House Committee Will Vote on Federal Marijuana Legalization Bill Next Week

Just to add some context to this, this expansive interpretation of the Commerce Clause really began with Wickard v. Filburn (1942) [1], more often just called Filburn.

The essence of this decision was Federal policy in the Great Depression was to control wheat production to stop overproduction and the below-cost prices that resulted. The court decided that a farmer growing wheat for his own use was still within the jurisdiction of the commerce clause as that production would result in that farmer not purchasing wheat. That wheat that wasn't purchased would in turn affect interstates wheat sales and thus fell under the Commerce Clause.

To me, this is a ridiculous example of judicial overreach as it basically covers everything and in an ideal world SCOTUS would overturn that precedent.

So the Gonzalez decision just continues that earlier interpretation and gives the Federal government sweeping powers for what reasonable people might otherwise agree are state issues.

Interestingly, I just looked up the Gonzalez decision [2] and I think I've found possibly the only Thomas opinion I've ever agreed with. He dissents:

> Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything—and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.

Somewhat surprising (at least to me), Scalia concurred with the majority opinion although wrote separate reasoning for it.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

You know the court messed up real bad when Justice Thomas is the voice of reason.

The majority opinion seems to come down to "drugs are bad, anything that stops them is good", which is not how the law is supposed to work.

This wiki-article specifically mentions that the legal doctrine which allows interstate commerce clause to apply here stems from this 1942 precedence, where someone's growing of wheat locally for only his own farm animals was considered participation in interstate commerce (!): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

Not defending it, but it has legal precedent going back much farther. Still an abomination.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

Is that any more egregious than https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

Didn't Wickard v. Filburn set this precedent? Growing feed for animals on your own farm shouldn't affect interstate commerce significantly either, but it became the precedent.

I try to see these corporate politics more as a thermometer of society. If a huge corporation is willing to throw marketing or lobbying behind your cause, it means it has reached high enough acceptance in society. And that acceptance definitely only came about because of those decades of effort by social movements

So it's a good sign, isn't it? Even though I understand it might taste bittersweet.

I don't think its cynical at all. It is basically how most of the US policy is being done. It certainly helps that average US household doesn't care about MJ anymore, which allows Amazon not spend PR time on ensuring the populace that their widgets are gathered by non-high individuals.

But yeah, the worker 'shortage' forced the biggest companies to rethink their policies and they do happen to spend a lot in Washington.

Money talks...

Would you prefer that a party never change its views over time? Because I doubt that standard would work out for modern morality if it were applied across the spectrum.

It's posturing for the 2022 midterms. The Dems want to be able to point to the Repubs stalling on MJ legalization. The Repubs want to point to the Dems wanting to take away everyone's guns and kill everybody's babies. I think it's utterly ridiculous but, these parties spend millions of dollars on elections analysis and I'm assuming they're not blowing their money, so I must conclude these tactics work.

It is still indication of a trend.

Many states have legalized MJ this way or another, and there was no tsunami of bad consequences, so even the federal politicians start to be moderately brave.

Also, legal stuff can be taxed and this is one tax that even GOP won't hate.

I chuckled. About 5 years ago I remember listening to an interview and there was an interesting collage of various students' responses as to why they are smoking marijuana if they know it will limit their chances in the work market. One surprisingly direct answer was, and I am paraphrasing: 'heh, if they don't want to have anyone to work, that is their choice'.

Amazon probably doesn't actually want national legalization. That would mean their perk of no drug testing isn't worth as much. The whole point of this stance is that it helps their recruitment machine, not because they actually care about marijuana usage.