Misplaced Pages

#371628

66-540: Although the Adult Use of Marijuana Act legalized cannabis in California , the proposition prohibited the use of cannabis in public places, in addition to hotels, rentals and vehicles. The West Hollywood City Council determined in 2017 that access to "safe spaces" for consuming cannabis was a social equity issue and also decided to allow places for cannabis tourists . City ordinances restrict public consumption. In May 2018,

132-512: A case in which he upheld the law even if he deplored the policy. In Congress, to counter the effect of this ruling, Representative Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) and Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) annually introduced legislation to stop the Department of Justice from arresting and prosecuting medical cannabis patients. This effort succeeded for the first time as the Rohrabacher–Farr amendment to

198-416: A federal crime to grow small amounts of marijuana in one’s own home for one’s own medicinal use. This overreaching stifles an express choice by some States, concerned for the lives and liberties of their people, to regulate medical marijuana differently. If I were a California citizen, I would not have voted for the medical marijuana ballot initiative; if I were a California legislator I would not have supported

264-751: A licensed physician to alleviate excruciating pain and human suffering. In 2009, the Department of Justice under Attorney General Eric Holder issued new guidelines allowing for no longer enforcing of the federal ban in some situations: It will not be a priority to use federal resources to prosecute patients with serious illnesses or their caregivers who are complying with state laws on medical marijuana, but we will not tolerate drug traffickers who hide behind claims of compliance with state law to mask activities that are clearly illegal. When C-SPAN 's Brian Lamb interviewed former Justice John Paul Stevens about Stevens' book, Five Chiefs , Stevens cited Gonzales as

330-605: A platform for a fully transparent, highly efficient seed-to-sale tracking system through the newly created State Regulatory Agency—the Bureau of Marijuana Control—formerly known as the Bureau of Medical Cannabis Regulation. Additionally, the Medical Marijuana Industry will be regulated by several other state agencies: the California Department of Food and Agriculture (to license and regulate marijuana cultivation);

396-657: A reference to Justice Louis Brandeis 's dissenting opinion in New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann : We enforce the "outer limits" of Congress' Commerce Clause authority not for their own sake, but to protect historic spheres of state sovereignty from excessive federal encroachment and thereby to maintain the distribution of power fundamental to our federalist system of government. United States v. Lopez, 514 U. S. 549, 557 (1995); NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U. S. 1, 37 (1937). One of federalism's chief virtues, of course,

462-647: A restaurant and lounge hybrid. In July 2019, the West Hollywood Business License Commission had approved a cannabis consumption license to "Lowell Farms: A Cannabis Cafe," which became the first cannabis café in the United States. The restaurant is 21+ and does not serve alcoholic beverages. It cannot serve cannabis-infused foods until approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration , but does have pre-packaged edible cannabis available as well as other cannabis products. All items purchased at

528-626: A separate concurrence that had the effect of differentiating the decision from the previous results of United States v. Lopez and United States v. Morrison . In a departure from his Originalist interpretation of the Constitution (he voted for limits on the Commerce Clause in the Lopez and Morrison decisions), Scalia said his understanding of the Necessary and Proper Clause caused him to vote for

594-450: A willingness to do so in the future. More concretely, one concern prompting inclusion of wheat grown for home consumption in the 1938 Act was that rising market prices could draw such wheat into the interstate market, resulting in lower market prices. Wickard, 317 U.S., at 128. The parallel concern making it appropriate to include marijuana grown for home consumption in the CSA is the likelihood that

660-436: Is blind to the wisdom of a future day when the right to use medical marijuana to alleviate excruciating pain may be deemed fundamental. Although that day has not yet dawned, considering that during the last ten years eleven states have legalized the use of medical marijuana, that day may be upon us sooner than expected. Until that day arrives, federal law does not recognize a fundamental right to use medical marijuana prescribed by

726-609: Is inextricably bound up with interstate commerce), then Congress' Article I powers – as expanded by the Necessary and Proper Clause – have no meaningful limits. Whether Congress aims at the possession of drugs, guns, or any number of other items, it may continue to "appropria[te] state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce." [...] If the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout

SECTION 10

#1732869561372

792-729: Is legalized statewide. The Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA) (Proposition 64) provides an array of opportunities ranging from economic stimulation of several markets and industries to financial relief of the criminal justice system, which are over-burdened with backlogged and pending cases for non-violent cannabis offenders. Revenue paid into the new California Marijuana Tax Fund will allocate 60% of outflows to youth programs, 20% to environmental damage clean-up, and 20% to public safety. Under Prop 64, new state regulation laws will require stringent product development systems to establish distributional industry standards regarding testing, packaging, and labeling. Prop 64's new state regulations provide

858-582: Is now reduced from four years in state prison to six months in county jail. Businesses selling marijuana require a license from the state-level Bureau of Marijuana Control, and local governments decide permits for businesses to allow on-site consumption. Marijuana shops are prohibited from the sale or consumption of alcohol or tobacco. Local governments are allowed to completely ban marijuana-related businesses. State financial analysts estimated Proposition 64 could increase tax revenue by hundreds of millions to one billion dollars. Independent analysts estimated

924-533: Is now required to provide the net weight, origin, age, and type of the product, as well as the milligram amount per serving of tetrahydrocannabinol , cannabidiol , and other cannabinoids , and if any pesticides were used during cultivation. Smoking marijuana in public is subject to a $ 100 fine. Driving under the influence of marijuana remains illegal, although some California Highway Patrol officers are concerned that they will be unable to identify intoxicated drivers. The penalty for unlicensed sale of marijuana

990-474: Is overwhelmingly white-owned and white-dominated and provides good access to white customers," he says. "So one possibility is that that leaves the illegal market disproportionately composed of people of color, both the buyers and the sellers. California Proposition 64 helps to remedy marijuana related incarceration rates considerably. However, some argue that the passing of the MORE Act is a necessary next step down

1056-461: Is that it promotes innovation by allowing for the possibility that "a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country." New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U. S. 262, 311 (1932) (Brandeis, J., dissenting). She concluded: Relying on Congress’ abstract assertions, the Court has endorsed making it

1122-415: Is threatened by excruciating pain. California was one of 14 states at the time (36 as of 2021) that allowed medicinal use of cannabis. California's Compassionate Use Act allows limited use of cannabis for medicinal purposes. Raich of Oakland, California , Monson of Oroville, California , and two anonymous caregivers sued the government for injunctive and declaratory relief on October 9, 2002, to stop

1188-620: The American Civil Liberties Union , and Stanford University faculty released the final report of the Blue Ribbon Commission on Marijuana Policy, which recommended regulations for recreational marijuana use in California. On November 4, 2014, California Proposition 47 was passed. Also known as the Safe Neighborhood and Schools Act, Proposition 47 made the punishment for the possession of controlled substances in

1254-597: The California Association of Highway Patrolmen , the California Hospitals Association, and the Automobile Club of Southern California expressed opposition to the initiative. The California Teamsters Union switched their position to neutral after contributing a relatively large amount to the opposition campaign. According to Capital Public Radio , a Sacramento Superior Court judge ordered

1320-742: The California Department of Public Health (to license and monitor manufacturing of marijuana edibles); the California State Water Resources Control Board (to "regulate the environmental impacts of marijuana growing on water quality"); the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (to regulate cultivation-related impacts on local environments); and the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (to regulate nutrients and pesticides utilized for marijuana cultivation). AUMA allows adults to possess up to an ounce of marijuana. Adults are also allowed to cultivate up to six marijuana plants inside their homes. Marijuana packaging

1386-504: The Commerce Clause with Raich for the following reason: Unlike the power to regulate activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce, the power to enact laws enabling effective regulation of interstate commerce can only be exercised in conjunction with congressional regulation of an interstate market, and it extends only to those measures necessary to make the interstate regulation effective. As Lopez itself states, and

SECTION 20

#1732869561372

1452-587: The Controlled Substances Act , establishing marijuana as a Schedule I drug , the strictest level of prohibition. Voters then rejected California Proposition 19 (1972) , which sought to remove the criminalization of marijuana under California law. In 1976, Governor Jerry Brown signed the Moscone Act, which reduced the penalty for possession of marijuana from a felony to a misdemeanor. Voters passed California Proposition 215 (1996) , making California

1518-642: The International Narcotics Control Board issued a statement indicating that the Board "welcomes the decision of the United States Supreme Court, made on 6 June, reaffirming that the cultivation and use of cannabis, even if it is for medical use, should be prohibited." Its president, Hamid Ghodse , noted, "Cannabis is classified under international conventions as a drug with a number of personal and public health problems" and referred to

1584-451: The 50 States. This makes a mockery of Madison's assurance to the people of New York that the "powers delegated" to the Federal Government are "few and defined", while those of the States are "numerous and indefinite." Both Raich and Monson have indicated their intention to continue using cannabis for medical use, in spite of the ruling and federal law on the subject. Two days after the ruling,

1650-545: The CSA, as part of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act, was well within Congress' commerce power. Nor do they contend that any provision or section of the CSA amounts to an unconstitutional exercise of congressional authority. Rather, respondents' challenge is actually quite limited; they argue that the CSA's categorical prohibition of the manufacture and possession of marijuana as applied to

1716-532: The Compassionate Use Act. But whatever the wisdom of California’s experiment with medical marijuana, the federalism principles that have driven our Commerce Clause cases require that room for experiment be protected in this case. Justice Thomas also wrote a separate dissent, stating in part: 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

1782-588: The Court affirms today, Congress may regulate noneconomic intrastate activities only where the failure to do so "could … undercut" its regulation of interstate commerce. ... This is not a power that threatens to obliterate the line between "what is truly national and what is truly local." Justice O'Connor dissented joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist , who authored the majority opinions in United States v. Lopez and United States v. Morrison . O'Connor began her opinion by citing Lopez, which she followed with

1848-629: The House Nancy Pelosi endorsed it a few days before the election, becoming "one of the highest ranking politicians ... openly supporting legalization". Proponents spent $ 24.7 million fighting for the measure, with the top contribution being $ 8.8 million from Sean Parker and affiliates. The measure was supported by the editorial boards of the Los Angeles Times and the San Francisco Chronicle . A number of organizations like

1914-471: The West Hollywood City Council opened up applications for 16 onsite cannabis consumption licenses, split into two categories; eight licenses for smoking, vaping, edibles and eight licenses for edibles only. It received more than 300 applicants who were critiqued on categories such as innovation and social equity. During the application process, Lowell Herb Co submitted an idea for "Flore Flora",

1980-411: The appellants have demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on their claim that, as applied to them, the Controlled Substances Act is an unconstitutional exercise of Congress' Commerce Clause authority." Partnership for a Drug-Free America , several other antidrug organizations, and an alliance of seven Representatives , including Mark Souder and Katherine Harris , all filed amicus briefs for

2046-917: The ballot's official arguments to be rewritten, after U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein 's claim that Proposition 64 would allow marijuana advertising on primetime television was debunked as "mostly false" by PolitiFact.com . Opponents spent $ 1.6 million fighting the measure. The measure was opposed by the editorial board of The Sacramento Bee . On January 31, 2018, San Francisco District Attorney George Gascón announced his department would begin to retroactively apply Proposition 64 to misdemeanor and felony marijuana convictions dating back to 1975, recalling and re-sentencing up to 4,940 felony marijuana convictions and dismissing and sealing 3,038 misdemeanors. Los Angeles and San Joaquin counties announced in April plans to automatically clear about 54,000 marijuana-related convictions. The national non-profit Code for America developed

Original Cannabis Cafe - Misplaced Pages Continue

2112-573: The cafe must be consumed onsite except for food. The restaurant changed its name to Original Cannabis Cafe in December 2019, also receiving "Surprise of the Year" from Eater Los Angeles' end of year awards. Andrea Drummer is the restaurant's chef and has stated that the menu is "designed to complement the actual cannabis that will be consumed". Original Cannabis Cafe has farm-to-table cuisine that budtenders can pair with farm-to-table cannabis to roll joints at

2178-485: The conservative South , filed a brief supporting Raich, on the grounds of states' rights . The ruling was 6–3 with Justice Stevens writing the opinion of the court, joined by Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Souter and Breyer. A concurring opinion was filed by Justice Scalia. The opinion began by pointing out that the respondents did not dispute that Congress had the power to control or ban cannabis for non-medical uses: Respondents in this case do not dispute that passage of

2244-657: The drug's Schedule I status, under the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs . Soon after the decision in Raich , the Supreme Court vacated a lower court decision in United States v. Stewart and remanded it to the court of appeals for reconsideration in light of Raich . On remand, the Ninth Circuit held that Congress had power under the Commerce Clause to criminalize the possession of homemade machine guns , just as it had

2310-745: The federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), which is Title II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 . Monson and Raich sued, claiming that enforcing federal law against them would violate the Commerce Clause , the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment , the Ninth Amendment , the Tenth Amendment , and the doctrine of medical necessity . Raich's physician stated that without cannabis, Raich

2376-510: The first state to legalize medical cannabis in the United States . In United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative (2001), the Supreme Court of the United States found that California's medical prescription providers were still subject to criminal prosecution. In Gonzales v. Raich (2005), the U.S. Supreme Court found that Congress's interstate commerce clause power allowed it to prohibit an Oroville, California , woman, who

2442-487: The government from interfering with their right to produce and use medical cannabis claiming that the Controlled Substances Act was not constitutional, as applied to their conduct. Raich and Monson were represented by Randy Barnett . Raich claimed she used cannabis to keep herself alive. She and her doctor also claimed to have tried dozens of prescription drugs for her numerous medical conditions and that she

2508-438: The high demand in the interstate market will draw such marijuana into that market. While the diversion of homegrown wheat tended to frustrate the federal interest in stabilizing prices by regulating the volume of commercial transactions in the interstate market, the diversion of homegrown marijuana tends to frustrate the federal interest in eliminating commercial transactions in the interstate market in their entirety. In both cases,

2574-469: The intrastate manufacture and possession of marijuana for medical purposes pursuant to California law exceeds Congress' authority under the Commerce Clause. Banning the growing of cannabis for medical use, the Court reasoned, was a permissible way of preventing or limiting access to cannabis for other uses: Even respondents acknowledge the existence of an illicit market in marijuana; indeed, Raich has personally participated in that market, and Monson expresses

2640-535: The landmark New Deal case Wickard v. Filburn , which held that the government may regulate personal cultivation and consumption of crops because of the aggregate effect of individual consumption on the government's legitimate statutory framework governing the interstate wheat market. On December 16, 2003, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted a preliminary injunction to prevent the federal government from interfering with Raich and Monson: "We find that

2706-513: The measure "a clear leader and the most likely to reach the ballot in November 2016". The Los Angeles Times stated in February, 2016 that the measure was one of 20 legalization initiatives for the 2016 ballot and was the "clear favorite to make the November ballot" due to support from individual donors and well-funded advocacy groups. Billionaire Sean Parker donated $ 1 million to the effort to get

Original Cannabis Cafe - Misplaced Pages Continue

2772-435: The measure changes California law to legalize the possession, cultivation, and sale of marijuana. Individuals over age 21 are allowed to possess, cultivate, and sell marijuana; the state regulates commercial activities related to commerce for recreational use; a 15% excise tax and an additional $ 9.25 per ounce of flower or $ 2.75 per ounce of leaf will be collected; and possession and cultivation of certain amounts for personal use

2838-476: The measure on the ballot, and Weedmaps donated $ 500,000. Newsweek stated the success of the initiative would be influential given California's national importance as a "regulatory laboratory", and Reason magazine stated it was poised to approximately triple the number of U.S. residents living in states with legalization. Deseret News (Salt Lake City) expressed concern over a "potential problem when it comes to minorities and recreational marijuana" if

2904-404: The measure passed. Deseret News cited an NPR report from Colorado to conclude that in California, white youth arrests could fall faster than those of minorities, or minority arrests could even increase due to lack of minority access to legal sales and nonwhite ownership of cannabis businesses, worsening the effect of "systemic racism" in pursuing drug crime. The emerging legal marijuana industry

2970-467: The measure would reduce state and local government expenditures by tens of millions of dollars. California NORML endorsed the initiative as of March 2016, saying "as well as one of the world's largest economies, California is arguably the most important state to consider marijuana legalization this year." California has the biggest legal cannabis market in the United States due to high population density and high cultivation rates. Ballotpedia called

3036-482: The mere possession of a good or some personal activity that did not involve trade or exchange for value. In the early days of the Republic, it would have been unthinkable that Congress could prohibit the local cultivation, possession, and consumption of marijuana. [...] If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption (not because it is interstate commerce, but because it

3102-403: 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. Respondent's local cultivation and consumption of marijuana is not "Commerce ... among the several States." [...] Certainly no evidence from the founding suggests that "commerce" included

3168-558: The omnibus federal spending bill for the 2015 fiscal year (section 538), which was enacted on December 16, 2014. In 2021, Justice Thomas revisited Gonzales in a statement in Standing Akimbo, LLC v. United States . The case was brought by a Denver, Colorado dispensary by Thorburn Law Group, LLC with respect to 280E. He noted that the reasoning in Gonzales was predicated upon the need to prohibit intrastate trafficking of cannabis to "avoid

3234-406: The passing of this law. Those with prior convictions must still petition for shorter sentences, release, or a change from felony to misdemeanor on their records. The MORE Act calls for a more transparent system in regards to cannabis companies employer/employee demographics which might help to mitigate issues of monopolization within California's cannabis industry that arouse after proposition 64

3300-470: The path of decriminalization of the substance, as it would remove cannabis from the controlled substances list and declassify marijuana as a schedule 1 drug. The MORE Act could potentially help to remedy some of the racial disparities within America's criminal justice system that proposition 64 does not address. According to Forbes roughly 40000 remain behind bars due to cannabis related charges as of 2020. With

3366-407: The power to criminalize homegrown cannabis. In 2007, the Ninth Circuit decided against Raich, when she renewed her litigation on substantive due process grounds. Judge Harry Pregerson , the author of the opinion, noted that a minority of states had legalized medical cannabis but that under federal law, it is not a recognized "fundamental right" under the due process clause: For now, federal law

SECTION 50

#1732869561372

3432-468: The proposal; enough to get it on the 2016 ballot. On June 28, the measure was certified by the Secretary of State for the November ballot. On July 1, the Secretary of State released a list of propositions with AUMA listed as Proposition 64, then later in the day renumbered it to 63; and, on July 2, released a final list restoring it to Proposition 64. According to California Legislative Analyst's Office ,

3498-464: The racial gap widening over the past 20 years after the War On Drugs campaign took off, a jump from 3:1 to 5:1 between Black and White incarceration rates occurred. In 2014, black people made up roughly 14% of the 127,000 drug charges in California. While Proposition 64 decriminalizes the possession of up to 1 ounce of marijuana, the effects are not immediately felt by those with charges made prior to

3564-424: The regulation is squarely within Congress' commerce power because production of the commodity meant for home consumption, be it wheat or marijuana, has a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market for that commodity. The relevant precedents for the Court's analysis are Wickard v. Filburn (1942), United States v. Lopez (1995), and United States v. Morrison (2000). Justice Scalia wrote

3630-796: The side of federal government. An environmentalist group, Community Rights Council , also filed a brief for the government for fear that limitation of federal power would undermine its agenda. The Cato Institute , Institute for Justice , many libertarian organizations, and the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws , along with other groups opposing the War on Drugs , filed briefs for Raich and Monson. The governments of California , Maryland , and Washington also filed briefs supporting Raich. The attorneys general of Alabama , Louisiana , and Mississippi , three strongly antidrug states from

3696-424: The state of California drop down from a felony to misdemeanor. This law's reclassification of possession related felonies as misdemeanors made it possible for those priorly convicted to petition their felony charges which for some means shorter sentences and others less restrictive charges on their record. On May 4, 2016, the group sponsoring the initiative announced that it had collected over 600,000 signatures for

3762-443: The table. The opening menu includes entrées such as "grilled peaches and burrata, a fried chicken sandwich and white bean hummus with crudités" with desserts such as "peanut butter cookies, sweet potato beignets and crème brûlée." The cafe partnered with community activist Renee Nahum to develop a "concept that would be a first-class representation of the ethos and social consciousness in the community of West Hollywood." Its tilework

3828-624: The technology and process to automate the dismissing and sealing of these records, which they first piloted with the San Francisco District Attorney's office, and subsequently extended to Los Angeles, San Joaquin, and Sacramento counties. In 2019, Code for America released an open source playbook and software that made every California county able to dismiss and seal records eligible for expungement under Prop 64 automatically, in bulk. Gonzales v. Raich Gonzales v. Raich (previously Ashcroft v. Raich ), 545 U.S. 1 (2005),

3894-535: The use of cannabis since the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 was enacted. Defendant Angel Raich used homegrown medical cannabis, which was legal under California law but illegal under federal law. On August 15, 2002, Butte County Sheriff's Department officers and agents from the federal Drug Enforcement Administration destroyed all six of California resident Diane Monson's cannabis plants, facing light resistance. The cannabis plants were illegal Schedule I drugs under

3960-477: Was a 2016 voter initiative to legalize cannabis in California . The full name is the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act . The initiative passed with 57% voter approval and became law on November 9, 2016, leading to recreational cannabis sales in California by January 2018. Possession or sale of cannabis in the United States is prohibited by federal law. In 1970, President Richard Nixon signed

4026-399: Was a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that, under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution , Congress may criminalize the production and use of homegrown cannabis even if state law allows its use for medicinal purposes . California voters passed Proposition 215 in 1996, legalizing the use of medical cannabis . The Federal government of the United States has limited

SECTION 60

#1732869561372

4092-524: Was allergic to most of them. Her doctor declared under oath that Raich's life was at stake if she could not continue to use cannabis. Monson suffered from chronic pain from a car accident a decade before the case. She used cannabis to relieve the pain and muscle spasms around her spine. The Controlled Substances Act does not recognize the medical use of cannabis. Agents from the federal Drug Enforcement Administration were assigned to break up California's medical cannabis co-ops and to seize their assets. That

4158-885: Was following California law, from growing and consuming marijuana entirely inside her home. In September 2010, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed legislation reducing possession of marijuana from a criminal misdemeanor to a civil infraction. In November voters rejected California Proposition 19 (2010) , which would have legalized recreational marijuana use, imposed no state taxes, and allowed employers to fire an employee for workplace use of marijuana only after showing it had caused impaired work. In 2012, voters passed Washington Initiative 502 and Colorado Amendment 64 , which legalized recreational marijuana use in those states. Two other states followed later in 2014, when voters passed Oregon Ballot Measure 91 (2014) and Alaska Measure 2 (2014) . In July 2015, Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom ,

4224-448: Was imported from Spain and Morocco. The restaurant cost $ 3 million to open and seats 220 people with an air filtration system and live hanging plants inside and outside for the smoke. Adult Use of Marijuana Act For Against Mayoral elections: Mayoral elections: Mayoral elections: Mayoral elections: Mayoral elections: Mayoral elections: The Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA) ( Proposition 64 )

4290-659: Was passed in 2016. The California Medical Association endorsed the measure in February 2016. United States Representative Dana Rohrabacher , a Republican, endorsed AUMA in late April 2016. Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders indicated his support for AUMA while campaigning in California in May 2016. The California Democratic Party endorsed AUMA in June 2016. On July 21, 2016, The Sacramento Bee reported that Gov. Gary Johnson , Libertarian candidate for President, endorsed California's initiative to legalize marijuana. Former Speaker of

4356-542: Was the result of the fact that federal law pre-empted, under the Supremacy Clause , the law of California. The government argued that if a single exception were made to the Controlled Substances Act, it would become unenforceable in practice. The government also contended that consuming one's locally grown cannabis for medical purposes affects the interstate market of cannabis and the federal government may thus regulate and prohibit such consumption. That argument stems from

#371628