Stardate 20010605.2325 (On Screen): I read about the
Supreme Court decision regarding medical use of Marijuana, and I was then and still am curious about something. The Supreme Court did not render a constitutional decision; it was interpreting Federal law, and it concluded that Federal Law did not contain or justify any exception for medical use of Marijuana. I suspect that's correct.
What I never saw was a question of jurisdiction. The Constitution gives the US Government jurisdiction over "interstate trade", and in general this means that pretty much anything which crosses a state border is subject to US law. But within certain limits, what happens inside a state is subject to state law only. For example, if I were to shoot my neighbor, I'd be prosecuted by the State of California, not by the U.S. Government.
Nevada is not generally regarded as a major state for agriculture. But it has now legalized the use of Cannabis for medical purposes. If Nevada were to import its Marijuana from California (or Columbia) then the Feds would have jurisdiction and would be well within their rights to enforce federal laws against Marijuana. But if someone set up a greenhouse just outside Reno, and grew their weed there, and it was then distributed within the state without ever crossing a border, just how exactly would the Feds have any rights in the case? (discuss)
