Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas appears to have thrown the left for a loop with his dissent in hearing the appeal of a Colorado medical marijuana dispensary that was denied federal tax breaks.
Seen as perhaps the most conservative justice on the high court, Thomas said that because of the hodgepodge of federal policies on marijuana, federal laws against its use or cultivation may no longer be necessary, according to NBC News.
“A prohibition on interstate use or cultivation of marijuana may no longer be necessary or proper to support the federal government’s piecemeal approach,” he said in authoring the court’s dissent.
Federal law lists marijuana as a Schedule I substance, with “no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.”
Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in 2005 upholding federal laws making marijuana possession illegal, Thomas suggested that Congress may need to revisit the issue.
“Federal policies of the past 16 years have greatly undermined its reasoning,” Thomas said. “Once comprehensive, the Federal Government’s current approach is a half-in, half-out regime that simultaneously tolerates and forbids local use of marijuana. This contradictory and unstable state of affairs strains basic principles of federalism and conceals traps for the unwary.”
Clarence Thomas says the federal ban on marijuana is likely unconstitutional, faulting the government for maintaining a “contradictory and unstable state of affairs” that “strains basic principles of federalism and conceals traps for the unwary.” https://t.co/zlrRHs6giG pic.twitter.com/4XLIT1F70r
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) June 28, 2021
He further stated that the federal government has sent mixed signals on its views.
“In 2009 and 2013, the Department of Justice issued memorandums outlining a policy against intruding on state legalization schemes or prosecuting certain individuals who comply with state law,” Thomas said. ” In 2009, Congress enabled Washington D.C.’s government to decriminalize medical marijuana under local ordinance. Moreover, in every fiscal year since 2015, Congress has prohibited the Department of Justice from “spending funds to prevent states’ implementation of their own medical marijuana laws.”
In citing the IRS investigating whether a marijuana dispensary’s business deductions violate federal drug laws, he commented on the government’s “willingness to often look the other way on marijuana.”
“This disjuncture between the Government’s recent laissez-faire policies on marijuana and the actual operation of specific laws is not limited to the tax context,” Thomas said. “Many marijuana-related businesses operate entirely in cash because federal law prohibits certain financial institutions from knowingly accepting deposits from or providing other bank services to businesses that violate federal law.”
“Under this rule, a business that is still in the red after it pays its workers and keeps the lights on might nonetheless owe substantial federal income tax,” he said.
As NBC News reported, 36 states permit medical marijuana to be sold, and 18 allow recreational use, but federal tax law does not allow these businesses to deduct their business expenses.
The Democrat-controlled House passed the MORE Act in 2019 to remove marijuana as a Schedule I substance, but the bill failed in the Republican-controlled Senate.
Here’s a quick sampling of some of the responses to the story from Twitter:
Can we all just finally agree that this is a bipartisan issue?
We can get this done and it’s a win for everyone. Everyone.
This is low hanging fruit to get a bipartisan win for the American people.— Assume the Postion (@stephen_of_borg) June 28, 2021
Technically so is opium, cocaine, peyote, magic mushrooms and I’m sure a bunch I’m not thinking of, that being said it should all be legal and regulated, would be much more effective, the government could get tax money from it instead of spending tax money losing the war on drugs
— Erik Martonovich (@BighorseproErik) June 29, 2021
He made this comments regarding a case challenging the federal ban on tax deductions for state-licensed cannabis businesses. That’s what he declined to take up.
— Powerline (@DerekGant) June 28, 2021
There was never a time that they were necessary. Glad to see a justice that sees the duplicitous nature of Federal Law. Leave it up to the states.
— DontAskMeIJustLiveHere (@Veronica31378) June 29, 2021
I agree with Clarence Thomas??? 2021 is wild man. https://t.co/wlEHkfhDAa
— Clark Palmer (@ClarkPalmer6) June 29, 2021
Justice Thomas is correct. The facts on the ground have evolved to the point where the Constitution is implicated. Marijuana is a state issue now. https://t.co/hRilm6BoE2
— Rob Bradley (@Rob_Bradley) June 28, 2021
DONATE TO BIZPAC REVIEW
Please help us! If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to BPR to help us fight them. Now is the time. Truth has never been more critical!
Tom@bizpacreview.com
The longest-tenured writer at BizPac Review, Tom grew up in Maryland before moving to Central Florida as a young teen. It is in the Sunshine State that he honed both his passion for politics and his writing skills.
- Did Sunny Hostin just admit on air to breaking the law by voting for her son? - November 8, 2022
- Stacey Abrams justifies trailing in the polls by suggesting black men are too stupid to back her - November 7, 2022
- Kevin McCarthy has message for Pelosi telling Dems to ‘change the subject’ away from inflation - October 24, 2022
Comment
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.
