"Anybody who thinks this is somehow going to increase the availability of marijuana has never been 19."

The author misses the point. Legalization implies societal acceptance. Do we want teens smoking marijuana the way they smoke cigarettes?

Claire Bernish writes for TheFreeThoughtProject.com ...

Do we want teens smoking marijuana the way they smoke cigarettes?

Does what we want somehow affect whether it happens or not?

Legalization implies societal acceptance.

Bullshit - I'd crash the LF server listing all the acts that are legal but not societally accepted: for just one instance, belittling one's wife and/or children in public.

Sponsored by Assemblyman Michael Patrick Carroll — once deemed the state Legislature’s “Most Conservative” member

From the link: 'Carroll's missionary zeal and his talent for articulating his stances on behalf of individual and property rights, the sanctity of family—including unborn children—and the cult of Reaganism put him on top. Carroll has sponsored measures like the Ban on Trafficking in Baby Body Parts Act, which seeks to bar the use of human fetal tissue. He's sponsored a "right to carry" handgun bill that would no longer require New Jersey residents to demonstrate "justifiable need" before obtaining a handgun permit. He also sponsored a measure to prohibit affirmative action programs based on race, ethnicity, gender, or national origin. Carroll wears his "Mountain Man" moniker—a Statehouse reference to the mostly conservative lawmakers from New Jersey's hilly northwestern corner—with pride.'

"Do we want teens smoking marijuana the way they smoke cigarettes? "

Does what we want somehow affect whether it happens or not?

According to Drug Warriors and other liberals, their pet policies should be evaluated based on intentions rather than results.

Legalization implies societal acceptance. Do we want teens smoking marijuana the way they smoke cigarettes?

There is a third option - decriminalization. Like in Massachusetts.

The teens smoking and drinking is not legal. You do not want teens to be jailed and stigmatized for life, for smoking a cigarettes or drinking beers? Or do you?

"There is a third option - decriminalization."

Sure. If there was a hefty fine and some community service.

But a $100 fine is less than what they paid for the marijuana. It's a joke. So teens take it as a green light to smoke.

Nationwide use goes up, and dopers cry, "See? Our current laws are not working! We might as well legalize it."

Better? Or would you like me to post a graph of abortions, pre- and post-Roe v wade?

Legalizing a formerly illegal product or act implies societal acceptance.

Yeah, it does. Oh well. It's better than continuing the war on marijuana. The loss of pride in socially accepting pot smoking is less expensive than the general destruction that continues under the prohibition regime.

Pot is like smoking hard liquor - about as bad as cigarettes on the health, about as bad as hard liquor on the mind.

Millions are going to do it, law enforcement is capricious, and the prohibition game is not worth the candle. Hard liquor is destructive - that's why we had Prohibition. But it's not destructive ENOUGH to have continued to endure the other destruction brought by Prohibition, so we re- legalized alcohol. Same thing is true with pot.

Legalizing heroin would be insane. Pot ain't heroin.

Vicomte --- The prohibition game is not worth the candle. Hard liquor is destructive - that's why we had Prohibition.

'Alcohol is destructive' --- to some people, as are most forms of mind altering substances. --- We have prohibitions because most people imagine that they can control their peers in that fashion. They're wrong.

But it's not destructive ENOUGH to have continued to endure the other destruction brought by Prohibition, so we re- legalized alcohol. Same thing is true with pot. --- Legalizing heroin would be insane. Pot ain't heroin.

There are LOTS of substances as destructive as heroin. We will never prohibit ALL of them. Prohibitions are insane...

"Legalizing heroin would be insane. Pot ain't heroin."

Plenty of drugs out there that ain't heroin. You propose legalizing them all under that standard? Hard to justify legalizing marijuana and not the others.

And how do you propose to legalize marijuana nationwide and not violate the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs international treaty?

[Article] State Proposes Bold Law to Treat Pot Like Tobacco And Expunge All Records of Marijuana “Crimes”

United States v. McIntosh, 15-10117 (9th Cir. 16 Aug 2016)

At 26:

Here, we must read § 542 with a view to its place in the overall statutory scheme for marijuana regulation, namely the CSA and the State Medical Marijuana Laws. The CSA prohibits the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of any marijuana. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a), 844(a).[4] The State Medical Marijuana Laws are those state laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana. Thus, the CSA prohibits what the State Medical Marijuana Laws permit.

In light of the ordinary meaning of the terms of § 542 and the relationship between the relevant federal and state laws, we consider whether a superior authority, which prohibits certain conduct, can prevent a subordinate authority from implementing a rule that officially permits such conduct by punishing individuals who are engaged in the conduct officially permitted by the lower authority. We conclude that it can.

____________________

[4] This requires a slight caveat. Under the CSA, “the manufacture, distribution, or possession of marijuana [is] a criminal offense, with the sole exception being use of the drug as part of a Food and Drug Administration preapproved research study.” Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 14 (2005); see 21 U.S.C. §§ 812(c), 823(f), 841(a)(1), 844(a). Thus, except as part of “a strictly controlled research project,” federal law “designates marijuana as contraband for any purpose.” Raich, 545 U.S. at 24, 27.

Footnote 5 at 32-33:

[5] The prior observation should also serve as a warning. To be clear, § 542 does not provide immunity from prosecution for federal marijuana offenses. The CSA prohibits the manufacture, distribution, and possession of marijuana. Anyone in any state who possesses, distributes, or manufactures marijuana for medical or recreational purposes (or attempts or conspires to do so) is committing a federal crime. The federal government can prosecute such offenses for up to five years after they occur. See 18 U.S.C. § 3282. Congress currently restricts the government from spending certain funds to prosecute certain individuals. But Congress could restore funding tomorrow, a year from now, or four years from now, and the government could then prosecute individuals who committed offenses while the government lacked funding. Moreover, a new president will be elected soon, and a new administration could shift enforcement priorities to place greater emphasis on prosecuting marijuana offenses. Nor does any state law “legalize” possession, distribution, or manufacture of marijuana. Under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, state laws cannot permit what federal law prohibits. U.S. Const. art VI, cl. 2. Thus, while the CSA remains in effect, states cannot actually authorize the manufacture, distribution, or possession of marijuana. Such activity remains prohibited by federal law.

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/08/16/15-10117.pdf

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

United States of America,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Steve Mcintosh,
Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-10117
D.C. No. 3:14-cr-00016-MMC-3

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Maxine M. Chesney, Senior District Judge, Presiding

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

United States of America,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Iane Lovan,
Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-10122
D.C. No. 1:13-cr-00294-LJO-SKO-1

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

---

2

United States v. Mcintosh

United States of America,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Somphane Malathong,
Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-10127
D.C. No. 1:13-cr-00294-LJO-SKO-3

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

United States of America,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Vong Southy,
Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-10132
D.C. No. 1:13-cr-00294-LJO-SKO-2

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

United States of America,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Khamphou Khouthong,
Defendant-Appellant.

No. 15-10137
D.C. No.1:13-cr-00294-LJO-SKO-4

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O'Neill, District Judge, Presiding

---

3

United States v. Mcintosh

United States of America,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Jerad John kynaston, AKA Jared J. Kynaston, AKA Jerad J. Kynaston; Samuel Michael Doyle, AKA Samuel M. Doyle; Brice Christian Davis, AKA Brice C. Davis; Jayde Dillon Evans, AKA Jayde D. Evans; Tyler Scott Mckinley, AKA Tyler S. McKinley,
Defendants-Appellants.

No. 15-30098
D.C. No. 2:12-cr-00016-WFN-1

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Wm. Fremming Nielsen, Senior District Judge, Presiding

---

4

United States v. Mcintosh

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

In re Iane Lovan,

Iane Lovan,
Petitioner,
v.
United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California, Fresno,
Respondent,

United States of America,
Real Party in Interest.

No. 15-71158
D.C. No. 1:13-cr-00294-LJO-SKO-1

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

In re Somphane Malathong,

Somphane Malathong,
Petitioner,
v.
United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California, Fresno,
Respondent,

United States of America,
Real Party in Interest.

No. 15-71174
D.C. No. 1:13-cr-00294-LJO-SKO-3

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

---

5

United States v. Mcintosh

In re Vong Southy,

Vong Southy,
Petitioner,
v.
United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California, Fresno,
Respondent,

United States of America,
Real Party in Interest.

No. 15-71179
D.C. No. 1:13-cr-00294-LJO-SKO-2

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

In re Khamphou Khouthong,

Khamphou Khouthong,
Petitioner,
v.
United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California, Fresno,
Respondent,

United States of America,
Real Party in Interest.

No. 15-71225
D.C. No. 1:13-cr-00294-LJO-SKO-4

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

OPINION

---

6

United States v. Mcintosh

Petitions for Writ of Mandamus

Argued and Submitted December 7, 2015
San Francisco, California

Filed August 16, 2016

Before: Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain, Barry G. Silverman,
and Carlos T. Bea, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge O'Scannlain

SUMMARY*

Criminal Law

In ten consolidated interlocutory appeals and petitions for writs of mandamus arising from three district courts in two states, the panel vacated the district court's orders denying relief to the appellants, who have been indicted for violating the Controlled Substances Act, and who sought dismissal of their indictments or to enjoin their prosecutions on the basis of a congressional appropriations rider, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, Pub. L. No. 114-113, § 542, 129 Stat. 2242, 2332-33 (2015), that prohibits the Department of Justice from spending funds to prevent states' implementation of their medical marijuana laws.

_____________________

* This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.

---

7

United States v. Mcintosh

The panel held that it has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) to consider the interlocutory appeals from these direct denials of requests for injunctions, and that the appellants have standing to invoke separation-of-powers provisions of the Constitution to challenge their criminal prosecutions.

The panel held that § 542 prohibits DOJ from spending funds from relevant appropriations acts for the prosecution of individuals who engaged in conduct permitted by state medical marijuana laws and who fully complied with such laws. The panel wrote that individuals who do not strictly comply with all state-law conditions regarding the use, distribution, possession, and cultivation of medical marijuana have engaged in conduct that is unauthorized, and that prosecuting such individuals does not violate § 542.

Remanding to the district courts, the panel instructed that if DOJ wishes to continue these prosecutions, the appellants are entitled to evidentiary hearings to determine whether their conduct was completely authorized by state law. The panel wrote that in determining the appropriate remedy for any violation of § 542, the district courts should consider the temporal nature of the lack of funds along with the appellants' rights to a speedy trial.

---

8

United States v. Mcintosh

COUNSEL

Marc J. Zilversmit (argued), San Francisco, California, for Defendant-Appellant Steve Mcintosh.

Robert R. Fischer (argued), Federal Defenders of Eastern Washington & Idaho, Spokane, Washington, for Defendant-Appellant Jerad John Kynaston.

Richard D. Wall, Spokane, Washington, for Defendant-Appellant Tyler Scott McKinley.

Douglas Hiatt, Seattle, Washington; Douglas Dwight Phelps, Spokane, Washington; for Defendant-Appellant Samuel Michael Doyle.

David Matthew Miller, Spokane, Washington, for Defendant-Appellant Brice Christian Davis.

Nicholas V. Vieth, Spokane, Washington, for Defendant-Appellant Jayde Dillion Evans.

Andras Farkas (argued), Assistant Federal Defender; Heather E. Williams, Federal Defender; Federal Defenders of the Eastern District of California, Fresno, California; for Defendant-Appellant/Petitioner Iane Lovan.

Daniel L. Harralson, Daniel L. Harralson Law Corp., Fresno, California, for Defendant-Appellant/Petitioner Somphane Malathong.

Harry M. Drandell, Law Offices of Harry M. Drandell, Fresno, California, for Defendant-Appellant/Petitioner Vong Southy.

---

9

United States v. Mcintosh

Peter M. Jones, Wanger Jones Helsley, P.C., Fresno, California, for Defendant-Appellant/Petitioner Khamphou Khouthong.

Owen P. Martikan (argued), Assistant United States Attorney; Barbara J. Valliere, Chief, Appellate Division; Brian Stretch, United States Attorney; United States Attorney's Office, San Francisco, California, and ; Russell E. Smoot and Timothy J. Ohms, Assistant United States Attorneys; Michael C. Ormsby, United States Attorney; United States Attorney's Office, Spokane, Washington; Camil A. Skipper, Assistant United States Attorney; Benjamin B. Wagner, United States Attorney; United States Attorney's Office, Sacramento, California; for Plaintiff-Appellee/Real Party in Interest United States.

OPINION

O'SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judge:

We are asked to decide whether criminal defendants may avoid prosecution for various federal marijuana offenses on the basis of a congressional appropriations rider that prohibits the United States Department of Justice from spending funds to prevent states' implementation of their own medical marijuana laws.

I

A

These ten cases are consolidated interlocutory appeals and petitions for writs of mandamus arising out of orders entered

---

10

United States v. Mcintosh

by three district courts in two states within our circuit.[1] All Appellants have been indicted for various infractions of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). They have moved to dismiss their indictments or to enjoin their prosecutions on the grounds that the Department of Justice (DoJ) is prohibited from spending funds to prosecute them.

In Mcintosh, five codefendants allegedly ran four marijuana stores in the Los Angeles area known as Hollywood Compassionate Care (HCC) and Happy Days, and nine indoor marijuana grow sites in the San Francisco and Los Angeles areas. These codefendants were indicted for conspiracy to manufacture, to possess with intent to distribute, and to distribute more than 1000 marijuana plants in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), 841(b)(l)(A). The government sought forfeiture derived from such violations under 21 U.S.C. § 853.

In Lovan, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency and Fresno County Sheriffs Office executed a federal search warrant on 60 acres of land located on North Zedicker Road in Sanger, California. Officials allegedly located more than 30,000 marijuana plants on this property. Four codefendants were indicted for manufacturing 1000 or more marijuana plants and for conspiracy to manufacture 1000 or more marijuana plants in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846.

____________________

[1] Appellants filed one appeal in United States v. Mcintosh, No. 15­10117, arising out of the Northern District of California; one appeal in United States v. Kynaston, No. 15-30098, arising out of the Eastern District of Washington; and four appeals with four corresponding petitions for mandamus—Nos. 15-10122, 15-10127, 15-10132, 15-10137, 15­71158, 15-71174, 15-71179, 15-71225, which we shall address as United States v. Lovan—arising out of the Eastern District of California.

---

11

United States v. Mcintosh

In Kynaston, five codefendants face charges that arose out of the execution of a Washington State search warrant related to an investigation into violations of Washington's Controlled Substances Act. Allegedly, a total of 562 "growing marijuana plants," along with another 677 pots, some of which appeared to have the root structures of suspected harvested marijuana plants, were found. The codefendants were indicted for conspiring to manufacture 1000 or more marijuana plants, manufacturing 1000 or more marijuana plants, possessing with intent to distribute 100 or more marijuana plants, possessing a firearm in furtherance of a Title 21 offense, maintaining a drug-involved premise, and being felons in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(c)(1)(A)(i) and 21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 856(a)(1).

B

In December 2014, Congress enacted the following rider in an omnibus appropriations bill funding the government through September 30, 2015:

None of the funds made available in this Act to the Department of Justice may be used, with respect to the States of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin, to prevent such

---

12

United States v. Mcintosh

States from implementing their own State laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana.

Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015, Pub. L. No. 113-235, § 538, 128 Stat. 2130, 2217 (2014). various short-term measures extended the appropriations and the rider through December 22, 2015. On December 18, 2015, Congress enacted a new appropriations act, which appropriates funds through the fiscal year ending September 30, 2016, and includes essentially the same rider in § 542. Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, Pub. L. No. 114-113, § 542, 129 Stat. 2242, 2332-33 (2015) (adding Guam and Puerto Rico and changing "prevent such States from implementing their own State laws" to "prevent any of them from implementing their own laws"). Appellants in Mcintosh, Lovan, and Kynaston filed motions to dismiss or to enjoin on the basis of the rider. The motions were denied from the bench in hearings in Mcintosh and Lovan, while the court in Kynaston filed a short written order denying the motion after a hearing. In Mcintosh and Kynaston, the court concluded that defendants had failed to carry their burden to demonstrate their compliance with state medical marijuana laws. In Lovan, the court concluded that the determination of compliance with state law would depend on facts found by the jury in a federal prosecution, and thus it would revisit the defendants' motion after the trial.

Appellants in all three cases filed interlocutory appeals, and Appellants in Mcintosh and Lovan ask us to consider issuing writs of mandamus if we do not assume jurisdiction over the appeals.

---

13

United States v. Mcintosh

II

Federal courts are courts of limited subject-matter jurisdiction, possessing only that power authorized both by the Constitution and by Congress. See Gunn v. Minton, 133 S. Ct. 1059, 1064 (2013). Before proceeding to the merits of this dispute, we must assure ourselves that we have jurisdiction. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 95 (1998).

A

The parties dispute whether Congress has authorized us to exercise jurisdiction over these interlocutory appeals. "our jurisdiction is typically limited to final decisions of the district court." United States v. Romero-Ochoa, 554 F.3d 833, 835 (9th Cir. 2009). "In criminal cases, this prohibits appellate review until after conviction and imposition of sentence." Midland Asphalt Corp. v. United States, 489 U.S. 794, 798 (1989). In the cases before us, no Appellants have been convicted or sentenced. Therefore, unless some exception to the general rule applies, we should not reach the merits of this dispute. Appellants invoke three possible avenues for reaching the merits: jurisdiction over an order refusing an injunction, jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine, and the writ of mandamus. We address the first of these three avenues.

1

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a), "the courts of appeals shall have jurisdiction of appeals from: (1) Interlocutory orders of the district courts of the United States . . . granting, continuing, modifying, refusing or dissolving injunctions, . . .

---

14

United States v. Mcintosh

except where a direct review may be had in the Supreme Court." (emphasis added). By its terms, § 1292(a)(1) requires only an interlocutory order refusing an injunction. Nonetheless, relying on Carson v. American Brands, Inc., 450 U.S. 79, 84 (1981), the government argues that § 1292(a)(1) requires Appellants to show that the interlocutory order (1) has the effect of refusing an injunction; (2) has a serious, perhaps irreparable, consequence; and (3) can be effectually challenged only by immediate appeal.

The government's reliance on Carson is misplaced in light of our precedent interpreting that case. In Shee Atika v. Sealaska Corp., we explained:

In Carson, the Supreme Court considered whether section 1292(a)(1) permitted appeal from an order denying the parties' joint motion for approval of a consent decree that contained an injunction as one of its provisions. Because the order did not, on its face, deny an injunction, an appeal from the order did not fall precisely within the language of section 1292(a)(1). The Court nevertheless permitted the appeal. The Court stated that, while section 1292(a)(1) must be narrowly construed in order to avoid piecemeal litigation, it does permit appeals from orders that have the "practical effect" of denying an injunction, provided that the would-be appellant shows that the order "might have a serious, perhaps irreparable, consequence."

---

15

United States v. Mcintosh

We find nothing in Carson to suggest that the requirement of irreparable injury applies to appeals from orders specifically denying injunctions. Carson merely expanded the scope of appeals that do not fall within the meaning of the statute. Sealaska appeals from the direct denial of a request for an injunction. Carson, therefore, is simply irrelevant.

39 F.3d 247, 249 (9th Cir. 1994) (citations omitted); accord Paige v. California, 102 F.3d 1035, 1038 (9th Cir. 1996); see also Shee Atika, 39 F.3d at 249 n.2 (noting that its conclusion was consistent with "the overwhelming majority of courts of appeals that have considered the issue" and collecting cases). Thus, Carson's requirements do not apply to appeals from the "direct denial of a request for an injunction." Shee Atika, 39 F.3d at 249.

2

In the cases before us, the district courts issued direct denials of requests for injunctions. Lovan, for instance, requested injunctive relief in the conclusion of his opening brief: "Therefore, the Court should dismiss all counts against Mr. Lovan based upon alleged violations of 21 U.S.C. § 841 and/or enjoin the Department of Justice from taking any further action against the defendants in this case unless and until the Department can show such action does not involve the expenditure of any funds in violation of the Appropriations Act." At the hearing, Lovan's counsel made exceptionally clear that his motion sought injunctive relief in the alternative:

---

16

United States v. Mcintosh

THE COURT: But remember, your remedy is not because you are upset that the Department of Justice is spending taxpayer money. Your remedy is a dismissal, which is what you are seeking now, is it not?

MR. FARKAS: And your Honor, as an alternative in our motion, we ask for a stay of these proceedings, asked this Court to enjoin the Department of Justice from spending any funds to prosecute Mr. Lovan if this Court finds he is in conformity with the California Compassionate Use Act. So it is a motion to dismiss or, alternatively, a motion to enjoin until Congress designates funds for that purpose.

Shortly thereafter, Lovan's counsel reiterated: "[W]e would ask either for a dismissal or to enjoin the government from spending any funds that were not appropriated under the Appropriations Act." At the close of the hearing, Lovan's counsel even explicitly argued that the district court's denial of injunctive relief would be appealable immediately: "I believe this might be the type of collateral order that is appealable to the Ninth Circuit immediately. As I said, we are asking for an injunction." The district court denied Lovan's motion, which clearly requested injunctive relief.

Similarly, in Kynaston, the opening brief in support of the motion began and ended with explicit requests for injunctive relief. Subsequent filings by other defendants in that case referenced the injunctive relief sought, and one discussed at length how courts of equity should exercise their jurisdiction.

---

17

United States v. Mcintosh

The district court denied the motion, which clearly sought injunctive relief.

In Mcintosh, the defendant requested injunctive relief in his moving papers, and he mentioned his request for injunctive relief three times in his reply brief. At the hearing, the question of injunctive relief did not arise, and the district court said simply that it was denying the motion. Although Mcintosh could have emphasized the equitable component of his request more, we conclude that he raised the issue sufficiently for the denial of his motion to constitute a direct denial of a request for an injunction.

Therefore, we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) to consider the interlocutory appeals from these direct denials of requests for injunctions.

3

We note the unusual circumstances presented by these cases. In almost all federal criminal prosecutions, injunctive relief and interlocutory appeals will not be appropriate. Federal courts traditionally have refused, except in rare instances, to enjoin federal criminal prosecutions. See Ackerman v. Int'l Longshoremen's Union, 187 F.2d 860, 868 (9th Cir. 1951); Argonaut Mining Co. v. McPike, 78 F.2d 584, 586 (9th Cir. 1935); Stolt-Nielsen, S.A. v. United States, 442 F.3d 177, 185 (3d Cir. 2006); Deaver v. Seymour, 822 F.2d 66, 69 (D.C. Cir. 1987). "An order by a federal court that relates only to the conduct or progress of litigation before that court ordinarily is not considered an injunction and therefore is not appealable under § 1292(a)(1)." Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S. 271, 279 (1988). Thus, in almost all circumstances, federal

---

18

United States v. Mcintosh

criminal defendants cannot obtain injunctions of their ongoing prosecutions, and orders by district courts relating solely to requests to stay ongoing federal prosecutions will not constitute appealable orders under § 1292(a)(1).

Here, however, Congress has enacted an appropriations rider that specifically restricts DoJ from spending money to pursue certain activities. It is "emphatically . . . the exclusive province of the Congress not only to formulate legislative policies and mandate programs and projects, but also to establish their relative priority for the Nation. once Congress, exercising its delegated powers, has decided the order of priorities in a given area, it is for . . . the courts to enforce them when enforcement is sought." Tenn. Valley Auth. v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153, 194 (1978); accord United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Co-op., 532 U.S. 483, 497 (2001). A "court sitting in equity cannot 'ignore the judgment of Congress, deliberately expressed in legislation.'" Oakland Cannabis, 532 U.S. at 497 (quoting Virginian Ry. Co. v. Sys. Fed'n No. 40, 300 U.S. 515, 551 (1937)). Even if Appellants cannot obtain injunctions of their prosecutions themselves, they can seek—and have sought—to enjoin DOJ from spending funds from the relevant appropriations acts on such prosecutions.[2] When Congress has enacted a legislative

____________________

[2] We need not decide in the first instance exactly how the district courts should resolve claims that DOJ is spending money to prosecute a defendant in violation of an appropriations rider. We therefore take no view on the precise relief required and leave that issue to the district courts in the first instance. We note that district courts in criminal cases have ancillary jurisdiction, which “is the power of a court to adjudicate and determine matters incidental to the exercise of its primary jurisdiction over a cause under review.” United States v. Sumner, 226 F.3d 1005, 1013–15 (9th Cir. 2000); see Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S.

---

19

United States v. Mcintosh

restriction like § 542 that expressly prohibits DoJ from spending funds on certain actions, federal criminal defendants may seek to enjoin the expenditure of those funds, and we may exercise jurisdiction over a district court's direct denial of a request for such injunctive relief.

B

1

As part of our jurisdictional inquiry, we must consider whether Appellants have standing to complain that DOJ is spending money that has not been appropriated by Congress. "The doctrine of standing asks whether a litigant is entitled to have a federal court resolve his grievance." Kowalski v. Tesmer, 543 U.S. 125, 128 (2004). Although the government concedes that Appellants have standing, we have an "independent obligation to examine [our] own jurisdiction, and standing is perhaps the most important of the jurisdictional doctrines." United States v. Hays, 515 U.S. 737, 742 (1995) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted).

Constitutional limits on our jurisdiction are established by Article III, which limits the jurisdiction of federal courts to "Cases" and "Controversies." U.S. Const. art. III, § 2. It "demands that an 'actual controversy' persist throughout all stages of litigation. That means that standing 'must be met by persons seeking appellate review . . . .'" Hollingsworth v. Perry, 133 S. Ct. 2652, 2661 (2013) (citations omitted). To have Article III standing, a litigant "must have suffered or be

____________________

375, 378–80 (1994); Garcia v. Teitler, 443 F.3d 202, 206–10 (2d Cir. 2006).

---

20

United States v. Mcintosh

imminently threatened with a concrete and particularized 'injury in fact' that is fairly traceable to the challenged action . . . and likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision." Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1377, 1386 (2014). In Bond v. United States, the Supreme Court addressed a situation similar to the cases before us. 564 U.S. 211 (2011). There, the Third Circuit had concluded that the criminal defendant lacked "standing to challenge a federal statute on grounds that the measure interferes with the powers reserved to States," and the Supreme Court reversed. Id. at 216, 226.

The Court explained that "[o]ne who seeks to initiate or continue proceedings in federal court must demonstrate, among other requirements, both standing to obtain the relief requested, and, in addition, an 'ongoing interest in the dispute' on the part of the opposing party that is sufficient to establish 'concrete adverseness.'" Id. at 217 (citations omitted). "When those conditions are met, Article III does not restrict the opposing party's ability to object to relief being sought at its expense." Id. "The requirement of Article III standing thus had no bearing upon [the defendant's] capacity to assert defenses in the District Court." Id.

Applying those principles to the defendant's standing to appeal, the Court concluded that it was "clear Article Ill's prerequisites are met. Bond's challenge to her conviction and sentence 'satisfies the case-or-controversy requirement, because the incarceration . . . constitutes a concrete injury, caused by the conviction and redressable by invalidation of the conviction.'" Id. Here, Appellants have not yet been deprived of liberty via a conviction, but their indictments imminently threaten such a deprivation. Cf. Susan B.

---

21

United States v. Mcintosh

Anthony List v. Driehaus, 134 S. Ct. 2334, 2342-47 (2014) (threatened prosecution may give rise to standing). They clearly had Article III standing to pursue their challenges below because they were merely objecting to relief sought at their expense. And they have standing on appeal because their potential convictions constitute concrete, particularized, and imminent injuries, which are caused by their prosecutions and redressable by injunction or dismissal of such prosecutions. See Bond, 564 U.S. at 217.

After addressing Article III standing, the Bond Court concluded that, "[i]f the constitutional structure of our Government that protects individual liberty is compromised, individuals who suffer otherwise justiciable injury may object." Id. at 223. The Court explained that both federalism and separation-of-powers constraints in the Constitution serve to protect individual liberty, and a litigant in a proper case can invoke such constraints "[w]hen government acts in excess of its lawful powers." Id. at 220-24. The Court gave numerous examples of cases in which private parties, rather than government departments, were able to rely on separation-of-powers principles in otherwise jusiticiable cases or controversies. See id. at 223 (citing Free Enter. Fund v. Pub. Co. Accounting Oversight Bd., 561 U.S. 477 (2010); Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417, 433-36 (1998); Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U.S. 211 (1995); Bowsher v. Synar, 478 U.S. 714 (1986); INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983); N. Pipeline Constr. Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50 (1982); Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952); A.L.A. SchechterPoultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935)).

The Court reiterated this principle in NLRB v. Noel Canning, 134 S. Ct. 2550 (2014). There, the Court granted

---

22

United States v. Mcintosh

relief to a private party challenging an order against it on the basis that certain members of the National Labor Relations Board had been appointed in excess of presidential authority under the Recess Appointments Clause, another separation-of-powers constraint. Id. at 2557. The Court "recognize[d], of course, that the separation of powers can serve to safeguard individual liberty and that it is the 'duty of the judicial department'—in a separation-of-powers case as in any other—'to say what the law is.'" Id. at 2559-60 (citing Clinton, 524 U.S. at 449-50 (Kennedy, J., concurring), and quoting Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177 (1803)); see also id. at 2592-94 (Scalia, J., concurring in the judgment) (discussing at great length how the separation of powers protects individual liberty).

Thus, Appellants have standing to invoke separation-of-powers provisions of the Constitution to challenge their criminal prosecutions.

2

Here, Appellants complain that DOJ is spending funds that have not been appropriated by Congress in violation of the Appropriations Clause of the Constitution. See U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 7 ("No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law . . . ."). This "straightforward and explicit command . . . means simply that no money can be paid out of the Treasury unless it has been appropriated by an act of Congress." Office of Pers. Mgmt. v. Richmond, 496 U.S. 414, 424 (1990) (citation omitted). "Money may be paid out only through an appropriation made by law; in other words, the payment of money from the Treasury must be authorized by a statute." Id.

---

23

United States v. Mcintosh

The Appropriations Clause plays a critical role in the Constitution's separation of powers among the three branches of government and the checks and balances between them. "Any exercise of a power granted by the Constitution to one of the other branches of Government is limited by a valid reservation of congressional control over funds in the Treasury." Id. at 425. The Clause has a "fundamental and comprehensive purpose . . . to assure that public funds will be spent according to the letter of the difficult judgments reached by Congress as to the common good and not according to the individual favor of Government agents." Id. at 427-28. Without it, Justice Story explained, "the executive would possess an unbounded power over the public purse of the nation; and might apply all its moneyed resources at his pleasure." Id. at 427 (quoting 2 Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States § 1348 (3d ed. 1858)).

Thus, if DOJ were spending money in violation of § 542, it would be drawing funds from the Treasury without authorization by statute and thus violating the Appropriations Clause. That Clause constitutes a separation-of-powers limitation that Appellants can invoke to challenge their prosecutions.

III

The parties dispute whether the government's spending money on their prosecutions violates § 542.

A

We focus, as we must, on the statutory text. Section 542 provides that "[n]one of the funds made available in this Act

---

24

United States v. Mcintosh

to the Department of Justice may be used, with respect to [Medical Marijuana States[3]] to prevent any of them from implementing their own laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana." Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, Pub. L. No. 114-113, § 542, 129 Stat. 2242, 2332-33 (2015). Unfortunately, the rider is not a model of clarity.

1

"It is a 'fundamental canon of statutory construction' that, 'unless otherwise defined, words will be interpreted as taking their ordinary, contemporary, common meaning.'" Sandifer v. U.S. Steel Corp., 134 S. Ct. 870, 876 (2014) (quoting Perrin v. United States, 444 U.S. 37, 42 (1979)). Thus, in order to decide whether the prosecutions of Appellants violate § 542, we must determine the plain meaning of "prevent any of [the Medical Marijuana States] from implementing their own laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana." The pronoun "them" refers back to the Medical Marijuana States, and "their own

____________________

[3] To avoid repeating the names of all 43 jurisdictions listed, we refer to Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming, the District of Columbia, Guam, and Puerto Rico as the “Medical Marijuana States” and their laws authorizing “the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana” as the “State Medical Marijuana Laws.” While recognizing that the list includes three non-states, we will refer to the listed jurisdictions as states and their laws as state laws without further qualification.

---

25

United States v. Mcintosh

laws" refers to the state laws of the Medical Marijuana States. And "implement" means:

To "carry out, accomplish; esp.: to give practical effect to and ensure of actual fulfillment by concrete measure." Implement, Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed. 2003);

"To put into practical effect; carry out." Implement, American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (5th ed. 2011); and "To complete, perform, carry into effect (a contract, agreement, etc.); to fulfil (an engagement or promise)." Implement, Oxford English Dictionary, www.oed.com.

See Sanford v. MemberWorks, Inc., 625 F.3d 550, 559 (9th Cir. 2010) (We "may follow the common practice of consulting dictionaries to determine" ordinary meaning.); Sandifer, 134 S. Ct. at 876. In sum, § 542 prohibits DOJ from spending money on actions that prevent the Medical Marijuana States' giving practical effect to their state laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana.

2

DoJ argues that it does not prevent the Medical Marijuana States from giving practical effect to their medical marijuana laws by prosecuting private individuals, rather than taking legal action against the state. We are not persuaded.

---

26

United States v. Mcintosh

Importantly, the "[s]tatutory language cannot be construed in a vacuum. It is [another] fundamental canon of statutory construction that the words of a statute must be read in their context and with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme." Sturgeon v. Frost, 136 S. Ct. 1061, 1070 (2016) (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, we must read § 542 with a view to its place in the overall statutory scheme for marijuana regulation, namely the CSA and the State Medical Marijuana Laws. The CSA prohibits the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of any marijuana. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a), 844(a).[4] The State Medical Marijuana Laws are those state laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana. Thus, the CSA prohibits what the State Medical Marijuana Laws permit.

In light of the ordinary meaning of the terms of § 542 and the relationship between the relevant federal and state laws, we consider whether a superior authority, which prohibits certain conduct, can prevent a subordinate authority from implementing a rule that officially permits such conduct by punishing individuals who are engaged in the conduct officially permitted by the lower authority. We conclude that it can.

____________________

[4] This requires a slight caveat. Under the CSA, “the manufacture, distribution, or possession of marijuana [is] a criminal offense, with the sole exception being use of the drug as part of a Food and Drug Administration preapproved research study.” Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 14 (2005); see 21 U.S.C. §§ 812(c), 823(f), 841(a)(1), 844(a). Thus, except as part of “a strictly controlled research project,” federal law “designates marijuana as contraband for any purpose.” Raich, 545 U.S. at 24, 27.

---

27

United States v. Mcintosh

DOJ, without taking any legal action against the Medical Marijuana States, prevents them from implementing their laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana by prosecuting individuals for use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana that is authorized by such laws. By officially permitting certain conduct, state law provides for non-prosecution of individuals who engage in such conduct. If the federal government prosecutes such individuals, it has prevented the state from giving practical effect to its law providing for non-prosecution of individuals who engage in the permitted conduct.

We therefore conclude that, at a minimum, § 542 prohibits DoJ from spending funds from relevant appropriations acts for the prosecution of individuals who engaged in conduct permitted by the State Medical Marijuana Laws and who fully complied with such laws.

3

Appellants in McIntosh and Kynaston argue for a more expansive interpretation of § 542. They contend that the rider prohibits DoJ from bringing federal marijuana charges against anyone licensed or authorized under a state medical marijuana law for activity occurring within that state, including licensees who had failed to comply fully with state law.

For instance, Appellants in Kynaston argue that "implementation of laws necessarily involves all aspects of putting the law into practical effect, including interpretation of the law, means of application and enforcement, and procedures and processes for determining the outcome of

---

28

United States v. Mcintosh

individual cases." Under this view, if the federal government prosecutes individuals who are not strictly compliant with state law, it will prevent the states from implementing the entirety of their laws that authorize medical marijuana by preventing them from giving practical effect to the penalties and enforcement mechanisms for engaging in unauthorized conduct. Thus, argue the Kynaston Appellants, the Department of Justice must refrain from prosecuting "unless a person's activities are so clearly outside the scope of a state's medical marijuana laws that reasonable debate is not possible."

To determine whether such construction is correct, we must decide whether the phrase "laws that authorize" includes not only the rules authorizing certain conduct but also the rules delineating penalties and enforcement mechanisms for engaging in unauthorized conduct. In answering that question, we consider the ordinary meaning of "laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana." "Law" has many different meanings, including the following definitions that appear most relevant to § 542:

"The aggregate of legislation, judicial precedents, and accepted legal principles; the body of authoritative grounds of judicial and administrative action; esp., the body of rules, standards, and principles that the courts of a particular jurisdiction apply in deciding controversies brought before them."

"The set of rules or principles dealing with a specific area of a legal system ."

---

29

United States v. Mcintosh

Law, Black's Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014); and:

"1. a. The body of rules, whether proceeding from formal enactment or from custom, which a particular state or community recognizes as binding on its members or subjects. (In this sense usually the law.)."

"One of the individual rules which constitute the 'law' (sense 1) of a state or polity. . . . The plural has often a collective sense . . . approaching sense 1."

Law, Oxford English Dictionary, wwww.oed.com. The relative pronoun "that" restricts "laws" to those laws authorizing the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana. See Bryan A. Garner, Garner's Dictionary of Legal Usage 887-89 (3d ed. 2011). In sum, the ordinary meaning of § 542 prohibits the Department of Justice from preventing the implementation of the Medical Marijuana States' laws or sets of rules and only those rules that authorize medical marijuana use.

We also consider the context of § 542. The rider prohibits DOJ from preventing forty states, the District of Columbia, and two territories from implementing their medical marijuana laws. Not only are such laws varied in composition but they also are changing as new statutes are enacted, new regulations are promulgated, and new administrative and judicial decisions interpret such statutes and regulations. Thus, § 542 applies to a wide variety of laws that are in flux.

---

30

United States v. Mcintosh

Given this context and the restriction of the relevant laws to those that authorize conduct, we conclude that § 542 prohibits the federal government only from preventing the implementation of those specific rules of state law that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana. DOJ does not prevent the implementation of rules authorizing conduct when it prosecutes individuals who engage in conduct unauthorized under state medical marijuana laws. Individuals who do not strictly comply with all state-law conditions regarding the use, distribution, possession, and cultivation of medical marijuana have engaged in conduct that is unauthorized, and prosecuting such individuals does not violate § 542. Congress could easily have drafted § 542 to prohibit interference with laws that address medical marijuana or those that regulate medical marijuana, but it did not. Instead, it chose to proscribe preventing states from implementing laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, and cultivation of medical marijuana.

B

The parties cite various pieces of legislative history to support their arguments regarding the meaning of § 542.

We cannot consider such sources. It is a fundamental principle of appropriations law that we may only consider the text of an appropriations rider, not expressions of intent in legislative history. "An agency's discretion to spend appropriated funds is cabined only by the 'text of the appropriation,' not by Congress' expectations of how the funds will be spent, as might be reflected by legislative history." Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter, 132 S. Ct. 2181, 2194-95 (2012) (quoting Int'l Union, UAW v. Donovan,

---

31

United States v. Mcintosh

746 F.2d 855, 860-61 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (Scalia, J.)). In International Union, then-Judge Scalia explained:

As the Supreme Court has said (in a case involving precisely the issue of Executive compliance with appropriation laws, although the principle is one of general applicability): "legislative intention, without more, is not legislation." The issue here is not how Congress expected or intended the Secretary to behave, but how it required him to behave, through the only means by which it can (as far as the courts are concerned, at least) require anything—the enactment of legislation. Our focus, in other words, must be upon the text of the appropriation.

746 F.2d at 860-61 (quoting Train v. City of New York, 420 U.S. 35, 45 (1975)); see also Cherokee Nation of Okla. v. Leavitt, 543 U.S. 631, 646 (2005) ("The relevant case law makes clear that restrictive language contained in Committee Reports is not legally binding."); Lincoln v. Vigil, 508 U.S. 182, 192 (1993) ("'[I]ndicia in committee reports and other legislative history as to how the funds should or are expected to be spent do not establish any legal requirements on' the agency." (citation omitted)).

We recognize that some members of Congress may have desired a more expansive construction of the rider, while others may have preferred a more limited interpretation. However, we must consider only the text of the rider. If Congress intends to prohibit a wider or narrower range of DOJ actions, it certainly may express such intention, hopefully with greater clarity, in the text of any future rider.

---

32

United States v. Mcintosh

IV

We therefore must remand to the district courts. If DOJ wishes to continue these prosecutions, Appellants are entitled to evidentiary hearings to determine whether their conduct was completely authorized by state law, by which we mean that they strictly complied with all relevant conditions imposed by state law on the use, distribution, possession, and cultivation of medical marijuana. We leave to the district courts to determine, in the first instance and in each case, the precise remedy that would be appropriate.

We note the temporal nature of the problem with these prosecutions. The government had authority to initiate criminal proceedings, and it merely lost funds to continue them. DoJ is currently prohibited from spending funds from specific appropriations acts for prosecutions of those who complied with state law. But Congress could appropriate funds for such prosecutions tomorrow. Conversely, this temporary lack of funds could become a more permanent lack of funds if Congress continues to include the same rider in future appropriations bills. In determining the appropriate remedy for any violation of § 542, the district courts should consider the temporal nature of the lack of funds along with Appellants' rights to a speedy trial under the Sixth Amendment and the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161.[5]

____________________

[5] The prior observation should also serve as a warning. To be clear, § 542 does not provide immunity from prosecution for federal marijuana offenses. The CSA prohibits the manufacture, distribution, and possession of marijuana. Anyone in any state who possesses, distributes, or manufactures marijuana for medical or recreational purposes (or attempts or conspires to do so) is committing a federal crime. The federal government can prosecute such offenses for up to five years after they occur. See 18 U.S.C. § 3282. Congress currently restricts the government

---

33

United States v. Mcintosh

V

For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the orders of the district courts and remand with instructions to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Appellants have complied with state law.[6]

VACATED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

____________________

from spending certain funds to prosecute certain individuals. But Congress could restore funding tomorrow, a year from now, or four years from now, and the government could then prosecute individuals who committed offenses while the government lacked funding. Moreover, a new president will be elected soon, and a new administration could shift enforcement priorities to place greater emphasis on prosecuting marijuana offenses. Nor does any state law “legalize” possession, distribution, or manufacture of marijuana. Under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, state laws cannot permit what federal law prohibits. U.S. Const. art VI, cl. 2. Thus, while the CSA remains in effect, states cannot actually authorize the manufacture, distribution, or possession of marijuana. Such activity remains prohibited by federal law.

[6] We have jurisdiction under the All Writs Act to “issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of [our] jurisdiction[] and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1651. The writ of mandamus “is a drastic and extraordinary remedy reserved for really extraordinary causes.” United States v. Guerrero, 693 F.3d 990, 999 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court, 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004)). We DENY the petitions for the writ of mandamus because the petitioners have other means to obtain their desired relief and because the district courts’ orders were not clearly erroneous as a matter of law. See id. (citing Bauman v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 557 F.2d 650, 654–55 (9th Cir. 2010)). In addition, we GRANT the motion for leave to file an oversize reply brief, ECF No. 47-2; DENY the motion to strike, ECF No. 52; and DENY the motion for judicial notice, ECF No. 53.

---

Yes, I have copied and pasted facts to bolster my argument.

nolu spam's entire argument is "pot is illegal in states that have approved the use of it by adults because fed.gov says so".

The problem is - nolu sham posts the same long-winded BS over and over.
Yes, I have copied and pasted facts to bolster my argument.
nolu spam's entire argument is "pot is illegal in states that have approved the use of it by adults because fed.gov says so".

You do the same. You have hundreds or more of your spam links categorized and indexed by subject. So that when someone triggers a key word to your memory, instead of trying to comment or counter a point….you simply pull up about four or more links on the same general subject and bombard the thread with superfluous information. Often times, you have spammed the same links four, five, six and many more times. You do it so much that nobody reads the links anymore, at least I know that I don’t and I feel there are others who also just scroll on down the thread. This is evidenced by little to no support for your position.

The facts you say you post are not facts. They are simply opinions that you have cherry picked because they in some way are in agreement with your feeling or position and you think you can gain advantage by “shotgunning” loads of data in a futile and constantly failed attempt to win a point.

Chan is correct in showing that pot is illegal in states that have approved the use of marijuana by adults. Contrary to what you want to believe, states can’t overrule what the federal government says. Federal laws trump state laws. You need to understand that under the federal law, pot is still a schedule 1 drug. However, in states where it has been legalized, federal authorities are not likely to get involved. Why, you ask? Because it comes down to prioritization of federal resources. If you bother to check, you will find that in 2013, the DOJ laid out 8 specific enforcement priorities in the Cole memorandum. I won’t bother to go look them up and post those here….since you will continue to not believe that pot is illegal in states that have approved the use of pot.

Contrary to what you want to believe, states can’t overrule what the federal government states. Federal laws trump state laws. You need to understand that under the federal law, pot is still a schedule 1 drug

Contrary to what you want to believe, states can overrule what the federal government opines, in ' laws' that are not in pursuance of our Constitution. Only constitutionally valid federal laws trump state laws.

You need to understand that the federal 'law' regarding pot is such a statute opinion, one with NO constitutional backing.

Contrary to what you want to believe, states can’t overrule what the federal government states. Federal laws trump state laws. You need to understand that under the federal law, pot is still a schedule 1 drug

Doctors to DEA: We'd like to study marijuana to find out if it has any medical use.

DEA to doctors: You can't do that because it's illegal and has no medical use.

Doctors to DEA: How can you determine that it has no medical use without doing any actual studies.

DEA to doctors: Because we say so.

Legalization implies societal acceptance.

"Bullshit - I'd crash the LF server listing all the acts that are legal but not societally accepted: for just one instance, belittling one's wife and/or children in public."

Legalizing a formerly illegal product or act implies societal acceptance.

Better?

It's far from intuitive that former illegality would make a big difference.

Or would you like me to post a graph of abortions, pre- and post-Roe v wade?

Increasing numbers doesn't prove increasing societal acceptance - and any increase in societal acceptance may have been a cause as much as an effect, given that pre-Roe several states had abortion laws as lenient as what Roe imposed.

Hard liquor is destructive - that's why we had Prohibition. But it's not destructive ENOUGH to have continued to endure the other destruction brought by Prohibition, so we re- legalized alcohol. Same thing is true with pot.

Amen!

Geeesh - just stop it with your long winded copy and paste screeds already nolu spam.

As long as you continue your incessant posting of bullshit about "legal" marijuana, I will continue to post federal court opinions documenting that your posts are just bullshit.

Your thread articles are worse than spam — they are deliberate lies.

GET MARIJUANA LICENSE — LOSE FIREARMS

Wilson v. Lynch, No. 14-15700 (9th Cir. 31 Aug 2016) At 4:

Marijuana is classified as a Schedule I controlled substance under the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. § 812. As a Schedule I controlled substance, marijuana, under federal law, is deemed to have "no currently accepted medical use in treatment[, and] [t]here is a lack of accepted safety for use of the . . . substance under medical supervision." Id. § 812(b)(1)(B) & (C).[1]

[...]

[1] As we recently observed: “The [Controlled Substances Act] prohibits the manufacture, distribution, and possession of marijuana. Anyone in any state who possesses, distributes, or manufactures marijuana for medical or recreational purposes (or attempts or conspires to do so) is committing a federal crime.” United States v. McIntosh, No. 15-10117, 2016 WL 4363168, at *11 n.5 (9th Cir. Aug. 16, 2016).

[...]

At 5:

Turning to federal firearms provisions, under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) no person "who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance" may "possess . . . or . . . receive any firearm or ammunition." In addition, it is unlawful for "any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person . . . is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance." Id. § 922(d)(3).

The ATF has promulgated regulations implementing § 922 and defining a person "who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance." See 27 C.F.R. § 478.11. The ATF has also developed Form 4473, which confirms eligibility for gun ownership under § 922. Prospective purchasers of firearms fill out Form 4473 when they seek to buy a firearm. Form 4473 includes Question 11.e., which asks "Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?"

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/08/31/14-15700.pdf

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-15700
D.C. No. 2:11-CV-01679-GMN-PAL

OPINION

S. Rowan Wilson,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

Loretta E. Lynch, Attorney General;
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; B. Todd Jones, as Acting Director of U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; Arthur Herbert, as Assistant Director of U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; and United States of America,
Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Gloria M. Navarro, Chief District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted July 21, 2016
San Francisco, California

---

2

WILSON V. LYNCH

Filed August 31, 2016

Before: Susan P. Graber and Richard C. Tallman, Circuit Judges, and Jed S. Rakoff,* Senior District Judge.

Opinion by Judge Rakoff

SUMMARY**

Civil Rights

The panel affirmed the district court's dismissal of a complaint challenging the federal statutes, regulations, and guidance that prevented plaintiff from buying a gun because she possesses a Nevada medical marijuana registry card.

The panel preliminarily held that plaintiff lacked standing to challenge 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), which criminalizes possession or receipt of a firearm by an unlawful drug user or a person addicted to a controlled substance. Plaintiff had not alleged that she was an unlawful drug user or that she was addicted to any controlled substance. Nor had she alleged that she possessed or received a firearm. The panel further held that plaintiff's remaining claims were not moot because she represented that she has routinely renewed her registry card.

____________________

* The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, Senior United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.

** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.

---

3

WILSON V. LYNCH

The panel held that plaintiff's Second Amendment claims did not fall within the direct scope of United States v. Dugan, 657 F.3d 998 (9th Cir. 2011), which held that the Second Amendment does not protect the rights of unlawful drug users to bear arms. Taking plaintiff's allegations in her first amended complaint as true - that she chose not to use medical marijuana - the panel concluded that plaintiff was not actually an unlawful drug user.

The panel held that 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(3), 27 C.F.R.§ 478.11, and the Open Letter issued by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to federal firearms licensees, which prevented plaintiff from purchasing a firearm, directly burdened plaintiff's core Second Amendment right to possess a firearm. Applying intermediate scrutiny, the panel nevertheless held that the fit between the challenged provisions and the Government's substantial interest of violence prevention was reasonable, and therefore the district court did not err by dismissing the Second Amendment claim.

The panel rejected plaintiff's claims that the challenged laws and Open Letter violated the First Amendment. The panel held that any burden the Government's anti-marijuana and anti-gun-violence efforts placed on plaintiff's expressive conduct was incidental, and that the Open Letter survived intermediate scrutiny.

The panel held that the challenged laws and Open Letter neither violated plaintiff's procedural due process rights protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment nor violated the Equal Protection Clause as incorporated into the Fifth Amendment. Plaintiff did not have a constitutionally protected liberty interest in simultaneously

---

4

WILSON V. LYNCH

holding a registry card and purchasing a firearm, nor was she a part of suspect or quasi-suspect class.

Finally, rejecting the claim brought under the Administrative Procedure Act, the panel agreed with the district court that the Open Letter was a textbook interpretative rule and that it was exempt from the Act's notice-and-comment procedures.

COUNSEL

Charles C. Rainey (argued) and Jennifer J. Hurley, Rainey Legal Group PLLC, Las Vegas, Nevada, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Abby C. Wright (argued) and Michael S. Raab, Attorneys, Appellate Staff; Daniel G. Bogden, United States Attorney; Civil Division, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; for Defendants-Appellees.

OPINION

RAKOFF, Senior District Judge:

Plaintiff-Appellant S. Rowan Wilson acquired a Nevada medical marijuana registry card. She then sought to purchase a firearm, but the firearms dealer knew that Wilson held a registry card. Consistent with a letter issued by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives ("ATF"), the dealer refused to sell Wilson a firearm because of her registry card. Wilson sued, challenging the federal statutes, regulations, and guidance that prevented her from buying a

---

5

WILSON V. LYNCH

gun. The district court dismissed Wilson's complaint, and Wilson appealed. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

Marijuana is classified as a Schedule I controlled substance under the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. § 812. As a Schedule I controlled substance, marijuana, under federal law, is deemed to have "no currently accepted medical use in treatment[, and] [t]here is a lack of accepted safety for use of the . . . substance under medical supervision." Id. § 812(b)(1)(B) & (C).[1]

This, however, is not the view of the State of Nevada. Although Nevada law criminalizes the possession of marijuana, see Nev. Rev. Stat. § 453.336(4), Nevada's Constitution was amended in 2000 to provide for medical marijuana use, see Nev. Const. art. IV, § 38. Under a statutory scheme enacted pursuant to this constitutional amendment, a holder of a valid marijuana registration ID card (a "registry card") is exempt from state prosecution for marijuana-related crimes. Nev. Rev. Stat. § 453A.200. To acquire a registry card, an applicant must provide documentation from an attending physician affirming that the applicant has a chronic or debilitating medical condition, that the medical use of marijuana may mitigate the symptoms of the condition, and that the physician has explained to the

____________________

[1] As we recently observed: “The [Controlled Substances Act] prohibits the manufacture, distribution, and possession of marijuana. Anyone in any state who possesses, distributes, or manufactures marijuana for medical or recreational purposes (or attempts or conspires to do so) is committing a federal crime.” United States v. McIntosh, No. 15-10117, 2016 WL 4363168, at *11 n.5 (9th Cir. Aug. 16, 2016).

---

6

WILSON V. LYNCH

applicant the risks and benefits of the medical use of marijuana. Id. §453A.210(2)(a)(1)-(3). Cardholders must also comply with certain ongoing requirements, including limitations on the amount of marijuana they have at one time, id. § 453A.200(3)(b), as well as the requirement that they "[e]ngage in . . . the medical use of marijuana in accordance with the provisions of this chapter as justified to mitigate the symptoms or effects of a person's chronic or debilitating medical condition," id. § 453A.200(3)(a). A registry card is valid for one year and may be renewed annually by submitting updated written documentation from a physician. Id. §§ 453A.220(5), 453A.230(1)(b).

Turning to federal firearms provisions, under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) no person "who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance" may "possess . . . or . . . receive any firearm or ammunition." In addition, it is unlawful for "any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person . . . is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance." Id. § 922(d)(3).

The ATF has promulgated regulations implementing § 922 and defining a person "who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance." See 27 C.F.R. § 478.11. The ATF has also developed Form 4473, which confirms eligibility for gun ownership under § 922. Prospective purchasers of firearms fill out Form 4473 when they seek to buy a firearm. Form 4473 includes Question 11.e., which asks "Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?" See Firearms Transaction Record Part I - Over-the-Counter ("Form 4473"),

---

7

WILSON V. LYNCH

https://www.atf.gov/file/61446/download. If the answer is "yes," the putative transaction is prohibited.

On September 21, 2011, the ATF issued an "Open Letter to All Federal Firearms Licensees" (the "Open Letter") that stated the following:

[A]ny person who uses or is addicted to marijuana, regardless of whether his or her State has passed legislation authorizing marijuana use for medicinal purposes, is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance, and is prohibited by Federal law from possessing firearms or ammunition. Such persons should answer "yes" to question 11.e. on ATF Form 4473 . . . and you may not transfer firearms or ammunition to them. Further, if you are aware that the potential transferee is in possession of a card authorizing the possession and use of marijuana under State law, then you have "reasonable cause to believe" that the person is an unlawful user of a controlled substance. As such, you may not transfer firearms or ammunition to the person, even if the person answered "no" to question 11.e. on ATF Form 4473.

Open Letter to all Federal Firearms Licensees dated Sept. 21, 2011, https://www.atf.gov/files/press/releases/2011/09/092611-atf-open-letter-to-all-ffls-marijuana-for-medicinal-purposes.pdf.

---

8

WILSON V. LYNCH

It was against this regulatory and statutory context that appellant Wilson, on May 12, 2011, was issued a marijuana registry card by the State of Nevada. A few months later, on October 4, 2011, Wilson sought to purchase a firearm from Custom Firearms & Gunsmithing in the small community of Moundhouse, Nevada. As Wilson began to fill out Form 4473, the owner of the store, Frederick Hauser, stopped her from completing Question 11.e, which asked whether Wilson was an unlawful user of a controlled substance. Hauser explained that, because (as Hauser already knew) Wilson held a marijuana registry card, Wilson was deemed an unlawful user of a controlled substance and therefore someone to whom he could not sell a firearm without jeopardizing his federal firearms license. Wilson handed Hauser Form 4473 with Question 11.e. left blank. Hauser, who had received the ATF Open Letter three days earlier, nonetheless refused to sell her a firearm. Wilson alleges that Hauser's refusal to sell her a firearm was a direct consequence of Hauser's receipt of the Open Letter.

On October 18, 2011, Wilson filed the present action against the Government and, on December 17, 2012, filed a First Amended Complaint (the "FAC"). Wilson asserted five causes of action: (1) violation of the Second Amendment, (2) violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment, (3) violation of the procedural Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, (4) violation of the substantive Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and (5) violation of the First Amendment. Wilson sought declarations that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) and (d)(3), as well as all derivative regulations, such as 27 C.F.R. § 478.11, and the Open Letter, were unconstitutional. Wilson also sought a permanent injunction barring enforcement of § 922(g)(3) and (d)(3), all derivative regulations, and the Open Letter. Finally,

---

9

WILSON V. LYNCH

Wilson sought compensatory and punitive damages, costs, fees, and expenses.

On January 31, 2013, the Government filed a motion to dismiss the FAC. In her opposition to Defendants' motion to dismiss, Wilson asserted that the Open Letter also violated the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"). On March 11, 2014, the district court granted the Government's motion to dismiss the FAC. The district court also denied Wilson leave to amend the FAC to raise an APA claim, concluding that amendment would be futile. Wilson timely appealed.

DISCUSSION

We review de novo the district court's dismissal for failure to state a claim, and we review for abuse of discretion the denial of leave to amend. Dougherty v. City of Covina, 654 F.3d 892, 897 (9th Cir. 2011). We review de novo all constitutional rulings. Fournier v. Sebelius, 718 F.3d 1110, 1117 (9th Cir. 2013).

A.

As a preliminary matter, we address two jurisdictional issues:

First, as appellant's counsel conceded at oral argument, Wilson lacks standing to challenge 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3).[2]

____________________

[2] Neither party challenged the district court’s determination that Wilson had standing, but we have an independent obligation “to examine jurisdictional issues such as standing [sua sponte].” B.C. v. Plumas Unified Sch. Dist., 192 F.3d 1260, 1264 (9th Cir. 1999). We review

---

10

WILSON V. LYNCH

Standing requires, among other elements, a "concrete and particularized" injury that is "actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical." Lujan v Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992) (internal quotation marks omitted). Section 922(g)(3) criminalizes possession or receipt of a firearm by a unlawful drug user or a person addicted to a controlled substance. Wilson has not alleged that she is an unlawful drug user or that she is addicted to any controlled substance. Nor has she alleged that she possessed or received a firearm. Accordingly, Wilson has not alleged that § 922(g)(3) has injured her in any way. For the same reasons, she also has not shown a "genuine threat of imminent prosecution" under § 922(g)(3), as is generally required of plaintiffs raising pre-enforcement challenges to criminal statutes outside the First Amendment context. San Diego Cty. Gun Rights Comm. v. Reno, 98 F.3d 1121, 1126 (9th Cir. 1996) (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, we affirm on the ground of lack of standing the district court's dismissal of Wilson's claims concerning § 922(g)(3).

Wilson does have standing, however, to raise her remaining claims challenging 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(3), 27 C.F.R. § 478.11, and the Open Letter. Wilson alleges that § 922(d)(3)'s ban on sales of firearms to individuals whom sellers have reasonable cause to believe are drug users, along with the regulations and guidance implementing this ban, prevented her from purchasing a firearm. These allegations are sufficient to satisfy the injury requirement.

Second, contrary to the Government's suggestion, Wilson's remaining claims are not moot. We review the

____________________

questions of standing de novo. La Asociacion de Trabajadores de Lake Forest v. City of Lake Forest, 624 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 2010).

---

11

WILSON V. LYNCH

mootness of a case de novo. Foster v. Carson, 347 F.3d 742, 745 (9th Cir. 2003). The Government's concern is that because Wilson has not renewed her registry card throughout her appeal, she is no longer injured by 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(3), 27 C.F.R. § 478.11, and the Open Letter. Although the FAC discusses only the registry card issued in May 2011, which expired in 2012, Wilson represents that she has routinely renewed her card. The Government has not challenged the accuracy of this representation. Because Wilson has appealed from a granted motion to dismiss and her representation simply updates the allegation in the FAC that she has a current registry card, we accept it as true for purposes of her appeal. Cf. Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 502 (1975).

B.

Wilson's first constitutional challenge to 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(3), 27 C.F.R. § 478.11, and the Open Letter purportedly rests on the Second Amendment. Specifically, Wilson claims that these provisions unconstitutionally burden her individual right to bear arms. See District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 592 (2008). The district court concluded, however, that Wilson's Second Amendment challenge failed under our decision in United States v. Dugan, 657 F.3d 998 (9th Cir. 2011). In Dugan, we held that the Second Amendment does not protect the rights of unlawful drug users to bear arms, id. at 999-1000, in the same way that it does not protect the rights of "felons and the mentally ill," Heller, 554 U.S. at 626-27. The Government argues that if the Second Amendment does not protect the rights of unlawful drug users to bear arms, it must not protect any possible rights of unlawful drug users to purchase firearms or of firearm dealers to sell to unlawful drug users. Therefore, were Wilson an unlawful drug user, she would be beyond the

---

12

WILSON V. LYNCH

reach of the Second Amendment, and her claims would fail categorically.

However, taking Wilson's allegations as true, as we must on an appeal from a motion to dismiss, Usher v. City of Los Angeles, 828 F.2d 556, 561 (9th Cir. 1987), she is not actually an unlawful drug user. Instead, she alleges that, although she obtained a registry card, she chose not to use medical marijuana for various reasons, such as the difficulties of acquiring medical marijuana in Nevada, as well as a desire to make a political statement.[3] Regardless of her motivations, we agree that Wilson's claims do not fall under the direct scope of Dugan.[4]

This does not mean that her Second Amendment claim succeeds. We have adopted a two-step inquiry to determine whether a law violates the Second Amendment. We ask (1) "whether the challenged law burdens conduct protected by the Second Amendment and (2) if so . . . apply an appropriate level of scrutiny." United States v. Chovan, 735 F.3d 1127, 1136 (9th Cir. 2013). Following this approach, we apply

____________________

[3] Wilson argues that, in light of the active political movements to decriminalize the use of marijuana in some states, her stance as a nonusing registry cardholder allows her to express her support for marijuana legalization in a particularly meaningful way.

[4] Dugan does, however, dispose of Wilson’s Second Amendment claims against 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(3), 27 C.F.R. § 478.11, and the Open Letter to the extent that they are facial, as distinct from as-applied, challenges. Under Dugan, there is no question that § 922(d)(3) could be enforced constitutionally, pursuant to 27 C.F.R. § 478.11 and the Open Letter, against a dealer who knowingly sold a firearm to a registry cardholder who was actively using marijuana.

---

13

WILSON V. LYNCH

intermediate scrutiny and uphold 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(3), 27 C.F.R. § 478.11, and the Open Letter.

i. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(3), 27 C.F.R. § 478.11, and the Open Letter Burden Protected Conduct

At Chovan's first step, we ask "whether the challenged law burdens conduct protected by the Second Amendment, based on a historical understanding of the scope of the [Second Amendment] right, or whether the challenged law falls within a well-defined and narrowly limited category of prohibitions that have been historically unprotected." Jackson v. City & County of San Francisco, 746 F.3d 953, 960 (9th Cir. 2014) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). With respect to Wilson, this inquiry is straightforward: because Wilson insists that she is not an unlawful drug user, a convicted felon, or a mentally-ill person, she is not a person historically prohibited from possessing firearms under the Second Amendment. Accordingly, by preventing Wilson from purchasing a firearm, 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(3), 27 C.F.R. § 478.11, and the Open Letter directly burden her core Second Amendment right to possess a firearm, and we proceed to Chovan's second step.

ii. Which Level of Scrutiny Applies to 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(3), 27 C.F.R. § 478.11, and the Open Letter

The appropriate level of scrutiny for laws that burden conduct protected by the Second Amendment "depend[s] on (1) how close the law comes to the core of the Second Amendment right and (2) the severity of the law's burden on the right." Chovan, 735 F.3d at 1138 (citing Ezell v. City of Chicago, 651 F.3d 684, 703 (7th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted)). Application of the first prong is

---

14

WILSON V. LYNCH

guided by "Heller's holding that the Second Amendment has 'the core lawful purpose of self-defense,' and that 'whatever else it leaves to future evaluation, [the Second Amendment] surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.'" Jackson, 746 F.3d at 961 (alteration in original) (quoting Heller, 554 U.S. at 630, 635). Here, as previously stated, 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(3), 27 C.F.R. § 478.11, and the Open Letter burden the core of Wilson's Second Amendment right because they prevent her from purchasing a firearm under certain circumstances and thereby impede her right to use arms to defend her "hearth and home." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

With respect to the second prong of the second Chovan step,

laws which regulate only the manner in which persons may exercise their Second Amendment rights are less burdensome than those which bar firearm possession completely. Similarly, firearm regulations which leave open alternative channels for self-defense are less likely to place a severe burden on the Second Amendment right than those which do not.

Id. (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). The burden on Wilson's core Second Amendment right is not severe. Title 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(3), 27 C.F.R. § 478.11, and the Open Letter bar only the sale of firearms to Wilson-not her possession of firearms. Wilson could have amassed legal firearms before acquiring a registry card, and 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(3), 27 C.F.R. § 478.11, and the Open Letter would

---

15

WILSON V. LYNCH

not impede her right to keep her firearms or to use them to protect herself and her home. In addition, Wilson could acquire firearms and exercise her right to self-defense at any time by surrendering her registry card, thereby demonstrating to a firearms dealer that there is no reasonable cause to believe she is an unlawful drug user.

Because 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(3), 27 C.F.R. § 478.11, and the Open Letter do not place a severe burden on Wilson's core right to defend herself with firearms, we apply intermediate scrutiny to determine whether these laws and guidance pass constitutional muster.

iii. Applying Intermediate Scrutiny to 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(3), 27 C.F.R. 478.11, and the Open Letter

Intermediate scrutiny "require[s] (1) the government's stated objective to be significant, substantial, or important; and (2) a reasonable fit between the challenged regulation and the asserted objective." Chovan, 735 F.3d at 1139 (internal quotation marks omitted). Wilson concedes that the Government had a substantial interest in enacting § 922(d)(3) to prevent gun violence.[5] However, she argues that the fit between 27 C.F.R. § 478.11 and the Open Letter, on the one hand, and violence prevention, on the other, is not reasonable because 27 C.F.R. § 478.11 and the Open Letter deprive so

____________________

[5] Wilson also argues that the purpose of the Open Letter was to crush the medical marijuana movement. On its face, the Open Letter serves no such purpose, and Wilson has not substantiated her suspicions with any facts. In addition, if the Government had wished to oppose the medical marijuana movement, it would not have needed the Open Letter–it would have needed merely to enforce existing federal statutes as then interpreted. See 21 U.S.C. § 812. (But see footnote 7, infra.)

---

16

WILSON V. LYNCH

many non-violent people, such as Wilson, who hold registry cards for political reasons, of their Second Amendment rights.

The Government argues that empirical data and legislative determinations support a strong link between drug use and violence. As to the first, studies and surveys relied on in similar cases suggest a significant link between drug use, including marijuana use, and violence. See United States v. Carter, 750 F.3d 462, 466-69 (4th Cir. 2014) (citing and discussing four studies and two government surveys); United States v. Yancey, 621 F.3d 681, 686 (7th Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (citing all but one of the studies and surveys in Carter, plus one additional study). While it would have been helpful for the Government to provide the studies in this case, Wilson has not challenged their methodology. We therefore have no occasion to evaluate the reliability of the studies and surveys, and instead accept them as probative.

Moreover, legislative determinations also support the link between drug use and violence. In particular, Congress enacted 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), which bars unlawful drug users from possessing firearms, "to keep firearms out of the hands of presumptively risky people." Dickerson v. New Banner Inst, Inc., 460 U.S. 103, 112 n.6 (1983).[6] It is beyond dispute that illegal drug users, including marijuana users, are likely as a consequence of that use to experience altered or impaired mental states that affect their judgment and that can lead to irrational or unpredictable behavior. See Carter, 750 F.3d at 469-70. They are also more likely to have negative interactions with law enforcement officers because

____________________

[6] A majority of states have enacted similar restrictions on possession of firearms by habitual illegal drug users. See Yancey, 621 F.3d at 683–84 (citing twenty-six state statutes and a District of Columbia statute).

---

17

WILSON V. LYNCH

they engage in criminal activity. Id. Finally, they frequently make their purchases through black market sources who themselves frequently resort to violence.

It may be argued that medical marijuana users are less likely to commit violent crimes, as they often suffer from debilitating illnesses, for which marijuana may be an effective palliative. They also may be less likely than other illegal drug users to interact with law enforcement officers or make purchases through illicit channels.[7] But those hypotheses are not sufficient to overcome Congress's reasonable conclusion that the use of such drugs raises the risk of irrational or unpredictable behavior with which gun use should not be associated.

By citing to the link between unlawful drug users and violence in this case, however, the Government incorrectly conflates registry cardholders with unlawful drug users. While these two categories of people overlap, they are not identical. The Government's showings of the link between drug use and violence would be sufficient were we applying intermediate scrutiny to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), which bars unlawful drug users from possessing firearms. But Wilson flatly maintains that she is not an unlawful drug user and is instead challenging a set of laws that bar non-drug users from purchasing firearms if there is only reasonable cause to believe that they are unlawful drug users, for instance, if they hold a registry card. Wilson correctly points out that the

____________________

[7] See McIntosh, 2016 WL 4363168, at *9–10 (holding that the United States Department of Justice is prohibited under a congressional appropriations rider from prosecuting individuals who are engaged in conduct permitted by state medical marijuana laws and who fully comply with such laws).

---

18

WILSON V. LYNCH

degree of fit between these laws and the ultimate aim of preventing gun violence is not as tight as the fit with laws like 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), which affect only illegal drug users.

Nonetheless, the degree of fit between 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(3), 27 C.F.R. § 478.11, and the Open Letter and the aim of preventing gun violence is still reasonable, which is sufficient to survive intermediate scrutiny. The connection between these laws and that aim requires only one additional logical step: individuals who firearms dealers have reasonable cause to believe are illegal drug users are more likely actually to be illegal drug users (who, in turn, are more likely to be involved with violent crimes). With respect to marijuana registry cards, there may be some small population of individuals who-although obtaining a marijuana registry card for medicinal purposes-instead hold marijuana registry cards only for expressive purposes. But it is eminently reasonable for federal regulators to assume that a registry cardholder is much more likely to be a marijuana user than an individual who does not hold a registry card.

Because the degree of fit between 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(3), 27 C.F.R. § 478.11, and the Open Letter and their purpose of preventing gun violence is reasonable but not airtight, these laws will sometimes burden-albeit minimally and only incidentally-the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are reasonably, but erroneously, suspected of being unlawful drug users. However, the Constitution tolerates these modest collateral burdens in various contexts, and does so here as well. For instance, the Fourth Amendment allows an officer to burden an individual's right to be free from searches when the officer has "reason to believe" the person is armed and dangerous, see Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 27 (1968), a standard comparable to the "reasonable cause to

---

19

WILSON V. LYNCH

believe" standard of § 922(d). Moreover, as previously noted, there are various ways for individuals in Wilson's position to minimize or eliminate altogether the burdens that 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(3), 27 C.F.R. § 478.11, and the Open Letter place on their Second Amendment rights. Accordingly, 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(3), 27 C.F.R. § 478.11, and the Open Letter survive intermediate scrutiny, and the district court did not err in dismissing Wilson's Second Amendment claims.

C.

Wilson also claims that 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(3), 27 C.F.R. § 478.11, and the Open Letter violate the First Amendment. Wilson's claim fails under long-standing First Amendment precedents.

i. Whether Wilson's Conduct is Protected by the First Amendment

We apply a two-pronged test, known as the Spence test, to determine when conduct contains sufficient elements of communication to fall within the scope of the First Amendment. First, we ask whether the "intent to convey a particularized message was present." Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 404 (1989) (quoting Spence v. Washington, 418 U.S. 405, 410-11 (1974) (per curiam)). Second, we ask whether "the likelihood was great that the message would be understood by those who viewed it." Id. (quoting Spence, 418 U.S. at 410-11).

Wilson argues that her acquisition of a registry card qualifies as expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment. She allegedly intended to convey a particularized message in support of medical use of marijuana

---

20

WILSON V. LYNCH

and argues that in the midst of a hotly contested debate over the legalization of marijuana, viewers of the card would understand this message. The Government does not dispute that Wilson's acquisition of a registry card passes the Spence test, and we agree that, in the peculiar circumstances alleged, Wilson's acquisition of a registry card falls within the scope of conduct protected by the First Amendment. However, other actions that could give a firearms dealer reasonable cause to believe that Wilson, or another individual, was an unlawful drug user do not necessarily pass the Spence test and are not necessarily expressive. For that reason, Wilson's First Amendment claim rests only on her acquisition of a registry card.

ii. The Appropriate Level of Scrutiny

Courts apply strict scrutiny to laws that "proscribe particular conduct because it has expressive elements." Johnson, 491 U.S. at 406. "A law directed at the communicative nature of conduct must, like a law directed at speech itself, be justified by the substantial showing of need that the First Amendment requires." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). But intermediate scrutiny applies when a law is directed at the non-communicative portion of conduct that contains both communicative and non-communicative elements: "[W]hen 'speech' and 'nonspeech' elements are combined in the same course of conduct, a sufficiently important governmental interest in regulating the nonspeech element can justify incidental limitations on First Amendment freedoms." United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 376 (1968).

Wilson argues that strict scrutiny must apply because the Open Letter was allegedly part of a campaign by the

---

21

WILSON V. LYNCH

Government to crush the medical marijuana movement. She points to news reports that discuss a "crackdown" by the Government on state medical marijuana systems. As noted earlier, this hypothesis seems unlikely; all the federal government would have needed to do to "crush" the medical marijuana movement would have been to enforce the federal laws prohibiting marijuana possession as then interpreted,[8] for the laws, as noted earlier, do not permit a medical exception. However, even accepting Wilson's allegations as true, they do not demonstrate that the Government targeted Wilson's expressive conduct of acquiring a registry card. They demonstrate only that the Government moved to enforce valid federal criminal statutes against the unauthorized acquisition or transfer of firearms by those who illegally use controlled substances. The production, distribution, and use of medical marijuana are not protected by the First Amendment, and efforts by the Government to impede-or even eliminate altogether-the production, distribution, and use of medical marijuana are not evidence of any conspiracy against free speech. Likewise, the Government's efforts to reduce gun violence through 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(3), 27 C.F.R. § 478.11, and the Open Letter are not directed at the expressive portion of Wilson's acquisition of a registry card. Accordingly, any burden the Government's anti-marijuana and anti-gun-violence efforts place on Wilson's expressive conduct is incidental, and the less searching O'Brien standard applies here.

____________________

[8] Of course, Congress would have to restore funding for the prosecution of marijuana offenses before the federal government could enforce the laws prohibiting possession. See McIntosh, 2016 WL 4363168, at *11 & n.5

---

22

WILSON V. LYNCH

iii. Applying the O'Brien Standard

Under O'Brien,

a government regulation is sufficiently justified [1] if it is within the constitutional power of the Government; [2] if it furthers an important or substantial governmental interest; [3] if the governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression; and [4] if the incidental restriction on alleged First Amendment freedoms is no greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest.

O'Brien, 391 U.S. at 377. The Open Letter satisfies each of these conditions.

With respect to the first O'Brien condition, Wilson argues that the Open Letter is analogous to the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950, which barred any member of designated Communist groups from employment in defense facilities and which the Supreme Court held violated the First Amendment in United States v. Robel, 389 U.S. 258 (1967). But Robel and its discussion of the freedom of association is irrelevant to the question whether the Government may constitutionally regulate the sale and possession of firearms. It may indeed do so, and so the Open Letter meets the first O'Brien condition.

With respect to the second O'Brien condition, although Wilson concedes that preventing violent crime is an important interest, she argues that the Government has failed to show that the Open Letter furthers this interest. She points out that the Government has failed to marshal any evidence

---

23

WILSON V. LYNCH

of the efficacy of the Open Letter in reducing gun violence, despite its being in effect since 2011. But the Government is not required to make such a specific showing in this context. Instead, our discussion of Wilson's Second Amendment claim suffices to show that the Open Letter furthers the aim of preventing gun violence. Registry cardholders are more likely to be marijuana users, and illegal drug users, including marijuana users, are more likely to be involved in violent crimes. See Carter, 750 F.3d at 466-69; Yancey, 621 F.3d at 683-84. Accordingly, preventing those individuals who firearm dealers know have registry cards from acquiring firearms furthers the Government's interest in preventing gun violence.

With respect to the third O'Brien condition, Wilson again argues that the purpose of the Open Letter was the suppression of support for medical marijuana. As discussed above, neither the Government's efforts to reduce gun violence nor its efforts to curtail marijuana use are related to the suppression of free expression.

With respect to the fourth O'Brien condition, Wilson argues that the incidental effect of the Open Letter on her First Amendment rights is greater than is essential to reduce gun violence. In particular, she argues that the Open Letter places her on the horns of a constitutional dilemma: she must either surrender her Second Amendment right to possess a firearm or her First Amendment right to express her support for medical marijuana use. Wilson faces no such dilemma. The Open Letter burdens only a single form of expression in support of medical marijuana use-the holding of a registry card. Otherwise, Wilson may advocate vigorously and as publicly as she wishes for medical marijuana use while possessing firearms. Moreover, the burden that the Open

---

24

WILSON V. LYNCH

Letter does place on this single form of expression is minimal. As explained above, Wilson may purchase firearms before acquiring or after surrendering a registry card. As a practical matter, Wilson is not caught in any dilemma, and the Open Letter's incidental effect on her First Amendment rights is no greater than necessary to reduce gun violence.

Because the Open Letter satisfies each of the O'Brien conditions, it survives intermediate scrutiny, and the district court did not err in dismissing Wilson's First Amendment claims.

D.

Wilson also raises Fifth Amendment claims against 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(3), 27 C.F.R. § 478.11, and the Open Letter. In particular, she argues that the Open Letter violates her procedural due process rights protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and violates the Equal Protection Clause as incorporated into the Fifth Amendment.[9] These claims fail.

To begin with, Wilson's procedural due process rights have not been violated. "A procedural due process claim has

____________________

[9] Wilson also raised substantive due process claims in the district court, but she addresses their dismissal in conclusory fashion on appeal, arguing only that she stated a substantive due process claim because of her fundamental right to choose a course of medical treatment. This argument is foreclosed by our decision in Raich v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 850, 866 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[F]ederal law does not recognize a fundamental right to use medical marijuana prescribed by a licensed physician to alleviate excruciating pain and human suffering.”). Accordingly, the district court did not err in dismissing Wilson’s substantive due process claim or in denying her leave to amend it.

---

25

WILSON V. LYNCH

two distinct elements: (1) a deprivation of a constitutionally protected liberty or property interest, and (2) a denial of adequate procedural protections." Brewster v. Bd. of Educ., 149 F.3d 971, 982 (9th Cir. 1998). Wilson argues that 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(3), 27 C.F.R. § 478.11, and the Open Letter deprive her of her liberty interest in simultaneously carrying a registry card and purchasing a firearm. She contends that this deprivation occurs without any process-only a determination that she holds a registry card. However, Wilson does not have a constitutionally protected liberty interest in simultaneously holding a registry card and purchasing a firearm. Moreover, she has failed to state a procedural due process claim, and the district court did not err in dismissing her claim.

Likewise, 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(3), 27 C.F.R. § 478.11, and the Open Letter do not violate the Equal Protection Clause. "The first step in equal protection analysis is to identify the state's classification of groups. . . . The next step in equal protection analysis would be to determine the level of scrutiny." Country Classic Dairies, Inc. v. Mont., Dep't of Commerce Milk Control Bureau, 847 F.2d 593, 596 (9th Cir. 1988). "[E]qual protection analysis requires strict scrutiny of a legislative classification only when the classification impermissibly interferes with the exercise of a fundamental right or operates to the peculiar disadvantage of a suspect class." Mass. Bd. of Ret. v. Murgia, 427 U.S. 307, 312 (1976) (per curiam) (footnote omitted).

Wilson argues that 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(3), 27 C.F.R. § 478.11, and the Open Letter disadvantage several groups, including registry cardholders versus users of medical marijuana in states where registry cards are not required. She also argues that she is being treated differently from other

---

26

WILSON V. LYNCH

persons with similar medical conditions who have pursued other methods of treatment. None of these groups, however, is a suspect or quasi-suspect class. In addition, as discussed above, 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(3), 27 C.F.R. § 478.11, and the Open Letter do not impermissibly interfere with the exercise of any fundamental rights, including Wilson's right to possess firearms. Accordingly, we apply rational basis scrutiny.

Title 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(3), 27 C.F.R. § 478.11, and the Open Letter survive rational basis scrutiny because they are reasonably related to reducing gun violence, as explained above. Accordingly, the district court did not err in dismissing Wilson's Fifth Amendment claims.

E.

Wilson also claims that the Open Letter violated the APA. Wilson did not plead a specific cause of action for violations of the APA in the FAC,[10] and the district court denied her leave to amend to do so, concluding that any such amendment would be futile. Wilson argues that the Open Letter violated the APA because it is a legislative rule that must go through notice-and-comment procedures under 5 U.S.C. § 553(b) & (c) but did not.

____________________

[10] Wilson argues that, although she did not set out her APA claim as formally as her other claims, she nonetheless adequately pleaded a violation of the APA under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)’s notice pleading standard. We do not reach this issue because Wilson’s APA claim fails regardless of whether it was properly pleaded under Rule 8(a). In other words, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Wilson leave to correct any deficiency in her pleading of her APA claim because any such amendments would be futile.

---

27

WILSON V. LYNCH

Title 5 U.S.C. § 553(b)(3)(A) exempts "interpretative rules" and "general statements of policy" from the notice-and-comment requirement of agency rulemaking. The Supreme Court has described interpretive rules as materials "issued by an agency to advise the public of the agency's construction of the statutes and rules which it administers." Shalala v. Guernsey Mem'l Hosp., 514 U.S. 87, 99 (1995) (internal quotation marks omitted). We have stated that "interpretive rules merely explain, but do not add to, the substantive law that already exists in the form of a statute or legislative rule. Legislative rules, on the other hand, create rights, impose obligations, or effect a change in existing law pursuant to authority delegated by Congress." Hemp Indus. Ass'n v. DEA, 333 F.3d 1082, 1087 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). Specifically, we have identified three circumstances when a rule has the "force of law" and is therefore legislative: "(1) when, in the absence of the rule, there would not be an adequate legislative basis for enforcement action; (2) when the agency has explicitly invoked its general legislative authority; or (3) when the rule effectively amends a prior legislative rule." Id. (citing Am. Mining Cong. v. Mine Safety & Health Admin., 995 F.2d 1106, 1109 (D.C. Cir. 1993)).

The first two Hemp Industries categories do not apply here: 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(3) provides an adequate legislative basis for enforcement action even without the Open Letter, and the ATF did not explicitly invoke any legislative authority when it published the Open Letter.

Wilson argues that the Open Letter falls into the third Hemp Industries category because it effectively amended 27 C.F.R. § 478.11. Specifically, she argues that the Open Letter impermissibly expands 27 C.F.R. § 478.11's definition of an "unlawful user" of illegal drugs to include registry

---

28

WILSON V. LYNCH

cardholders who use marijuana. Section 478.11 defines an unlawful user as "any person who is a current user of a controlled substance in a manner other than as prescribed by a licensed physician." Wilson contends that, because a medical recommendation must be obtained to receive a marijuana registry card, a holder of a registry card who uses marijuana has not used a controlled substance in a manner other than as prescribed by a licensed physician. This is incorrect as a matter of federal law. Under 21 U.S.C. § 812, marijuana is a Schedule I controlled substance, meaning that-as far as Congress is concerned-marijuana "has no currently accepted medical use in treatment[, and] there is a lack of accepted safety for use of the . . . substance under medical supervision." 21 U.S.C. § 812(b)(1)(B) & (C). No physician may legally prescribe marijuana as a matter of federal law, and no user of medical marijuana is using it "as prescribed by a licensed physician" within the meaning of 27 C.F.R. § 478.11.

Wilson also characterizes the Open Letter as making a blanket assertion that any individual with a registry card is a marijuana user. According to Wilson, this blanket assertion is made without any investigation or due process, and is therefore unlike the illustrations provided in 27 C.F.R. § 478.11 that assist others in determining when someone can reasonably be determined as using a "controlled substance in a manner other than as prescribed by a licensed physician."[11]

____________________

[11] Wilson points to the following instances identified in 27 C.F.R. § 478.11 as examples of conduct or behavior that may raise an inference of current use of a controlled substance:

a conviction for use or possession of a controlled substance within the past year; multiple arrests for such offenses within the past 5 years if the most recent arrest

---

29

WILSON V. LYNCH

However, the Open Letter does not make a blanket assertion that all registry card users are marijuana users, it simply clarifies that a firearms dealer has "reasonable cause to believe" an individual is an unlawful user if she holds a registry card. This inference falls well within the scope of 27 C.F.R. § 478.11, which states that "[a]n inference of current use may be drawn from evidence of a recent use or possession of a controlled substance or a pattern of use or possession that reasonably covers the present time." A marijuana registry card is circumstantial evidence, although by no means dispositive evidence, of recent use or possession of marijuana. Moreover, it is immaterial that registry cards are different from the illustrations mentioned in 27 C.F.R. § 478.11 that may raise an inference of unlawful drug use. Helpful examples in regulations need not be exhaustive. Indeed, that is one reason agencies publish guidance like the Open Letter-to provide additional examples that "explain, but do not add to, the substantive law that already exists in the form of a statute or legislative rule." Hemp Indus., 333 F.3d at 1087. Accordingly, we agree with the district court that the Open Letter is "textbook interpretative" and that it was exempt from notice-and-comment procedures under 5 U.S.C. § 553(b)(3)(A). The district court did not err in dismissing Wilson's APA claim, to the extent it was pleaded, or in denying Wilson leave to amend her complaint to expand her APA claim.

occurred within the past year; or persons found through a drug test to use a controlled substance unlawfully, provided that the test was administered within the past year.

_____________________

occurred within the past year; or persons found through a drug test to use a controlled substance unlawfully, provided that the test was administered within the past year.

---

30

WILSON V. LYNCH

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

---

Contrary to what you want to believe, states can overrule what the federal government opines, in ' laws' that are not in pursuance of our Constitution. Only constitutionally valid federal laws trump state laws.

Only in the demented mind of tpaine. Elsewhere, the actual laws prevail.

United States v. McIntosh, 15-10117 (9th Cir. 16 Aug 2016)

At 26:

Here, we must read § 542 with a view to its place in the overall statutory scheme for marijuana regulation, namely the CSA and the State Medical Marijuana Laws. The CSA prohibits the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of any marijuana. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a), 844(a).[4] The State Medical Marijuana Laws are those state laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana. Thus, the CSA prohibits what the State Medical Marijuana Laws permit.

In light of the ordinary meaning of the terms of § 542 and the relationship between the relevant federal and state laws, we consider whether a superior authority, which prohibits certain conduct, can prevent a subordinate authority from implementing a rule that officially permits such conduct by punishing individuals who are engaged in the conduct officially permitted by the lower authority. We conclude that it can.

____________________

[4] This requires a slight caveat. Under the CSA, “the manufacture, distribution, or possession of marijuana [is] a criminal offense, with the sole exception being use of the drug as part of a Food and Drug Administration preapproved research study.” Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 14 (2005); see 21 U.S.C. §§ 812(c), 823(f), 841(a)(1), 844(a). Thus, except as part of “a strictly controlled research project,” federal law “designates marijuana as contraband for any purpose.” Raich, 545 U.S. at 24, 27.

Footnote 5 at 32-33:

[5] The prior observation should also serve as a warning. To be clear, § 542 does not provide immunity from prosecution for federal marijuana offenses. The CSA prohibits the manufacture, distribution, and possession of marijuana. Anyone in any state who possesses, distributes, or manufactures marijuana for medical or recreational purposes (or attempts or conspires to do so) is committing a federal crime. The federal government can prosecute such offenses for up to five years after they occur. See 18 U.S.C. § 3282. Congress currently restricts the government from spending certain funds to prosecute certain individuals. But Congress could restore funding tomorrow, a year from now, or four years from now, and the government could then prosecute individuals who committed offenses while the government lacked funding. Moreover, a new president will be elected soon, and a new administration could shift enforcement priorities to place greater emphasis on prosecuting marijuana offenses. Nor does any state law “legalize” possession, distribution, or manufacture of marijuana. Under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, state laws cannot permit what federal law prohibits. U.S. Const. art VI, cl. 2. Thus, while the CSA remains in effect, states cannot actually authorize the manufacture, distribution, or possession of marijuana. Such activity remains prohibited by federal law.

I will continue to post federal court opinions.

Yes, exactly - opinions.

As I will continue to post mine.

The thing is - you don't see me or anyone else posting reams of indecipherable spam.

[Gatlin to Deckard] You do the same. You have hundreds or more of your spam links categorized and indexed by subject.

When one of his yella bullcrap articles is documented to be bullcrap, he just finds another yella bullcrap article saying the same crap and starts working on a new street corner.

As the court said in McIntosh, "The CSA prohibits the manufacture, distribution, and possession of marijuana. Anyone in any state who possesses, distributes, or manufactures marijuana for medical or recreational purposes (or attempts or conspires to do so) is committing a federal crime. The federal government can prosecute such offenses for up to five years after they occur. See 18 U.S.C. § 3282."

Get a state-issued license to possess or use marijuana and the Feds can deny authorization to purchase or possess a firearm, per Wilson v. Lynch.

Yes, exactly - opinions.

As I will continue to post mine.

As you have a First Amendment right to do. And I have the right to point out and document that your opinions are bullshit, and mine are quotes of federal court decisions.

And how do you propose to legalize marijuana nationwide and not violate the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs international treaty?

I don't. This is 'Murica. Fuck the treaty. Or rather, "abrogate" it.

nolu spam's entire argument is "pot is illegal in states that have approved the use of it by adults because fed.gov says so".

Well, he's right. The federal law trumps state law. Of course, Obama is not really interested in suppressing pot, so he's not using the executive branch to really go after the use in Colorado or elsewhere. Nevertheless it remains true that marijuana is illegal nationwide because of federal law, and the federal government CAN prosecute, or otherwise make life miserable for, people using it in states that have legalized it. The state has legalized it, but the federal government has not, and the supremacy clause of the Constitution means that it's not legal, and the Feds can prosecute if they want to. Obama hasn't pressed it.

It's a BS law and Americans - real Americans, the descendants of rebels that fought the biggest empire in the world - don't obey for the sake of obeying. The law itself is illegal. No one is going to tell me which plants I can use and which ones I cannot. It's basic Americana. And how did Americans turn into slaves over the last 100 years or so? Few even protest anymore. Can't get up off their couches, apparently.

The True History of Marijuana

But a $100 fine is less than what they paid for the marijuana. It's a joke.

Wait a minute, you said that legalization equals approval, so I said decriminalization could be a compromise. But no, you will not be satisfied until people are being crushed.

You are a sadist. Do you know what are psychological roots - inability to have peaceful intimacy with other human beings. The only way for a sadist/masochist is to get contact through suffering.

It's a BS law and Americans - real Americans, the descendants of rebels that fought the biggest empire in the world - don't obey for the sake of obeying. The law itself is illegal. No one is going to tell me which plants I can use and which ones I cannot. It's basic Americana. And how did Americans turn into slaves over the last 100 years or so? Few even protest anymore. Can't get up off their couches, apparently.

You can call it a BS law. you can say it is an illegal law and you can disobey the law. But after you vent and despite some type of state cannabis laws in 40 states, cannabis is still illegal under federal law. The federal government still regulates drugs through the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) (21 U.S.C. § 811).

Your “call to arms rhetoric” is sophomorically comical because it was made by you while you were also “sitting on your ass at your computer” and saying Americans have turned into “slaves who can’t get off their couches.” If you want to really protest, then do a Martin Luther King “type” protest and be prepared to go to jail for your cause….draw national attention for support. You can do that by getting off your ass, planting a large amount of marijuana and start selling pot throughout the U.S. by mail order. Your trial will get you some nationwide recognition and jail time for your cause. Now, that is a protest while posting a rant on LF is as you say, “BS!” Hell, man, you can even make headlines on the Free Thought Project website….just imagine that. And then Deckard can post the article about you on LF….WOWEE!

Well, he's right. The federal law trumps state law. Of course, Obama is not really interested in suppressing pot, so he's not using the executive branch to really go after the use in Colorado or elsewhere. Nevertheless it remains true that marijuana is illegal nationwide because of federal law, and the federal government CAN prosecute, or otherwise make life miserable for, people using it in states that have legalized it. The state has legalized it, but the federal government has not, and the supremacy clause of the Constitution means that it's not legal, and the Feds can prosecute if they want to. Obama hasn't pressed it.

Deckard, what makes it so hard for you to understand that nolu chan is right? The federal law does trump state law and therefore the federal government regulates drugs through the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) (21 U.S.C. § 811). Under federal law, cannabis is treated like every other controlled substance, such as cocaine and heroin. The federal government places every controlled substance in a schedule, in principle according to its relative potential for abuse and medicinal value. Under the CSA, cannabis is classified as a Schedule I drug, which means that the federal government views cannabis as highly addictive and having no medical value.

the federal government views cannabis as highly addictive and having no medical value.

Except they do know there is medical value- they hold a patent on the main ingredient US PATENT #6630507

United States Patent 6,630,507
Hampson , et al. October 7, 2003
Assignee: The United States of America as represented by the Department of Health and Human Services (Washington, DC)

Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants

Abstract

Cannabinoids have been found to have antioxidant properties, unrelated to NMDA receptor antagonism. This new found property makes cannabinoids useful in the treatment and prophylaxis of wide variety of oxidation associated diseases, such as ischemic, age-related, inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. The cannabinoids are found to have particular application as neuroprotectants, for example in limiting neurological damage following ischemic insults, such as stroke and trauma, or in the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease and HIV dementia.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6630507.PN.&OS=PN/6630507&RS=PN/6630507

The use of Cannabis for medicinal purposes dates back to ancient times

https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/cam/patient/cannabis-pdq

Facts are difficult things for drug warriors. You can't admit to yourself that you were led down a rat-hole by despicable liars who would sell out their mothers for 2 bits of silver.

You lost the war, get over it. Surely there are other things to obsess over.

To: nolu chan, tpaine I will continue to post federal court opinions. Yes, exactly - opinions.

As I will continue to post mine.

That's the problem with you PAULTARDS. You haven't figured out that YOUR opinions are meaningless. You, all by yourselves, are meaningless. A court decision is WAY more important than all of the LF agenda posting PAULTARDS, combined. All you are is a small rabid cult of anarchist... you are not only little, unimportant insignificant people, but you all are KOOK unimportant, little insignificant people.

Just like all those urban animal black lies matters scumbags.

Except they do know there is medical value- they hold a patent on the main ingredient US PATENT #6630507

United States Patent 6,630,507
Hampson , et al. October 7, 2003
Assignee: The United States of America as represented by the Department of Health and Human Services (Washington, DC)

Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants

Abstract

Cannabinoids have been found to have antioxidant properties, unrelated to NMDA receptor antagonism. This new found property makes cannabinoids useful in the treatment and prophylaxis of wide variety of oxidation associated diseases, such as ischemic, age-related, inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. The cannabinoids are found to have particular application as neuroprotectants, for example in limiting neurological damage following ischemic insults, such as stroke and trauma, or in the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease and HIV dementia.

You are invited to read the patent for the first time and stop bullshitting about it.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

It is an object of this invention to provide a new class of antioxidant drugs, that have particular application as neuroprotectants, although they are generally useful in the treatment of many oxidation associated diseases. Yet another object of the invention is to provide a subset of such drugs that can be substantially free of psychoactive or psychotoxic effects, are substantially non-toxic even at very high doses, and have good tissue penetration, for example crossing the blood brain barrier. It has surprisingly been found that cannabidiol and other cannabinoids can function as neuroprotectants, even though they lack NMDA receptor antagonist activity. This discovery was made possible because of the inventor’s recognition of a previously unanticipated antioxidant property of the cannabinoids in general (and cannabidiol in particular) that functions completely independently of antagonism at the NMDA, AMPA and kainate receptors. Hence the present invention includes methods of preventing or treating diseases caused by oxidative stress, such as neuronal hypoxia, by administering a prophylactic or therapeutically effective amount of a cannabinoid to a subject who has a disease caused by oxidative stress.

The cannabinoid may be a cannabinoid other than THC, HU-210, or other potent cannabinoid receptor agonists. The cannabinoid may also be other than HU-211 or any other NMDA receptor antagonist that has previously been reported. A potent cannabinoid receptor agonist is one that has an EC₅₀ at the cannabinoid receptor of 50 nM or less, but in more particular embodiments 190 nM or 250 nM or less. In disclosed embodiments the cannabinoid is not psychoactive, and is not psychotoxic even at high doses.

[...]

And then there is this:

Based on the HHS evaluation and all other relevant data, DEA has concluded that there is no substantial evidence that marijuana should be removed from schedule I. A document prepared by DEA addressing these materials in detail also is attached hereto. In short, marijuana continues to meet the criteria for schedule I control under the CSA because:

(1) Marijuana has a high potential for abuse. The HHS evaluation and the additional data gathered by DEA show that marijuana has a high potential for abuse.

(2) Marijuana has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. Based on the established five-part test for making such determination, marijuana has no "currently accepted medical use" because: As detailed in the HHS evaluation, the drug’s chemistry is not known and reproducible; there are no adequate safety studies; there are no adequate and well- controlled studies proving efficacy; the drug is not accepted by qualified experts; and the scientific evidence is not widely available.

(3) Marijuana lacks accepted safety for use under medical supervision. At present, there are no U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved marijuana products, nor is marijuana under a New Drug Application (NDA) evaluation at the FDA for any indication.

The HHS evaluation states that marijuana does not have a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States or a currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions. At this time, the known risks of marijuana use have not been shown to be outweighed by specific benefits in well-controlled clinical trials that scientifically evaluate safety and efficacy. The statutory mandate of 21 U.S.C. 812(b) is dispositive.

Congress established only one schedule, schedule I, for drugs of abuse with ‘‘no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States’’ and ‘‘lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision.’’ 21 U.S.C. 812(b).

Although the HHS evaluation and all other relevant data lead to the conclusion that marijuana must remain in schedule I, it should also be noted that, in view of United States obligations under international drug control treaties, marijuana cannot be placed in a schedule less restrictive than schedule II. This is explained in detail in the accompanying document titled ‘‘Preliminary Note Regarding Treaty Considerations.’’

Accordingly, and as set forth in detail in the accompanying HHS and DEA documents, there is no statutory basis under the CSA for DEA to grant your petition to initiate rulemaking proceedings to reschedule marijuana. Your petition is, therefore, hereby denied. Sincerely, Chuck Rosenberg, Acting Administrator

Deckard, what makes it so hard for you to understand that nolu chan is right? The federal law does trump state law and therefore the federal government regulates drugs through the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) (21 U.S.C. § 811).

He understands perfectly. He pretends not to, attempts to dazzle with his brilliance, and where that fails, to baffle with bullshit.

Alcohol was made illegal (for awhile) through an amendment to the Constitution. Since there's nothing in that document regarding plants, why wasn't another amendment required to make a plant illegal?

An amendment was not required to make alcohol "illegal" in the first place.

In dry counties, alcohol sales are prohibited today by local laws. What makes you think it requires a constitutional amendment?

And the 18th Amendment prohibited "the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes."

What is not there is simple possession. The bottle of scotch one lawfully had the day before prohibition began did not become contraband the next day.

"so I said decriminalization could be a compromise."

And I agreed. What's the matter with you?

And how do you propose to legalize marijuana nationwide and not violate the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs international treaty?

Big fan of international treaties and the U.N. are you?

No doubt you'd have no problem if an international treaty decreed that all American gun owners be disarmed.

And you wonder why you are despised by many posters here.

You are a sadist.

That among other things.

He's also a submissive fed.gov sycophant with a pathological authority fetish.

He also lacks empathy for the sick and dying who wish to ease their suffering.

"I don't. This is 'Murica. Fuck the treaty. Or rather, "abrogate" it."

And when Mexico, in retaliation for Trump's wall, legalizes meth and floods our country with it that's OK with you, also.

Hey. As long as you get your precious marijuana legalized, f**k everyone else, right?

Facts are difficult things for drug warriors. You can't admit to yourself that you were led down a rat-hole by despicable liars who would sell out their mothers for 2 bits of silver.

The self-admitted drug warriors here are certainly adamant in their Reefer Madness propaganda pushing.

Their attitude is - fed.gov would never lie.

Poor deluded slobs.

Seriously man - anger management classes are certainly available in your area.

I'd advise you to run not walk to the nearest one.

"Alcohol was made illegal (for awhile) through an amendment to the Constitution. Since there's nothing in that document regarding plants, why wasn't another amendment required to make a plant illegal?"

An amendment to the U.S. Constitution was not required to make alcohol illegal. Neither is one required for marijuana or any other drug.

Hey. As long as you get your precious marijuana legalized, f**k everyone else, right?

MY precious marijuana? Never used the stuff. Think that people who do are fools. Think that it rots the brain.

Trump will put up that wall and seriously cut back drugs.

Meth is made in America. Every trailer you see out there in the countryside has a meth lab in it.

Marijuana kills people in about the same time that it takes cigarettes and beer to do it. Meth kills people in about 3 years.

So, if the Mexicans go ahead and decide to commit SUICIDE by legalizing meth, then we won't need the wall much by the end of Trump's second term. The Mexicans will all be dead from meth.

You don't like marijuana, but you really HATE the idea of being FORCED off of a law that you agree with. We all hate that. Nevertheless, that's what happened to the Christian Ladies who got their Temperance Movement law erected as Prohibition, but then saw themselves unable to keep that law, because it didn't work. In the end, no compromise was really found with them. They were simply overpowered and the law they loved was struck down by superior force.

That's really how things work politically: law is determined by naked power, not wisdom.

If the cops keep shooting people, the public backlash will eventually result in a fundamental shift of power against them, just like we were eventually forced to pull out of Vietnam and lose the war, because the people just were not going to stand it anymore.

"Alcohol was made illegal (for awhile) through an amendment to the Constitution. Since there's nothing in that document regarding plants, why wasn't another amendment required to make a plant illegal?"

An amendment to the U.S. Constitution was not required to make alcohol illegal. Neither is one required for marijuana or any other drug.

Plants are regulated and prohibited by laws. For a list of prohibited plants in the state of New York, with pretty pictures, see:

http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/lands_forests_pdf/isprohibitedplants2.pdf

New York State
Prohibited and Regulated
Invasive Plants
September 10, 2014

http://www.dec.ny.gov/regulations/2359.html

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
NYCRR Part 575 Invasive Species Regulations
Questions and Answers

What is the difference between prohibited and regulated invasive species?

Prohibited invasive species cannot be knowingly possessed with the intent to sell, import, purchase, transport or introduce. In addition, no person shall sell, import, purchase, transport, introduce or propagate prohibited invasive species. Regulated invasive species, on the other hand, are species which cannot be knowingly introduced into a free-living state, or introduced by a means that one should have known would lead to such an introduction, although such species shall be legal to possess, sell, buy, propagate and transport.

Federally, plant control comes under the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) under federal statutes at 7 U.S.C.

"You don't like marijuana, but you really HATE the idea of being FORCED off of a law that you agree with."

Nope. I have yet to read one good reason why we should legalize yet another recreational drug.

The use of Cannabis for medicinal purposes dates back to ancient times

So have poisons also been used for medicinal purposes across the spectrum of human existence dating from before 4500 BC to present day.

Yep, for centuries healers and scientists have harnessed the power of natural poisons, toxins, and venoms, to create medicines against such ailments as cancer, diabetes, and malaria.

Should there also be no laws, regulations and controls on poisons and these poisons distributed to the public totally uncontrolled? I don’t think so.

The Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 mandated the EPA to protect the public from "unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment" by regulating the manufacture and sale of chemicals. Poisons are defined as chemicals.

And you wonder why you are despised by many posters here.

I somehow don't believe this has ever crossed his mind....and it never should.

So have poisons also been used for medicinal purposes across the spectrum of human existence dating from before 4500 BC to present day.

Not really poison when it is used in a medically beneficial way, is it sparky?

Should there also be no laws, regulations and controls on poisons and these poisons distributed to the public totally uncontrolled?

Regulation is one thing - prohibition is quite another.

Please try to keep up.

Oh, one more thing simpleton - marijuana is NOT poison.

And you wonder why you are despised by many posters here.

I somehow don't believe this has ever crossed his mind....and it never should.

Don't worry "Major" - you still have the top spot.

I have yet to read one good reason why we should legalize yet another recreational drug.

No reason will persuade you. You're not persuadable on the subject, just as I am unpersuadable on abortion. You're certain you're right, and you're not budging.

And if we were kings, that would be that.

As things are, the world moves on without us. It imposes rules we don't like, it doesn't ask us our opinions, and that is that.

Marijuana kills people in about the same time that it takes cigarettes and beer to do it.

Not really:

But heavy use of pot,does transmogrify you into an alien:

Not really poison when it is used in a medically beneficial way, is it sparky?

Marijuana is really not a medicine since unlike drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration, “dispensary marijuana” has no quality control, no standardized composition or dosage for specific medical conditions. It has no prescribing information or no high-quality studies of effectiveness or long-term safety. While the FDA is not averse to approving cannabinoids as medicines and has approved two cannabinoid medications, the decision to keep marijuana in Schedule I was reaffirmed in a 2015 federal court ruling. That ruling was correct.

Data from 2015 indicate that 30 percent of current cannabis users harbor a use disorder — more Americans are dependent on cannabis than on any other illicit drug. Yet marijuana advocates have relentlessly pressured the federal government to shift marijuana from Schedule I — the most restrictive category of drug — to another schedule or to de-schedule it completely. Their rationale? “States have already approved medical marijuana”; “rescheduling will open the floodgates for research”; and “many people claim that marijuana alone alleviates their symptoms.”

Marijuana is really not a medicine since unlike drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration, “dispensary marijuana” has no quality control, no standardized composition or dosage for specific medical conditions.

Garlic has medicinal properties. Should it be banned? It has no quality control, no standardized composition or dosage for specific medical conditions!

The current science has exhaustive statistics on tobacco, which has been studied extensively in large audiences long term routine use. Similar data does not exist for marijuana.

If the number is showing as ZERO, and pretending that's REAL, it's self- evidently bullshit.

Standing around a campfire breathing log fire soot every day reduces lifespan. Working in dark rooms lit by candles results in lung problems. Sitting around incense filled rooms does the same.

There is no way on God's green earth that directly inhaling substantial amounts of marijuana smoke directly into the lungs does not do the same harm that any other soot does.

If the science says "0", then the science is an ass, isn't real, and must be rejected as untrue. It is OBVIOUS that inhaling fresh soot will most certainly cause lung problems. We know that. Marijuana is not a magical unicorn. It's a burning leaf that puts off big plumes of smoke. The smoke doesn't stop being harmful because it's a treasured drug. And if the science says otherwise, the science itself is a lie, is false, is untrue, and must be disregarded as not being real.

Get real scientists to really test it - hell, test it on live non-smokers in countries where it's legal. Take a bunch of non-smokers and then divide the group into a group that take up marijuana smoking, and a group that remains free of it. Track them through life. People who smoke ANYTHING will CERTAINLY not be as healthy, over time, as people who smoke nothing.

We don't need scientists to tell us the obvious. And if scientists actually tell us something like that "0 harm" statistics, then they're still full of shit and obviously did the experiment wrong.

Garlic has medicinal properties. Should it be banned?

When a man kills his wife after eating garlic candy like the man did after he ate pot candy and when a teen leaps 4 stories to his death after eating garlic cookies like a teen did after eating pot cookies….then that possibility should be considered.

This level of stupidity can't live on.

The Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 mandated the EPA to protect the public from "unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment" by regulating the manufacture and sale of chemicals. Poisons are defined as chemicals.

They've tried in the lab to establish a fatal dose of THC for larger mammals (dogs, monkeys) but were unable to kill any. Any claimed lethal dose of THC is an extrapolation from intravenous administration to mice.

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.

They've tried in the lab to establish a fatal dose of THC for larger mammals (dogs, monkeys) but were unable to kill any. Any claimed lethal dose of THC is an extrapolation from intravenous administration to mice.

A 19-year-old boy shot those test results all to Hell after “he established a fatal dose of THC from eating six time the recommend dose of a marijuana cookie” and then jumping off a fourth-story balcony.

Marijuana-related deaths happen, but not in the way you probably expect….not in lab tests on large mammals.

"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.

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.

It was a free speech (allegedly) leading to anarchy issue.

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.

At the link is a lame article from Wikipedia that is clearly wrong on Terminiello.

The Court did not find the ordinance violated the First Amendment. It did not even reach that question. It was decided on a faulty charge to the jury by the trial court.

The Court:

The argument here has been focused on the issue of whether the content of petitioner's speech was composed of derisive, fighting words, which carried it outside the scope of the constitutional guarantees. See Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U. S. 568; Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 310 U. S. 310. We do not reach that question, for there is a preliminary question that is dispositive of the case.

The Court found that "The statute, as construed in the charge to the jury, was passed on by the Illinois courts and sustained by them over the objection that, as so read, it violated the Fourteenth Amendment."

It was the instructions to the jury that wandered astray. There was a general verdict which did not identify the precise reasoning for the guilty verdict. As the Court explained, "For all anyone knows, he was convicted under the parts of the ordinance (as construed) which, for example, make it an offense merely to invite dispute or to bring about a condition of unrest."

- - - - - - - - - -

Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (16 May 1949) free speech

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of the Court.

Petitioner after jury trial was found guilty of disorderly conduct in violation of a city ordinance of Chicago, * and fined. The case grew out of an address he delivered in an auditorium in Chicago under the auspices of the

337 U. S. 3

Christian Veterans of America. The meeting commanded considerable public attention. The auditorium was filled to capacity, with over eight hundred persons present. Others were turned away. Outside of the auditorium, a crowd of about one thousand persons gathered to protest against the meeting. A cordon of policemen was assigned to the meeting to maintain order, but they were not able to prevent several disturbances. The crowd outside was angry and turbulent.

Petitioner, in his speech, condemned the conduct of the crowd outside and vigorously, if not viciously, criticized various political and racial groups whose activities he denounced as inimical to the nation's welfare.

The trial court charged that "breach of the peace" consists of any "misbehavior which violates the public peace and decorum", and that the

"misbehavior may constitute a breach of the peace if it stirs the public to anger, invites dispute, brings about a condition of unrest, or creates a disturbance, or if it molests the inhabitants in the enjoyment of peace and quiet by arousing alarm."

Petitioner did not take exception to that instruction. But he maintained at all times that the ordinance, as applied to his conduct, violated his right of free speech under the Federal Constitution. The Judgment of conviction was affirmed by the Illinois Appellate Court (332 Ill.App. 17, 74 N.E.2d 45) and by the Illinois Supreme Court. 396 Ill. 41, 71 N.E.2d 2; 400 Ill. 23, 79 N.E.2d 39. The case is here on a petition for certiorari, which we granted because of the importance of the question presented.

The argument here has been focused on the issue of whether the content of petitioner's speech was composed of derisive, fighting words, which carried it outside the scope of the constitutional guarantees. See Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U. S. 568; Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 310 U. S. 310. We do not reach that question, for there is a preliminary question that is dispositive of the case.

337 U. S. 4

As we have noted, the statutory words "breach of the peace" were defined in instructions to the jury to include speech which "stirs the public to anger, invites dispute, brings about a condition of unrest, or creates a disturbance. . . ." That construction of the ordinance is a ruling on a question of state law that is as binding on us as though the precise words had been written into the ordinance. See Hebert v. Louisiana, 272 U. S. 312, 272 U. S. 317; Winters v. New York, U. S. 507, 333 U. S. 514.

The vitality of civil and political institutions in our society depends on free discussion. As Chief Justice Hughes wrote in Jonge v. Oregon, U. S. 353, 299 U. S. 365, it is only through free debate and free exchange of ideas that government remains responsive to the will of the people and peaceful change is effected. The right to speak freely and to promote diversity of ideas and programs is therefore one of the chief distinctions that sets us apart from totalitarian regimes.

Accordingly, a function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger. Speech is often provocative and challenging. It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have profound unsettling effects as it presses for acceptance of an idea. That is why freedom of speech, though not absolute, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, supra, pp. 315 U. S. 571-572, is nevertheless protected against censorship or punishment, unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest. See Bridges v. California, 314 U. S. 252, 314 U. S. 262; Craig v. Harney, 331 U. S. 367, 331 U. S. 373. There is no room under our Constitution for a more restrictive view. For the alternative would lead to standardization of ideas

337 U. S. 5

either by legislatures, courts, or dominant political or community groups.

The ordinance as construed by the trial court seriously invaded this province. It permitted conviction of petitioner if his speech stirred people to anger, invited public dispute, or brought about a condition of unrest. A conviction resting on any of those grounds may not stand.

The fact that petitioner took no exception to the instruction is immaterial. No exception to the instructions was taken in Stromberg v. California, 283 U. S. 359. But a judgment of conviction based on a general verdict under a state statute was set aside in that case because one part of the statute was unconstitutional. The statute had been challenged as unconstitutional, and the instruction was framed in its language. The Court held that the attack on the statute as a whole was equally an attack on each of its individual parts. Since the verdict was a general one, and did not specify the ground upon which it rested, it could not be sustained. For one part of the statute was unconstitutional, and it could not be determined that the defendant was not convicted under that part.

The principle of that case controls this one. As we have said, the gloss which Illinois placed on the ordinance gives it a meaning and application which are conclusive on us. We need not consider whether as construed it is defective in its entirety. As construed and applied, it at least contains parts that are unconstitutional. The verdict was a general one, and we do not know on this record but what it may rest on the invalid clauses.

The statute, as construed in the charge to the jury, was passed on by the Illinois courts and sustained by them over the objection that, as so read, it violated the Fourteenth Amendment. The fact that the parties did not dispute its construction makes the adjudication no less

337 U. S. 6

ripe for our review, as the Stromberg decision indicates. We can only take the statute as the state courts read it. From our point of view, it is immaterial whether the state law question as to its meaning was controverted or accepted. The pinch of the statute is in its application. It is that question which the petitioner has brought here. To say, therefore, that the question on this phase of the case is whether the trial judge gave a wrong charge is wholly to misconceive the issue.

But it is said that, throughout the appellate proceedings, the Illinois courts assumed that the only conduct punishable and punished under the ordinance was conduct constituting "fighting words." That emphasizes, however, the importance of the rule of the Stromberg case. Petitioner was not convicted under a statute so narrowly construed. For all anyone knows, he was convicted under the parts of the ordinance (as construed) which, for example, make it an offense merely to invite dispute or to bring about a condition of unrest. We cannot avoid that issue by saying that all Illinois did was to measure petitioner's conduct, not the ordinance, against the Constitution. Petitioner raised both points -- that his speech was protected by the Constitution; that the inclusion of his speech within the ordinance was a violation of the Constitution. We would, therefore, strain at technicalities to conclude that the constitutionality of the ordinance, as construed and applied to petitioner, was not before the Illinois courts. The record makes clear that petitioner at all times challenged the constitutionality of the ordinance as construed and applied to him.

Reversed.

*

"All persons who shall make, aid, countenance, or assist in making any improper noise, riot, disturbance, breach of the peace, or diversion tending to a breach of the peace, within the limits of the city . . . shall be deemed guilty of disorderly conduct, and upon conviction thereof, shall be severally fined not less than one dollar nor more than two hundred dollars for each offense."

Municipal Code of Chicago, 1939, § 193-1.

"It was a free speech (allegedly) leading to anarchy issue."

Leading to the death of everyone in the US. Got it.

the death of everyone in the US

Still beating your straw men. Pathetic - but not surprising.

"the death of everyone in the US"
"Still beating your straw men."

Suicide pacts involve the death of all parties.
-- ConservingFreedom

Strawbeater.

Then why bring up anarchy? Why not simply say the judge made a misleading statement since the free speech in this case would not lead to outcomes of gravity comparable to that of suicide?

Because anarchy, unlike pot legalization, WOULD lead to a great many deaths (though not of "everyone in the US") - so the judge's use of the term "suicide pact" was, unlike yours, appropriate.

As always, glad I could clear that up for you.

"WOULD lead to a great many deaths (though not of "everyone in the US")

Thank you for the clarification. Here I thought that when you said "Suicide pacts involve the death of all parties" you meant ... all parties.

Strawbeater.

"Applying the phrase to pot legalization is neither literally nor metaphorically accurate ..."

I agree. It's an accurate idiomatic expression.

It's an applicable expression only if outcomes of gravity comparable to that of suicide are in the balance

Only if you take it literally.

No, also if you take it metaphorically or idiomatically.

By definition, an idiom is an expression not interpreted literally.

Poor you.

Only if you take it literally.

"No, also if you take it metaphorically or idiomatically."

By definition, an idiom is an expression not interpreted literally.

Hence my "also".

Dimwit.

Don't give me this we weaselly weaselly "also" crap.

Pfffft! You don't know what you think.

You assume a fact not in evidence. It thinks?

"You assume a fact not in evidence. It thinks?"

Very rarely the two neurons floating around in his head accidentally bump into each other and exchange a small amount of information. This is what passes for thought.

If you "also" took suicide pact idiomatically, you wouldn't be comparing it to suicide. Because an idiom is not taken literally.

Your first sentence doesn't follow from your second; that an idiom is not literal does NOT mean it is completely unrelated to the literal meaning. If Joe and Jim each agree to eat a forkful of rutabaga if the other does, only in a purely humorous sense ought one call that a "suicide pact."

"that an idiom is not literal does NOT mean it is completely unrelated to the literal meaning."

So if I said "Killing two birds with one stone" I must be referring to a murder, a bird or a stone?

'that an idiom is not literal does NOT mean it is completely unrelated to the literal meaning. If Joe and Jim each agree to eat a forkful of rutabaga if the other does, only in a purely humorous sense ought one call that a "suicide pact."'

So if I said "Killing two birds with one stone" I must be referring to a murder, a bird or a stone?

You must be referring to multiple objectives accomplished. How is "suicide pact" nonhumorously applicable even idiomatically to anything whose outcome is orders of magnitude less serious than death? Can you supply examples (not from you or your **** buddy Roscoe) in support of your apparent position that it is so used idiomatically?

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

[misterwhite:] That's not against the law.

"Nobody said it was, strawbeater."

[crickets]

"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."

[crickets]

For those keeping score at home.

"Can you supply examples (not from you or your **** buddy Roscoe) in support of your apparent position that it is so used idiomatically?"

Sure. That's a piece of cake. See? I did it again.

I already gave you an example in my post #116. And he's referring to people making a pact with a document, not other people.

So the phrase, "The U.S. Constitution is not a suicide pact" must be taken as an idiomatic expression.

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

[misterwhite:] Because you say so.

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

[crickets]

"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."

[crickets]

For those keeping score at home.

"The Colorado seller testifies."

You mean he confesses to the crime. That's how the states are going to stop interstate transportation. Those who do so will confess.

Well, OK. If you say so. Now give the computer back to the adult.

I already gave you an example in my post #116.

To which I already replied: 'anarchy, unlike pot legalization, WOULD lead to a great many deaths (though not of "everyone in the US") - so the judge's use of the term "suicide pact" was, unlike yours, appropriate.'

So the phrase, "The U.S. Constitution is not a suicide pact" must be taken as an idiomatic expression.

I think he likes taking beatings.

"The Colorado seller testifies."

You mean he confesses to the crime.

Who says he committed a crime? He didn't take any pot across the Colorado border.

"No basis was offered, hence baseless"

No basis was offered, hence no basis was offered. It doesn't mean it's baseless.

"that a governmental assertion of authority is self-serving, is self-evident."

The governmental assertion of authority is predicated on the findings. Whether or not that authority is self-serving is moot.

"Again, who says that a federal law, ruled constitutional by the USSC, is unconstitutional? You?"
"Honest and unprejudiced readers of the Constitution - in other words, conservatives."

Sure. If we can tear them away from watching Family Feud or listening to the Sean Hannity show, perhaps we can get them to memorize obscure legal cases and to compose clearly reasoned opinions about ERISA pre-emption, the doctrine of equivalents in patent law, limitation of liability in admiralty, and supplemental jurisdiction under Section 1367.

We don't need the courts to do that!

The Colorado seller testifies to what?

That he sold pot to the guy who soon after showed up in a neighboring state with Colorado plates and pot in the car.

"so the judge's use of the term "suicide pact" was, unlike yours, appropriate.'

The judge was referring to a "suicide pact" with the Bill of Rights. How can that be "appropriate"? A suicide pact is between people.

It's obvious his was an idiomatic expression. As was mine.

"Baseless self-serving "findings" have no evidentiary weight in the forum of reasoned debate." [...] "Which makes it worth noting that they're baseless and self-serving"

Because you say so.

"No basis was offered, hence baseless;"

No basis was offered, hence no basis was offered. It doesn't mean it's baseless.

Double-secret bases also have no evidentiary weight in the forum of reasoned debate.

"that a governmental assertion of authority is self-serving, is self- evident."

The governmental assertion of authority is predicated on the findings. Whether or not that authority is self-serving is moot.

Moot only if there's an evidentiary basis - which asserted "findings" are not.

"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."

Sure. If we can tear them away from watching Family Feud or listening to the Sean Hannity show,

Your snide contempt for conservatives is noted.

perhaps we can get them to memorize obscure legal cases and to compose clearly reasoned opinions about ERISA pre-emption, the doctrine of equivalents in patent law, limitation of liability in admiralty, and supplemental jurisdiction under Section 1367.

We don't need the courts to do that!

Back to gnawing on that red herring, I see; the need for courts is 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?'

Accomplice

Not unless he knew about the intent to cross the state border.

The judge was referring to a "suicide pact" with the Bill of Rights.

Simply false - the judge said 'it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact."' The parties to the pact would be the citizenry.

"That he sold pot to the guy who soon after showed up in a neighboring state with Colorado plates and pot in the car."

Oh. THAT Colorado seller.

First of all, the feds have no authority to question a guy with Colorado plates in a neighboring state. Or search his car. He has broken no law.

Second, even if he accidentally opens his trunk and the feds see the marijuana, they can take no action. Their authority is limited to drugs crossing the border. Interstate commerce. Right?

So, how in the world are they going to be able to find the name of the Colorado retailer who sold him the pot? Even if they could, the driver of the car could say he took that pot home. The stuff in the trunk is not Colorado pot.

The bottom line is that your law is federally unenforceable.

The bottom line is that your law is federally unenforceable.

Yep.

"Drugs like marijuana are fungible commodities." --Justice Scalia,

First of all, the feds have no authority to question a guy with Colorado plates in a neighboring state. Or search his car. He has broken no law.

Which differs not a whit from the current situation.

Second, even if he accidentally opens his trunk and the feds see the marijuana, they can take no action.

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

the driver of the car could say he took that pot home. The stuff in the trunk is not Colorado pot.

And a jury can decide if that possibility constitutes REASONABLE doubt.

RICO

You mean this RICO?

'A recent brochure from the National Federation of Independent Business Legal Defense Fund depicts a business man, dressed in a jail-type orange jumpsuit, sitting opposite his lawyer in a prison visiting room. The caption reads, "This could be your next business conference!"

'It's no joke. Increasingly, business people in the United States are being targeted by Congress, federal enforcement agencies and government prosecutors. [...]

'Some have been treated like "Mafia kingpins," subjected to Racketeering- Influences Corrupt Organizations (RICO) prosecution for matters that have nothing to do with the original purpose of that law, which was supposed to pertain to criminal syndicates.'

- Edwin Meese III, www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2008/08/jail-could-be-the- location-of-your-next-business-meeting

"To repeat: The DEA has the power to turn him over to the state authorities"

But only if his trunk acidentally opens. Yeah. Your version of the law will work fabulously.

"To repeat: The DEA has the power to turn him over to the state authorities"

But only if his trunk acidentally opens.

They would have no fewer ways than they have now to discover possession of marijuana, your cavorting and misdirection notwithstanding.

"They would have no fewer ways than they have now to discover possession of marijuana"

The feds would have far fewer ways. They could, for example, have reasonable suspicion that there are drugs in the trunk. But they can't act because they lack authority. You've limited them to interstate transactions only, remember?

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

Regarding the Constitution, the parties are States. Carrying out a suicide pact would result in dissolution of the Union.

There was no threat of anarchy and Justice Jackson's dissenting opinion was shot down by the majority who wrote for the Court. It is rhetoric not adopted by the Court. The majority opinion in Terminiello has been reaffirmed many times.

It was not an entirely new idea of Justice Jackson. It was more of contemporary rhetorical flourish of an idea expressed by Abraham Lincoln in his July 4, 1861 Special Address to Congress, 4 Collected Works at 429-431.

When reading Lincoln, it should be noted where he refers to "the Commanding General," that was not Lincoln (the C-in-C) but the Commanding General of the Army. The CG was authorized to suspend the privilege of the right of habeas corpus at his discretion, or to delegate said power down the chain of command, which he did. In the famous case of John Merryman (Ex parte Merryman) the privilege of the writ was suspended in Maryland by General Keim who was in Pennsylvania.

Lincoln's word salad obfuscating the suspension of the privilege of the writ in the Union states by military officers, rather than Congress, claimed some exception based lest "the government itself go to pieces." That exception to law is the same type of "suicide" asserted by Justice Jackson, which was denied by the majority of the Court.

Soon after the first call for militia, it was considered a duty to authorize the Commanding General, in proper cases, according to his discretion, to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus; or, in other words, to arrest, and detain, without resort to the ordinary processes and forms of law, such individuals as he might deem dangerous to the public safety. This authority has purposely been exercised but very sparingly. Nevertheless, the legality and propriety of what has been done under it, are questioned; and the attention of the country has been called to the proposition that one who is sworn to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed,'' should not himself violate them. Of course some consideration was given to the questions of power, and propriety, before this matter was acted upon. The whole of the laws which were required to be faithfully executed, were being resisted, and failing of execution, in nearly one-third of the States. Must they be allowed to finally fail of execution, even had it been perfectly clear, that by the use of the means necessary to their execution, some single law, made in such extreme tenderness of the citizen's liberty, that practically, it relieves more of the guilty, than of the innocent, should, to a very limited extent, be violated? To state the question more directly, are all the laws, but one, to go unexecuted, and the government itself go to pieces, lest that one be violated? Even in such a case, would not the official oath be broken, if the government should be overthrown, when it was believed that disregarding the single law, would tend to preserve it? But it was not believed that this question was presented. It was not believed that any law was violated. The provision of the Constitution that "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, shall not be suspended unless when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it,'' is equivalent to a provision — is a provision — that such privilege may be suspended when, in cases of rebellion, or invasion, the public safety does require it. It was decided that we have a case of rebellion, and that the public safety does require the qualified suspension of the privilege of the writ which was authorized to be made. Now it is insisted that Congress, and not the Executive, is vested with this power. But the Constitution itself, is silent as to which, or who, is to exercise the power; and as the provision was plainly made for a dangerous emergency, it cannot be believed the framers of the instrument intended, that in every case, the danger should run its course, until Congress could be called together; the very assembling of which might be prevented, as was intended in this case, by the rebellion.

"There was no threat of anarchy and Justice Jackson's dissenting opinion was shot down by the majority who wrote for the Court."

They didn't shoot down his dissent because he misused the phrase "suicide pact". They shot it down because the Chicago ordinance was overly broad.

My only point in bringing it up was that he used the phrase as an expression to describe a situation where a literal interpretation of the Bill of Rights (free speech) results in harm to the citizens -- even though it may not include death or involve everyone.

"The majority opinion in Terminiello has been reaffirmed many times."

Selectively. Burning the American flag is protected speech. But waving the Confederate flag is not.

What's next? The "knockout game" is protected speech? Riots are nothing more than freedom of expression?

First of all, the feds have no authority to question a guy with Colorado plates in a neighboring state. Or search his car. He has broken no law.
Which differs not a whit from the current situation.

In the current situation, the DEA can search the trunk of your car if a drug- sniffing dog indicates that it may contain drugs.

Under your situation, they could only do that at the border as the drugs are crossing.

Under your situation, they could only do that at the border as the drugs are crossing.

And it wouldn't be enough for just the vehicle to be straddling the state line. The actual package of drugs would have to be directly above the border at some point.

They didn't shoot down his dissent because he misused the phrase "suicide pact".

They shot down his dissent. History has proven, beyond all doubt, that no suicide resulted.

The majority opinion in Terminiello has been reaffirmed many times."

Selectively. Burning the American flag is protected speech. But waving the Confederate flag is not.

Your argument is bogus.

Waving the Confederate flag is not prohibited. Flying it on government property can be prohibited. A state government can choose whether or not it will allow the Confederate flag to be flown on state property.

What's next? The "knockout game" is protected speech? Riots are nothing more than freedom of expression?

The standard has not changed. Terminiello, as I have mentioned previously, did not reach that question.

The Court in Terminiello:

The argument here has been focused on the issue of whether the content of petitioner's speech was composed of derisive, fighting words, which carried it outside the scope of the constitutional guarantees. See Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U. S. 568; Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 310 U. S. 310. We do not reach that question, for there is a preliminary question that is dispositive of the case.

Subsequent decisions:

See also Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971), citing Terminiello.

Appellant was convicted of violating that part of Cal. Penal Code 415 which prohibits “maliciously and willfully disturb[ing] the peace or quiet of any neighborhood or person . . . by . . . offensive conduct,” for wearing a jacket bearing the words “Fuck the Draft” in a corridor of the Los Angeles Courthouse. The Court of Appeal held that “offensive conduct” means “behavior which has a tendency to provoke others to acts of violence or to in turn disturb the peace,” and affirmed the conviction.

Held: Absent a more particularized and compelling reason for its actions, the State may not, consistently with the First and Fourteenth Amendments, make the simple public display of this single four-letter expletive a criminal offense. Pp. 22-26.

1 Cal. App. 3d 94, 81 Cal. Rptr. 503, reversed.

See also Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003)

The Supreme Court of Virginia has not ruled on the meaning of the prima facie evidence provision. It has, however, stated that "the act of burning a cross alone, with no evidence of intent to intimidate, will nonetheless suffice for arrest and prosecution and will insulate the Commonwealth from a motion to strike the evidence at the end of its case-in-chief." 262 Va., at 778, 553 S.E. 2d, at 746. The jury in the case of Richard Elliott did not receive any instruction on the prima facie evidence provision, and the provision was not an issue in the case of Jonathan O'Mara because he pleaded guilty. The court in Barry Black's case, however, instructed the jury that the provision means: "The burning of a cross, by itself, is sufficient evidence from which you may infer the required intent." App. 196. This jury instruction is the same as the Model Jury Instruction in the Commonwealth of Virginia. See Virginia Model Jury Instructions, Criminal, Instruction No. 10.250 (1998 and Supp. 2001).

The prima facie evidence provision, as interpreted by the jury instruction, renders the statute unconstitutional. Because this jury instruction is the Model Jury Instruction, and because the Supreme Court of Virginia had the opportunity to expressly disavow the jury instruction, the jury instruction's construction of the prima facie provision "is a ruling on a question of state law that is as binding on us as though the precise words had been written into" the statute. E.g., Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 4 (1949) (striking down an ambiguous statute on facial grounds based upon the instruction given to the jury); see also New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 768, n. 21 (1982) (noting that Terminiello involved a facial challenge to the statute); Secretary of State of Md. v. Joseph H. Munson Co., 467 U.S. 947, 965, n. 13 (1984); Note, The First Amendment Overbreadth Doctrine, 83 Harv. L. Rev. 844, 845-846, n. 8 (1970); Monaghan, Overbreadth, 1981 S. Ct. Rev. 1, 10-12; Blakey Murray, Threats, Free Speech, and the Jurisprudence of the Federal Criminal Law, 2002 B.Y.U. L. Rev. 829, 883, n. 133. As construed by the jury instruction, the prima facie provision strips away the very reason why a State may ban cross burning with the intent to intimidate. The prima facie evidence provision permits a jury to convict in every cross-burning case in which defendants exercise their constitutional right not to put on a defense. And even where a defendant like Black presents a defense, the prima facie evidence provision makes it more likely that the jury will find an intent to intimidate regardless of the particular facts of the case. The provision permits the Commonwealth to arrest, prosecute, and convict a person based solely on the fact of cross burning itself.

It is apparent that the provision as so interpreted "`would create an unacceptable risk of the suppression of ideas.'" Secretary of State of Md. v. Joseph H. Munson Co., supra, at 965, n. 13 (quoting Members of City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789, 797 (1984)). The act of burning a cross may mean that a person is engaging in constitutionally proscribable intimidation. But that same act may mean only that the person is engaged in core political speech. The prima facie evidence provision in this statute blurs the line between these two meanings of a burning cross. As interpreted by the jury instruction, the provision chills constitutionally protected political speech because of the possibility that the Commonwealth will prosecute — and potentially convict — somebody engaging only in lawful political speech at the core of what the First Amendment is designed to protect.

See also City of Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451, 461-63 (1987), citing Terminiello.

Second, contrary to the city's contention, the First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers.

"Speech is often provocative and challenging. . . . [But it] is nevertheless protected against censorship or punishment, unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest."

Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U. S. 1, 4 (1949). In Lewis v. City of New Orleans, 415 U. S. 130 (1974), for example, the appellant was found to have yelled obscenities and threats at an officer who had asked appellant's husband to produce his driver's license. Appellant was convicted under a municipal ordinance that made it a crime

"'for any person wantonly to curse or revile or to use obscene or opprobrious language toward or with reference to any member of the city police while in the actual performance of his duty.'"

Id. at 415 U. S. 132 (citation omitted). We vacated the conviction and invalidated the ordinance as facially overbroad. Critical to our decision was the fact that the ordinance "punishe[d] only spoken words," and was not limited in scope to fighting words that, "by their very utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.'" Id. at 415 U. S. 133, quoting Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U. S. 518, 405 U. S. 525 (1972); see also ibid. (Georgia breach-of-peace statute not limited to fighting words held facially invalid). Moreover, in a concurring opinion in Lewis, JUSTICE POWELL suggested that even the "fighting words" exception recognized in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U. S. 568 (1942), might require a narrower application in cases involving words addressed to a police officer, because

"a properly trained officer may reasonably be expected to 'exercise a higher degree of restraint' than the average citizen, and thus be less likely to respond belligerently to 'fighting words.'"

The Houston ordinance is much more sweeping than the municipal ordinance struck down in Lewis. It is not limited to fighting words nor even to obscene or opprobrious language, but prohibits speech that "in any manner . . . interrupt[s]" an officer. The Constitution does not allow such speech to be made a crime. The freedom of individuals verbally to oppose or challenge police action without thereby risking arrest is one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation from a police state.

"Waving the Confederate flag is not prohibited."

Wave it at a Black Lives Matter protest and then tell me you wouldn't be arrested.

No different than burning the American flag in front of patriots.

They could, for example, have reasonable suspicion that there are drugs in the trunk. But they can't act

They can if they have reasonable suspicion that the pot crossed state lines, e.g., Colorado plates.

"They can if they have reasonable suspicion that the pot crossed state lines, e.g., Colorado plates."

Round and round we go. How can they prove it's Colorado pot? They can't. And the driver sure as hell isn't going to admit it. They got nothing ... except a possible harassment lawsuit.

Round and round we go. How can they prove it's Colorado pot?

Round and round indeed: "the driver of the car could say he took that pot [to his purchase of which the Colorado seller testified] home. The stuff in the trunk is not Colorado pot." "And a jury can decide if that possibility constitutes REASONABLE doubt."

"to his purchase of which the Colorado seller testified"

How in the world did the feds find that "Colorado seller"? Why would they even look for the seller when the driver can simply say he took it home? Where do the feds get the authority to do all this when the only "proof" they have is out-of-state plates? Where did they get the authority to search the trunk?

This case would never get in front of a jury because any sane judge would laugh it out of the courtroom.

"Waving the Confederate flag is not prohibited."

Wave it at a Black Lives Matter protest and then tell me you wouldn't be arrested.

Waving the Confederate flag is not unlawful per se. Inciting to riot is unlawful. Breaching the peace or communicating fighting words is unlawful.

Going to a BLM gathering and giving them all the finger might get you arrested. Giving the finger where you do not incite to riot would not be a crime.

If your behavior is likely to incite to riot, it is not protected free speech. If you do it at a BLM gathering, you would probably be lucky to have a nearby police officer arrest you.

How in the world did the feds find that "Colorado seller"?

How does law enforcement find anyone who has information relevant to an investigation? It's always a task with no guarantee of success, but it often bears fruit.

Why would they even look for the seller when the driver can simply say he took it home?

Asked and answered.

Where do the feds get the authority to do all this when the only "proof" they have is out-of-state plates? Where did they get the authority to search the trunk?

More straw men - it's not about proof but reasonable suspicion.

"If your behavior is likely to incite to riot, it is not protected free speech."

Yet burning the American flag in front of patriotic citizens is protected.