Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US appeals court declares 158-year-old home distilling ban unconstitutional

nypost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 369 posts

Re: US appeals court declares 158-year-old home distilling ban unconstitutional

#111

Post by hackeraccount »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #64
Joker_vD wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, this line is quite funny on its own because while understand what she actually meant, it can be very easily reinterpreted as "only actions committed out-of-home should be crimes; murdered someone in your home? welp, our hands are tied, have a nice day".

I think the point is that murder is handled by the states, not Congress. This is about what the federal government can do, not all government.

This is the question I'd love to see asked to people running for President. Name something you think the States can do that the Federal government is prohibited from doing.

Re: US appeals court declares 158-year-old home distilling ban unconstitutional

#112

Post by randallsquared »

kjkjadksj wrote: post #78
dylan604 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem is if you say the government can’t regulate MJ, then all drug regulations fall apart. No, that's not what's being said. If you grow your own plant for personal use, there's no need for the federal government to be involved. If you grow that plant and then try to sell it, then there's some commerce which does fall under some regulation (we'll leave the interstate nuances aside). Having the fed being allo…

And before people say you are being hyperbolic, the government still regulates sex positions. Sodomy is illegal in 12 US states.

Not the federal government, however.

There are specific prohibitions on certain categories of state laws, like granting titles of nobility, creating non-gold/silver currencies, etc. The federal government cannot constitutionally regulate sex positions, because anything not explicitly covered in the Constitution is reserved to the states, or the people. In that broad grant, however, the states individually can make or avoid making law on any topic.

As others have mentioned, the Supreme Court has frequently worked around the Constitution for reasons that made sense to them at the time, including the original ruling that this one overturns.

Re: US appeals court declares 158-year-old home distilling ban unconstitutional

#113

Post by FuriouslyAdrift »

realo wrote: post #61
dmitrygr wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re probably right, though I dread the possibility. I cannot stand the smell, and one of the best things about moving from California to Texas was avoiding that pervasive smell being everywhere. Negative externalities of personal behavior really need to be handled better in our society. If you want pot to be legal, fine, but only inside your own personal enclosed house.

THC is perfectly legal here (Quebec, Canada) and believe me, there is no smell on the streets! What is actually disgusting and happens often in the streets is the smell of ordinary cigarette smoke.

It's not legal where I am at all and I get hotboxed on my morning drive to work every day...

Re: US appeals court declares 158-year-old home distilling ban unconstitutional

#114

Post by john01dav »

bsimpson wrote: post #13

Do this one next: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich The Supreme Court somehow held that the feds can regulate what you do in your own home (in this case, growing marijuana for personal use) because it could have a butterfly effect on the interstate price. (Constitutionally, the feds can only regulate _interstate_ commerce.)

I suspect that if that ruling was made, then many other drugs being made at home for personal use might become legalized, at least unless states decide to go and ban it too. Note that I am not taking a position here on if that's desirable.

Re: US appeals court declares 158-year-old home distilling ban unconstitutional

#115

Post by declan_roberts »

realo wrote: post #61
dmitrygr wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re probably right, though I dread the possibility. I cannot stand the smell, and one of the best things about moving from California to Texas was avoiding that pervasive smell being everywhere. Negative externalities of personal behavior really need to be handled better in our society. If you want pot to be legal, fine, but only inside your own personal enclosed house.

THC is perfectly legal here (Quebec, Canada) and believe me, there is no smell on the streets! What is actually disgusting and happens often in the streets is the smell of ordinary cigarette smoke.

It's legal in many states here. In SF it's absolutely everywhere and disgusting. Austin smells like tobacco and it's much better to my nose.

Re: US appeals court declares 158-year-old home distilling ban unconstitutional

#116

Post by declan_roberts »

FuriouslyAdrift wrote: post #113
realo wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

THC is perfectly legal here (Quebec, Canada) and believe me, there is no smell on the streets! What is actually disgusting and happens often in the streets is the smell of ordinary cigarette smoke.

It's not legal where I am at all and I get hotboxed on my morning drive to work every day...

The fact that so many people think it's fine to get high and drive is baffling to me.

Re: US appeals court declares 158-year-old home distilling ban unconstitutional

#117

Post by Tangurena2 »

bsimpson wrote: post #13

Do this one next: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich The Supreme Court somehow held that the feds can regulate what you do in your own home (in this case, growing marijuana for personal use) because it could have a butterfly effect on the interstate price. (Constitutionally, the feds can only regulate _interstate_ commerce.)

Many American treaties (with other nations) prohibit both/either parties from decriminalizing marijuana among other drugs.

Links:

discusses some of the treaties:

https://www2.nycbar.org/pdf/InternationalDrugControlTreaties...

History of illegalization of pot:

https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R44782

Re: US appeals court declares 158-year-old home distilling ban unconstitutional

#118

Post by thaumasiotes »

pdonis wrote: post #58
bsimpson wrote: post #13

Do this one next: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich The Supreme Court somehow held that the feds can regulate what you do in your own home (in this case, growing marijuana for personal use) because it could have a butterfly effect on the interstate price. (Constitutionally, the feds can only regulate _interstate_ commerce.)

In Wickard v. Filburn, back in 1942, they said the same thing for wheat .

You say that like interstate commerce regulation was more egregious for wheat than it was for marijuana.

But Raich is significantly more egregious: the theory on which the government won Wickard v. Filburn, that private consumption of wheat could affect the interstate market for wheat, doesn't even apply, because there can be no interstate market in a substance that is illegal to trade.

Re: US appeals court declares 158-year-old home distilling ban unconstitutional

#119

Post by andrewmg »

Reposting my comment from the last thread:

For those wondering, the opinion[0] doesn't address the Commerce Clause power (and Wickard and Raich) becaue the government abandoned that argument. See footnote 5.

The Commerce Clause issue is raised in our other case[1] that's now pending before the Sixth Circuit.

(I argued both cases.)

[0] https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/24/24-10760-CV0.pd...

[1] https://www.buckeyeinstitute.org/issues/detail/ream-v-us-dep...

Re: US appeals court declares 158-year-old home distilling ban unconstitutional

#120

Post by bsimpson »

Tangurena2 wrote: post #117
bsimpson wrote: post #13

Do this one next: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich The Supreme Court somehow held that the feds can regulate what you do in your own home (in this case, growing marijuana for personal use) because it could have a butterfly effect on the interstate price. (Constitutionally, the feds can only regulate _interstate_ commerce.)

Many American treaties (with other nations) prohibit both/either parties from decriminalizing marijuana among other drugs. Links: discusses some of the treaties: https://www2.nycbar.org/pdf/InternationalDrugControlTreaties... History of illegalization of pot: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R44782

It's not about decriminalizing marijuana - it's about the absurd assertion that the federal government can regulate what you do personally because "yadda yadda yadda…interstate commerce!"
Post reply on HN