Madison wrote:Ok, so way back when, the federal government decided that pot should be illegal, and put out rules regarding it.
Yes. We can infer by their actions that they knew they could not outright ban it under the powers granted by the Constitution. In 1937 they resorted to trying to regulate/tax it out of existence without actually banning it. These efforts were struck down as unconstitutional. Think of it as an "Enron effort".
Madison wrote:However, there was a loophole that allowed marijuana to be used for medical purposes. Some states and individuals exploited that loophole and the federal government looked the other way since there was actually a use while dealing with glaucoma patients.
No, I have no clue where you're getting this from. There is no 'loophole' in the 1937 Act or the Constitution.
Madison wrote:Now that there is no medical use for marijuana...
Did you even bother to read the top half of my page 5 post? If so, it is inconceivable that you cannot find a prescription-based use and I didn't even get to the glaucoma use. I plainly laid it out and would love to hear a rebuttal if you have one.
Madison wrote:Ahhhh........but they didn't pass a bill to close the loophole, so that makes it unconstitutional.
Again, not sure where this loophole idea is coming from. In the commerce clause the Constitution permits the federal govt to address interstate trade. In the case at hand, not only was there nothing interstate about it, there wasn't even any trade. This makes it a state issue. Feel free to refer to the Tenth Amendment if you have any lingering doubt.
Madison wrote:Yes, no, or did I miss the point completely?
Whatever you were smoking when you read my post, I want some.
Looking forward to hearing from you....