"And as has already been pointed out - but bears repeating - a ban does not regulate but on the contrary removes the substance from the possibility of effective regulation."

The Commerce Clause gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.”

President Jefferson used this power to prohibit trade with foreign nations (Jefferson's Embargo of 1807) and to prohibit the sale of alcohol to the Indian tribes (Trade and Intercourse Act of 1802).

Keep in mind that James Madison -- the author of the Commerce Clause -- was Jefferson's Secretary of State and surely would have advised his President that "to regulate" did not include "to prohibit". But he didn't.

But you're saying that "to regulate" -- used once in the clause to apply to all three areas -- means something totally different when it comes to the states?

The Toxic Substances Control Act

[...]

Marijuana-related deaths

Move those goalposts.

"a ban does not regulate but on the contrary removes the substance from the possibility of effective regulation."

James Madison -- the author of the Commerce Clause -- was Jefferson's Secretary of State and surely would have advised his President that "to regulate" did not include "to prohibit". But he didn't.

The point is not whether the authority to regulate includes the authority to prohibit, but whether prohibition advances or retards the goals that typically motivate regulation.

I guarantee you that if honestly studied, we would discover that any direct inhalation of any burnt leaves directly into the lungs increases death risk and reduces longevity by about the same proportion, due to soot and lung damage.

You forget one thing. One joint can be for few people and effects can last for hours. On the other hand a heavy cigarette smoker can have 2 packs a day - 40 cigarettes together.

So it could be 100x difference in inhaling smoke.

Ballot measures could potentially legalize recreational use in varying degrees in California, Nevada, Massachusetts, Arizona, and Nevada — and although they aren’t all expected to pass, the segment of the population arguing against legalization shrinks seemingly by the month.

According to the link, the measures are leading everywhere but Arizona. And Trump and Clinton each say it's an issue for the states.

"The point is not whether the authority to regulate includes the authority to prohibit, but whether prohibition advances or retards the goals that typically motivate regulation."

My bad. I thought your argument was that a ban does not regulate. Oh, wait. Your argument was a ban does not regulate. Now it's about motivation.

''Congress can certainly regulate interstate commerce to the extent of forbidding and punishing the use of such commerce as an agency to promote immorality, dishonesty, or the spread of any evil or harm to the people of other States from the State of origin.''
-- Chief Justice Taft, Brooks v. United States

"it's an issue for the states."

If so, then who's responsible for keeping marijuana in the states?

"So it could be 100x difference in inhaling smoke."

-- Street marijuana can contain unknown impurities.
-- Marijuana contains twice the carcinogens and four times the tar as cigarettes
-- Joints vary in size, so you can't compare them apples-to-apples with cigarettes.
-- Joints are smoked unfiltered
-- Users draw marijuana smoke deep into the lungs and hold it
-- Joints are smoked down to the last tar-and-carcinogen-soaked millimeter

Meaning, all this factors into any comparison to tobacco.

ConservingFreedom (#65) ---- "And as has already been pointed out - but bears repeating - a ban does not regulate but on the contrary removes the substance from the possibility of effective regulation."

The Commerce Clause gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.”

President Jefferson used this power to prohibit trade with foreign nations (Jefferson's Embargo of 1807) and to prohibit the sale of alcohol to the Indian tribes (Trade and Intercourse Act of 1802). ------- But you're saying that "to regulate" -- used once in the clause to apply to all three areas -- means something totally different when it comes to the states? ---- misterwhite

''Congress can certainly regulate interstate commerce to the extent of forbidding and punishing the use of such commerce as an agency to promote immorality, dishonesty, or the spread of any evil or harm to the people of other States from the State of origin.'' -- Chief Justice Taft, Brooks v. United States ----- misterwhite posted

President Jefferson used the commerce power to prohibit trade with BELLIGERENT foreign nations (Jefferson's Embargo of 1807) and to prohibit the sale of alcohol to the BELLIGERENT Indian tribes (Trade and Intercourse Act of 1802). -----

-- I'm saying "to regulate" -- used in the clause to apply to belligerent entities, (foreign or domestic), is something totally different when it comes to the states. ---- The people of our States are not evil, (despite the OPINION of Justice Taft) and are protected by the provisions of the 14th Amendment.

"The point is not whether the authority to regulate includes the authority to prohibit, but whether prohibition advances or retards the goals that typically motivate regulation."

My bad. I thought your argument was that a ban does not regulate.

If you thought that, why did and do you respond with evidence about the different point that the authority to regulate includes the authority to prohibit?

Are you that stupid? Or do you think other LFers are that stupid?

Oh, wait. Your argument was a ban does not regulate.

More precisely, that as I said the result of a ban is to remove the substance from the possibility of effective regulation.

Now it's about motivation.

You think regulation should have no particular motivation - that it should be done for the sheer sake of exercising force?

"Trump and Clinton each say it's an issue for the states."

If so, then who's responsible for keeping marijuana in the states?

Why, primarily the states that don't want it - just as responsibility for keeping alcohol out of dry jurisdictions lies primarily with those jurisdictions. Congress has the authority if it so chooses to act against such interstate movement, though not against intrastate commerce.

Glad I could clear that up for you.

"More precisely, that as I said the result of a ban is to remove the substance from the possibility of effective regulation."

Regulation includes prohibition, so your statement is gobbledygook.

"You think regulation should have no particular motivation - that it should be done for the sheer sake of exercising force?"

Motivation has nothing to do with it. Congress has the power to prohibit. It doesn't mean they have to.

"Why, primarily the states that don't want it - just as responsibility for keeping alcohol out of dry jurisdictions lies primarily with those jurisdictions."

Did that work with alcohol? I seem to recall that it didn't, and the "dry" states pressured Congress to pass the Webb-Kenyon Act, making it a federal crime. Naturally, that didn't work either, leading to Prohibition.

Now you come along saying that it will work with recreational drugs. Or are you saying you know it won't work, but since the U.S. Constitution is a suicide pact, we have to do it?

-- Street marijuana can contain unknown impurities.

Yes, they can. That is why they should be regulated.

-- Marijuana contains twice the carcinogens and four times the tar as cigarettes

Even if were so, still you smoke them in minute amount comparing to cigarettes. More regulations and open competition could lower tar as it did with tobacco.

-- Joints vary in size, so you can't compare them apples-to-apples with cigarettes.

Regulations, coming into open and competition will fix it.

-- Joints are smoked unfiltered

No reason not to add filter, other than maximizing effect of hard to get substance.

-- Users draw marijuana smoke deep into the lungs and hold it
-- Joints are smoked down to the last tar-and-carcinogen-soaked millimeter

OMG, how do you know?! Do you get munchies too? ;)

Whitey the Pothead coming out of closet.

President Jefferson used the commerce power to prohibit trade with BELLIGERENT foreign nations

Who is BELLIGERENT here? War on Drugs warriors?

and to prohibit the sale of alcohol to the BELLIGERENT Indian tribes

Strange, fire water was bad to them. I would expect booze to be delivered to them BELLIGERENTS for FREE! Beside infected blankets of course.

Who is BELLIGERENT here?

http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi? ArtNum=48019&Disp=3#C3

Try reading the above.

"the result of a ban is to remove the substance from the possibility of effective regulation."

Regulation includes prohibition, so your statement is gobbledygook.

Only to cretins. How many people were sickened or killed by tainted alcohol during Prohibition, and how many are today?

"You think regulation should have no particular motivation - that it should be done for the sheer sake of exercising force?"

Motivation has nothing to do with it.

I guess that's a yes. Freak.

>>"Why, primarily the states that don't want it - just as responsibility for keeping alcohol out of dry jurisdictions lies primarily with those jurisdictions."

>>Did that work with alcohol? I seem to recall that it didn't, and the "dry" states pressured Congress

Somebody always wants somebody else to pick up the check for their own preferences.

to pass the Webb-Kenyon Act, making it a federal crime. Naturally, that didn't work either

According to President Nixon's National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, "The lack of federal enforcement rendered the statute [the Webb-Kenyon Act] virtually meaningless." It wasn't tried and found wanting - it wasn't seriously tried.

"The lack of federal enforcement rendered the statute [the Webb-Kenyon Act] virtually meaningless."

You mean the federal government found it impossible to control 50,000 miles of borders surrounding the 25 "dry" states? But they could if we legalized drugs, huh?

'According to President Nixon's National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, "The lack of federal enforcement rendered the statute [the Webb-Kenyon Act] virtually meaningless."'

You mean the federal government found it impossible

Opposite - they never tried.

"Opposite - they never tried."

But they would if it were drugs. You're delusional.

"Opposite - they never tried."

But they would if it were drugs.

Why would they work any less vigorously against federally illegal interstate drug transactions than they do now against federally illegal intrastate drug transactions?

And suppose they chose not to: how does that amount to a "suicide pact"?

"Why would they work any less vigorously against federally illegal interstate drug transactions than they do now against federally illegal intrastate drug transactions?"

If they only have authority over interstate transactions, they'd have to be there the moment the drug crossed the border. Either side of the state border is out-of-bounds.

"how does that amount to a "suicide pact"?"

We both know it wouldn't work. Congress published findings saying it wouldn't work.

So to say we should do it anyways is a suicide pact.

If they only have authority over interstate transactions, they'd have to be there the moment the drug crossed the border. Either side of the state border is out-of-bounds.

Not so - a car with Colorado plates parked in Oklahoma, with a trunk full of marijuana, has broken Oklahoma law, for starters - and has established probable cause to retrace the driver's steps and determine whether a Colorado seller sold him the pot

"how does that amount to a "suicide pact"?"

We both know it wouldn't work. Congress published findings saying it wouldn't work.

So to say we should do it anyways is a suicide pact.

Suicide pacts involve the death of all parties.

"Congress published findings" - BFD.

"with a trunk full of marijuana, has broken Oklahoma law, for starters"

We were discussing federal enforcement of interstate commerce. At least, I thought we were. Are you saying the DEA has the power to enforce Oklahoma law? Doesn't that go against your argument that this should be a state issue?

Marijuana is fungible. You can't look at it and say. "That's Colorado pot!" The driver would say to the DEA that it's Oklahoma pot being transported intrastate -- which is beyond their jurisdiction.

Can Oklahoma law enforcement arrest this guy for possession? Yes. But again, that's not what we're discussing.

"Congress published findings" - BFD.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. And the Supreme Court made a ruling - BFD.

And the legislature passed a law -- BFD.

And the people passed a referendum - BFD.

Your anarchist slip is showing.

According to President Nixon's National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, "The lack of federal enforcement rendered the statute [the Webb-Kenyon Act] virtually meaningless." It wasn't tried and found wanting - it wasn't seriously tried.

That 1913 effort is very unlike what is in effect today, and what would almost certainly be used to regulate marijuana if it ever becomes legal.

Manufacturers do not sell alcohol to retailers. Manufacturers sell to licensed distributors. The distributor license is worth a small fortune and the distributor will not risk losing it to make distributions to a dry county.

The dry county typically does not prohibit simple possession. They do not license public places to sell alcoholic beverages, but may license private clubs. They do not license any retail stores to sell alcohol. Drinking publicly may be prohibited.

Basically, they put all the bars and liquor stores out of business. You go to the nearest wet county to buy your booze, beer and wine and drink it at home.

It is a fairly simple matter to frequently and irregularly inspect the distributors. As it is legally available in the nearest wet county, there is not much market for shine.

http://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/california-weed/article57821673.html

Here’s how marijuana legalization would work in California

By Christopher Cadelago
ccadelago@sacbee.com

California was the first state to allow medical marijuana. Now, two decades later, voters are expected to be asked whether to legalize recreational use of the drug.

The legalization measure most likely to qualify for the statewide November ballot is the product of months of negotiations between groups with varying interests, from drug-law reformers, to growers and distributors, to famous financiers and politicians. Here’s a primer.

Q: So, is California going to legalize pot?

A: The state’s marijuana industry is often described as a wild west of sorts: There are no regulations, taxes or environmental protections for recreational cannabis. The measure would legalize possession of 1 ounce of marijuana and cultivation of six plants by adults over the age of 21, and create laws for distribution and sale. It would impose a 15 percent tax on retail sales, and cultivation taxes of $9.25 per ounce of flowers and $2.75 per ounce of leaves. Localities could ban recreational marijuana businesses in their jurisdictions with local voter approval. An updated version of the measure also allows localities to enact bans without holding a vote of the people.

Q: Is this the next Gold Rush?

A: An initial financial analysis shows it could bring in additional state and local tax revenues ranging from the high hundreds of millions to more than $1 billion a year. Most of the proceeds must be spent for specified purposes such as substance-use disorder education, prevention, treatment and law enforcement.

Q: Who is behind this effort?

A: The official proponents are Donald Lyman, a retired physician, and Michael Sutton, a conservationist. Sutton served on the California Fish and Game Commission while Lyman drafted the California Medical Association’s paper in which the group called for regulating recreational cannabis in a manner similar to alcohol and tobacco. Among its financiers is billionaire venture capitalist Sean Parker. Its highest-profile political supporter is Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom.

Q: What’s going on in other states?

A: Four states – Colorado, Washington, Oregon and Alaska, and the District of Columbia – have legalized recreational pot. The last legalization push in California, Proposition 19 in 2010, failed at the ballot box, 53.5 percent to 46.5 percent.

Q: Who would be in charge here?

A: Licensing and regulation of marijuana would be handled by a Bureau of Marijuana Control within the Department of Consumer Affairs. The Department of Food and Agriculture would be charged with licensing and overseeing marijuana cultivation while the Department of Public Health would license and oversee manufacturing and testing. The state Board of Equalization would collect marijuana taxes and the state Controller’s Office would distribute the revenue.

Q: Would legal marijuana cost more?

A: Some proponents say they actually expect the prices – even accounting for the taxes – will drop some once the licenses are issued and after the first harvest. Part of their reasoning is the so-called “prohibition tax” marijuana purchasers currently pay. They also point to more competition – and falling prices – in states such as Washington and Colorado.

Q: Could I grow my own?

A: Personal cultivation is allowed, but no more than six plants could be cultivated, harvested, dried or processed in each home or apartment, or on its grounds. The initiative would allow industrial hemp to be grown as an agricultural product as well as for agricultural or academic research.

Q: Would this allow “Big Marijuana” corporations to take over?

A: The measure bans large-scale licenses in the first five years, through Jan. 1, 2023. It states that the licensing powers are to avoid “unreasonable restraints on competition by creation or maintenance of unlawful monopoly power.”

Q: Where are the organized opponents?

A: Proponents’ first hurdle was trying to satisfy advocates for legalized marijuana. They have been able to get many, but not all, on board with their plans. Now they likely will have to contend with an organized campaign against the measure, presumably from law enforcement and even organized labor. In 2010, opponents helped sink the measure by pointing to a provision they argued would limit employers’ ability to penalize workers who used marijuana – unless it impaired their job performance. The critics ran ads showing teens, drivers and nurses under the influence of marijuana.

Q: What about children?

A: Marijuana businesses would be banned from locating within 600 feet of schools, and cannabis products could not be advertised or marketed to children. Specifically, the law says pot products can’t be designed in a way that appeals to kids, or could easily be confused with candy or other enticements. Advertising could only be displayed where roughly 72 percent of the audience is expected to be 21 years of age or older, as determined by audience-composition data. Minors convicted of marijuana-related offenses would have to complete drug-prevention education or counseling and community service.

Q: Could you drive after you’ve smoked?

A: The measure would retain existing laws that make it illegal to drive while impaired by marijuana. Here’s how it would work: The California Highway Patrol would get $3 million a year for four years to come up with protocols to determine whether a driver is too high to drive. Motorists also would be barred from having an open container of marijuana or pot products while driving, operating or riding in the passenger seat of a car, boat or aircraft.

Q: Could you go to work high?

A: The law would maintain the rights of employers to require drug-free workplaces or enact policies prohibiting marijuana use by employees during work hours.

No state currentlly can, or has, made marijuana legal. Under state4 law, it has been decriminalized.

The majority of the cost of booze and cigarettes is tax. If marijuana is made legal, it will be regulated and taxed.

Expect something like Monsanto marijuana to dominate the market through licensing and regulation.

Expect regulation and licensing/permits and recordkeeping and taxing to strictly control distribution via licensed distributors. Expect them to tax, tax, tax.

There is no need to control state lines when they "own" the distributors via their monopoly on the issuance of licenses. It's not 1913 anymore Toto.

https://www.ttb.gov/business-central/alcohol-wholesaler.shtml

Federal Requirements for Alcohol Wholesalers

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=ca5efde690bd7ec411bf4ac77d7e2867&rgn=div5&view=text&node=27:1.0.1.1.1&idno=27

Title 27: Alcohol, Tobacco Products and Firearms

PART 1—BASIC PERMIT REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE FEDERAL ALCOHOL ADMINISTRATION ACT, NONINDUSTRIAL USE OF DISTILLED SPIRITS AND WINE, BULK SALES AND BOTTLING OF DISTILLED SPIRITS

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=ca5efde690bd7ec411bf4ac77d7e2867&rgn=div5&view=text&node=27:1.0.1.1.1&idno=27#se27.1.1_122

§1.22 Wholesalers.

No person, except pursuant to a basic permit issued under the Act, shall:

(a) Engage in the business of purchasing for resale at wholesale, distilled spirits, wine, or malt beverages; or,

(b) While so engaged, receive, sell, offer or deliver for sale, contract to sell, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce, directly or indirectly or through an affiliate, distilled spirits, wine, or malt beverages so purchased.

"with a trunk full of marijuana, has broken Oklahoma law, for starters [DECEPTIVELY OMITTED BY MISTERWHITE:] - and has established probable cause to retrace the driver's steps and determine whether a Colorado seller sold him the pot"

Are you saying the DEA has the power to enforce Oklahoma law?

The DEA has the power to turn him over to the state authorities and thereby facilitate the initiation of a federal investigation.

look at it and say. "That's Colorado pot!"

Beat that straw man.

"how does that amount to a "suicide pact"?"

We both know it wouldn't work. Congress published findings saying it wouldn't work.

So to say we should do it anyways is a suicide pact.

"Suicide pacts involve the death of all parties."

[crickets]

So have you dropped this "suicide pact" tomfoolery?

"Congress published findings" - BFD.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. And the Supreme Court made a ruling - BFD.

And the legislature passed a law -- BFD.

And the people passed a referendum - BFD.

Your anarchist slip is showing.

Baseless self-serving "findings" have no evidentiary weight in the forum of reasoned debate. And as a matter of fact, the Constitution as the supreme law of the land is a much B-er D than laws, referenda, or even rulings. 'The ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not what we have said about it.' - Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, Graves vs. New York

If marijuana is made legal, it will be regulated and taxed.

Expect something like Monsanto marijuana to dominate the market through licensing and regulation.

Expect regulation and licensing/permits and recordkeeping and taxing to strictly control distribution via licensed distributors.

Beats the Hell out of the futile and criminal-enriching status quo.

"The DEA has the power to turn him over to the state authorities and thereby facilitate the initiation of a federal investigation."

Nope. Your entire scenario is fantasy. If the DEA is limited to only enforcing interstate commerce, what are they doing in this guy's trunk to begin with? He's parked in Oklahoma. He's not crossing any interstate border.

How can they prove he crossed the border with the pot? They can't. How do they know it's Colorado pot? They don't.

Any search they did is inadmissable in court. They ain't turning him over to anybody. They're out of their jurisdiction. They can't prove he broke federal law ... unless they see him cross the state border with the pot.

"So have you dropped this "suicide pact" tomfoolery?"

If you insist on taking it literally rather than for the expression it is, yeah.

No matter how you slice it, Decktard, marijuana use is not healthy. Stfu.

You waste your stoner loving time.

"Baseless self-serving "findings" have no evidentiary weight in the forum of reasoned debate."

What? The findings justify the law! Plenty to debate there.

"ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself"

Ah. Now noble! How profound! And who, pray tell, will interpret the Constitution? Who is the final arbiter of the meaning of "to regulate"?

You?

If the DEA is limited to only enforcing interstate commerce, what are they doing in this guy's trunk to begin with? He's parked in Oklahoma. He's not crossing any interstate border.

He's got Colorado plates so he did cross a border.

How can they prove he crossed the border with the pot? They can't. How do they know it's Colorado pot? They don't.

Sez you - the requirement for successful prosecution is proof beyond REASONABLE doubt not ANY CONCEIVABLE doubt.

"So have you dropped this "suicide pact" tomfoolery?"

If you insist on taking it literally rather than for the expression it is

It's an applicable expression only if outcomes of gravity comparable to that of suicide are in the balance - otherwise it's misleading.

"Baseless self-serving "findings" have no evidentiary weight in the forum of reasoned debate."

What? The findings justify the law!

Which makes it worth noting that they're baseless and self-serving - it doesn't provide a basis for treating them as if they were otherwise.

"ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself"

Ah. Now noble! How profound! And who, pray tell, will interpret the Constitution? Who is the final arbiter of the meaning of "to regulate"?

You?

That's not the question until we've agreed that a USSC-approved federal action is unconstitutional and then passed on to the followup question, "What is to be done?"

"Which makes it worth noting that they're baseless and self-serving"

Because you say so.

"a USSC-approved federal action is unconstitutional"

Again, who says that a federal law, ruled constitutional by the USSC, is unconstituional? You?

"It's an applicable expression only if outcomes of gravity comparable to that of suicide are in the balance - otherwise it's misleading."

"The Constitution is not a suicide pact" is a common expression and does not mean everyone dies. Get a f**king grip.

"He's got Colorado plates so he did cross a border."

That's not against the law.

"Sez you - the requirement for successful prosecution is proof beyond REASONABLE doubt not ANY CONCEIVABLE doubt."

What proof? Where's your proof he crossed the border with the pot? Where's your proof that the pot is even from Colorado? If you're prosecuting an interstate commerce case, aren't those facts important?

It's no surprise the federal government didn't even try to enforce the law against the interstate commerce of alcohol. It's unenforceable. As it would be against pot. And you know it.

If so, then who's responsible for keeping marijuana in the states?
Why, primarily the states that don't want it

There's a big unfunded mandate. You expect the states to enforce federal commerce clause law? Do you expect Congress to be satisfied with that arrangement?

"Which makes it worth noting that they're baseless and self-serving"

Because you say so.

No basis was offered, hence baseless; that a governmental assertion of authority is self-serving, is self-evident.

"That's not the question until we've agreed that a USSC-approved federal action is unconstitutional and then passed on to the followup question, 'What is to be done?'"

Again, who says that a federal law, ruled constitutional by the USSC, is unconstituional? You?

Honest and unprejudiced readers of the Constitution - in other words, conservatives.

"It's an applicable expression only if outcomes of gravity comparable to that of suicide are in the balance - otherwise it's misleading."

"The Constitution is not a suicide pact" is a common expression and does not mean everyone dies. Get a f**king grip.

I said "outcomes of gravity comparable". Get some f**king honesty.

'"The Constitution is not a suicide pact" is a phrase in American political and legal discourse. The phrase expresses the belief that constitutional restrictions on governmental power must be balanced against the need for survival of the state and its people.' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Constitution_is_not_a_suicide_pact, emphasis added) Get some f**king facts.

"He's got Colorado plates so he did cross a border."

That's not against the law.

Nobody said it was, strawbeater.

"Sez you - the requirement for successful prosecution is proof beyond REASONABLE doubt not ANY CONCEIVABLE doubt."

What proof? Where's your proof he crossed the border with the pot? Where's your proof that the pot is even from Colorado?

The Colorado seller testifies.

If so, then who's responsible for keeping marijuana in the states?

"Why, primarily the states that don't want it - just as responsibility for keeping alcohol out of dry jurisdictions lies primarily with those jurisdictions."

There's a big unfunded mandate. You expect the states to enforce federal commerce clause law?

No mandate - a state is free to take no action against pot entering it.

"No mandate - a state is free to take no action against pot entering it."

Fine. Let the courts decide.

"I said "outcomes of gravity comparable".

That was your definition -- which I don't accept.

From the same link:

In the 1949 case Terminiello v. City of Chicago, the majority opinion by Justice William O. Douglas overturned the disorderly conduct conviction of a priest whose rantings at a rally had incited a riot. The Court held that Chicago's breach of the peace ordinance violated the First Amendment.

Associate Justice Robert Jackson wrote a twenty-four page dissent in response to the Court's four page decision, which concluded: "The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact."

That was simply a free speech issue.