report exposed 40 years of federal claims. In 1972, 50% of the public believed that one could die from a marijuana overdose. The Shafer Commission could not find an instance.

o “Emphasize the fact that the overwhelming majority of marijuana users do not switch to other drugs.”

o If a drug can be described as an entry point, “it is tobacco, closely followed by alcohol”.

o “Marijuana is not a harmless drug, (but its use) does not pose a major threat to public health.”

o Intermittent use of cannabis “poses minimal public health risk”.

o The Commission concluded that marijuana should not simply be rescheduled; it should be decriminalized. Ban didn’t work.

The commission recommended (quote below in the picture). Nixon denied the report, and Shafer never received his Bundesbank appointment.

1971: UCLA ophthalmologist conducts marijuana research on pupil dilation

Objective: Make it easier for police officers to spot pot smokers

Results: Pot consumption lowers intraocular pressure – a major symptom of glaucoma

Is suing federal agencies for the right to use marijuana to treat glaucoma

1978: Randall wins!

FDA Establishes Compassionate Investigational New Drug Program to Supply U.S. Government Joints

In 1964, two researchers discovered that Rastafari had abnormally low rates of glaucoma and local fishermen rinsed their eyes with cannabis extract, believing that it would improve their eyesight.

What does that mean?

The good news is that Clarence Thomas is a Conservative Supreme Court Justice, so his mind is on marijuana matters, and as he is fleeing the federal government’s “legal but not legal” route to cannabis, this is good news for Pros -Cannabis advocates. Thomas is actually considered by many to be the most conservative Supreme Court Justice. So when he tells the federal government that they are “half-done” with this approach, fewer conservation judges are likely to think the same.

Does that mean the Supreme Court just legalized weed or is about to? No, the courts interpret the law, they don’t. So a case in which the federal classification of the cannabis plant as a List 1 drug is challenged would have to be heard by the Supreme Court. It’s easy, isn’t it? Not so quickly have many people tried to sue the government over the classification of cannabis, and while judges have said nice things about these people and said they know something, the Supreme Court has so far declined to hear such a case. The signal from the Supreme Court today is that if a case were to be brought to its court, at least one Conservative judge, Clarence Thomas, appears to be signaling that government policies are not “really coherent and not half-in-half.” can out ”with the changing federal law and the current state laws.

THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE FOR WEED, READ MORE …

THE MEXICAN SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE SHOOTS THE MARJIUANA BAN!

OR..

FLORIDA SUPREME COURT SHOOTING LEGALIZATION OF MARIJUANA, WHAT?