Break this defense for me.

[JD1stTimer]

I have what I think is a bulletproof defense against federal marijuana charges which I believe any judge or jury who gives two cents about the constitution of the United States would be forced to agree with. The eighteenth amendment was ratified in order to outlaw alcohol in the United States. If it could have been legally accomplished by Congress there would have been no amendment for this. The Twenty-First Amendment repealed this amendment, and expressly gave the power to regulate alcohol to the states. The drug war issue is philosophically IDENTICAL to the issues surrounding alcohol. Drugs and alcohol are no more dissimilar than newspapers are from books, radio, television, magazines, and the internet. There have been no subsequent constitutional amendments granting regulatory powers over mind-altering substances to any federal power. Therefore, any federal regulations of intoxicants which are effectively the same to said substances as the eighteenth amendment is to alcohol are null and void, and are SPECIFICALLY granted to the states by analogy. Blow a hole in this argument if you can. Any lawyers out there, tell me why it wouldn't hold up except by plain and simple treason against the United States by judges. I'm serious too, I want to see this argument shredded viciously. If you can't break this argument, I BEG you to use it in defense of a client, especially in a medical marijuana state. If you know a criminal defense lawyer, please bring this to their attention. Thank you.

JD1stTimer Reviewed by JD1stTimer on 02-02-2008. Break this defense for me. I have what I think is a bulletproof defense against federal marijuana charges which I believe any judge or jury who gives two cents about the constitution of the United States would be forced to agree with. The eighteenth amendment was ratified in order to outlaw alcohol in the United States. If it could have been legally accomplished by Congress there would have been no amendment for this. The Twenty-First Amendment repealed this amendment, and expressly gave the power to regulate alcohol Rating: 5

[dragonrider]

Now, I'm no lawyer (I always love saying that!), but if there were a legitimate constitutional defense against Federal marijuana laws, you can be sure a lawyer would have thought of it before now. My guess is that the analogy you make cannot hold up legally. It may have required an ammendment to ban importation, transportation, and sale of alcohol, but not other substances that, unlike alcohol, are legally defined as drugs. Or maybe the ammendment was not actually required in order to enforce a nationwide ban on alcohol, and the temperance movement just decided to go that route? That's probalby not the case --- I have no idea.

My guess is that if you get busted, you should not try this as your defense --- at least don't act as your own attorney!

[JD1stTimer]

Right now I am abstaining because I'm looking for work. However, if one were to make a beverage with a thc-containing cannabis extract, that drink would exactly fit the definition of an intoxicating liquor used as a beverage, which is the wording of the 18th amendment. See definition b here: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/liquor

Also for the federal government to have a power, it must be specifically granted to the federal government. I do know that no one actually cares about the delegation of powers clause, but here it is for all to see: Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. I do understand that obviously judges don't really care about chicken shit like this, so the case may be that our government is no longer our legitimate government, and if we are patriots then we may have to do what would be required of patriots if foreign or domestic enemies of the nation have actually succeeded in a treasonous coup. OMG I nearly said the r word.

[Beefer86]

"Therefore, any federal regulations of intoxicants which are effectively the same to said substances as the eighteenth amendment is to alcohol are null and void, and are SPECIFICALLY granted to the states by analogy. Blow a hole in this argument if you can."


So are you saying Marijuana is "effectively the same" as alcohol, cocaine and heroin? Ya done one, youve done em all right?


Nothing is EVER granted to the states by analogy, where the hell do you get that from.

It seems you didnt read the 18th amendment very well. It specifically states liqours.

Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of 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 is hereby prohibited.

Section 1 states specifically of Liqours, I.E. Ethanol, the drinking alcohol. No other drugs.
What the hell is your argument again?

If it is that the 18th amendment implicitly included all drugs because alcohol is no different from drugs the way that newspapers are not different from television, then I want you to try it in the court of law and see how far you will get, because that is a ridiculous argument and will be treated as such.

You claim that a drink containing cannabis would exactly fit the definition of an intoxicating liqour. Incorrect. It exactly fits the definition of an ILLEGAL intoxicating liqour beverage

A non alcohol drink containing marijuana(like Marijuana Tea) is NOT an intoxicating liqour. It is an illegal intoxicating beverage.

Your wording is very confusing and jumbled together. What are you asking?

Your claim and your warrant do not correlate very well.

[CultureCherryPopper]

It seems you didnt read the 18th amendment very well. It specifically states liqours.

Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of 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 is hereby prohibited.

Section 1 states specifically of Liqours, I.E. Ethanol, the drinking alcohol. No other drugs.

Section 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

This is just them saying theyll bust yo ass.

Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

Section 3 is a built in clock.

What the hell is your argument again?

If it is that the 18th amendment implicitly included all drugs because alcohol is no different from drugs the way that newspapers are not different from television, then I want you to try it in the court of law and see how far you will get, because that is a ridiculous argument and will be treated as such.

You claim that a drink containing cannabis would exactly fit the definition of an intoxicating liqour. Incorrect. It exactly fits the definition of an ILLEGAL intoxicating liqour beverage

A non alcohol drink containing marijuana(like Marijuana Tea) is NOT an intoxicating liqour. It is an illegal intoxicating beverage.

Your wording is very confusing and jumbled together. What are you asking?

You beat me to the punch and put it pretty well, so I'll just give ya rep for saving me the time of research. :thumbsup:

[Beefer86]

Well someone had to "blow a hole" through the argument.

Keep thinking people.

[dragonrider]

Well, I don't think the original poster's idea has much legal merit, but I think a few people misunderstood what he was saying (or maybe I'm musunderstanding it).

I don't think he was saying the 18th ammendment applied to weed or that the 21st made weed legal by "analogy." I think he was saying that it required a constitutional ammendment to authorize the laws to make liquor illegal, so it should require a similar constitutional amendment to make weed illegal. He's saying federal laws prohibiting marijuana are not constitutional without an ammendment to authorize them, just as the Volstead Act prohibiting alcohol apparently would not have been legal without the 18th amendment to authorize it.

Anyway, that's how I understood it.

[ZiggyBuggyDoog]

This was actually discussed by the supreme court recently. the DEA busted a grower with 4 plants. Dude challenged the federal law on the grounds that the feds had no authority to enforce their law since, constitutionally, the feds can only enforce on issues of interstate commerce and things related as is specifically delegated to them in the constitution and all other matters are for the states to decide. Dude said that his weed was all personal and as such had nothing to do with interstate so the feds had no authority. The court ruled that even though the guy was using the weed personally and there was no interstate commerce involved in his specific case the feds were allowed to intervene because creating a supply of marijuana affected interstate commerce in weed even if the weed itself was not traded in this instance and furthermore the weed supply could in future be traded even thought there was no trading to date. Jacked up logic, i know, but the feds only had to prove that the guy's personal stash is could be related to the interstate trade of marijuana and that gives them all the authority they need to write and enforce retarded laws on the subject. If you want to change marijuana laws ya got ta go through congress, courts aren't gonna overrule anything for you, especially when its stacked with conservatives.

[denial102]

This was actually discussed by the supreme court recently. the DEA busted a grower with 4 plants. Dude challenged the federal law on the grounds that the feds had no authority to enforce their law since, constitutionally, the feds can only enforce on issues of interstate commerce and things related as is specifically delegated to them in the constitution and all other matters are for the states to decide. Dude said that his weed was all personal and as such had nothing to do with interstate so the feds had no authority. The court ruled that even though the guy was using the weed personally and there was no interstate commerce involved in his specific case the feds were allowed to intervene because creating a supply of marijuana affected interstate commerce in weed even if the weed itself was not traded in this instance and furthermore the weed supply could in future be traded even thought there was no trading to date. Jacked up logic, i know, but the feds only had to prove that the guy's personal stash is could be related to the interstate trade of marijuana and that gives them all the authority they need to write and enforce retarded laws on the subject. If you want to change marijuana laws ya got ta go through congress, courts aren't gonna overrule anything for you, especially when its stacked with conservatives.

thats like calling someone a criminal for stealing electricity when they are in fact generating it themselves via renewable energy like solar power..

Or better. Arresting someone in a shop who's buying a loaf of bread, because it could affect crime in the area.

I.e. fucked up madness gone wrong.

Peace,
Denial

[Markass]

Well technically, the tenth amendment says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

there is nothing in the constitution about marijuana...Back when the constitution was written it was known for what it actually is, a plant that grows..I'd say hemp was quite resourceful in those days..especially for george washington George Washington's diary, August 7, 1765: "â?? began to separate the male from the female hemp at Do â?? rather too late." This is a practice related to drug potency and not fiber culture!

but you've got to remember, the constitution doesn't really matter anymore..as I've stated before, we just need to take it out of history books and stop teaching it if we're not going to follow it