Industrial Marijuana Farming Approved In Oakland

Trintech writes "According to MSNBC: 'The city of Oakland, California on Tuesday legalized large-scale marijuana cultivation for medical use and will issue up to four permits for "industrial" cultivation starting next year. The move by the San Francisco Bay Area city aims to bring medical marijuana cultivation into the open and allow the city to profit by taxing those who grow it. The resolution passed the city council easily after a nearly four-hour debate that pitted small-scale "garden" growers against advocates of a bigger, industrial system that would become a "Silicon Valley" of pot.' Yes, you read that right. MSNBC just compared computer chip fabrication to pot cultivation."

Comments

Re:Starting to think of moving to the USA...

[CyDharttha]

Way off-topic, but I think you have the lowest UUID I've seen yet in comments :)

Re:Starting to think of moving to the USA...

[CrimsonAvenger]

Most of the drug laws are based on interstate commerce laws. That clause has been abused like no other, to the point that it doesn't make a lick of sense. When you bust people under interstate commerce for growing and consuming something in their own state, without being near a state line, you're treading on thin ice. So far, the courts have turned a bit of a blind eye to this abuse. I don't know how well that'd go if it was a state sponsored activity.

If the federal courts/Supreme Court can't see that Interstate commerce requires Commerce between States to be regulated, I can see a number of states being a bit uppity. That's the stuff of revolutions.

Note that Obama's Healthcare law also bounces off the Interstate Commerce clause. Among others.

It will be very hard for the current Administration to argue that they don't have the power to deal with California's mj, but do have the power to regulate the health insurance of everyone in America.

Even worse, if the Supremes rule that the Interstate Commerce clause doesn't apply to California's mj, then the number of lawsuits that will go winging their way up to the Supremes arguing for similar interpretation of the Interstate Commerce clause for their pet peeve will be awe-inspiring.

Note that virtually the entire growth of the Federal government since 1933 has depended on the Interstate Commerce clause being interpreted loosely enough to allow the Feds to do whatever they wanted.