True. But the fact is that PA has a record of your sticker purchase, and basically just uses the sticker as a shorthand for law enforcement to weed out obviously-non-licensed boats.
Correct. But they’ve never referred back to that data; it’s only utility would be if I claimed I lost my sticker. A Fish & Game Officer looks at my boat using binoculars and doesn’t bother me.
It occurs to me that medical marijuana enjoys a certain amount of privacy protection due to it’s medical use … typically medical records aren’t available to the public …
However … recreational marijuana doesn’t enjoy any privacy … at least in Oregon where recreational marijuana is to be regulated similar to the production, distribution and retailing of alcoholic beverages … we might find all this information as a matter of public information … the DEA might only have to download the list off the internet …
It’s unclear yet whether marijuana will be restricted like beer and wine, which is looser … or if it will restricted like distilled spirits, which is restricted to State-owned retail stores … in which case there is no list of licensed retailers, the DEA would have to arrest the State of Oregon … good luck getting a conviction where the Bundy Brothers got acquitted … hahahaha …
You’re thinking too small. I’d try to get a job as the permit seller 
Shit, all they need is the ‘Yellow Pages’.
In Colorado, I can’t imagine the trouble that this would stir up from the citizens. I think I heard that we have 10,000 people in the MJ industry. That alone will cause quite a kerfuffle. Denver alone has 300 MJ shops.
Leaving aside the logistics, i think your plan would also be a bit problematic in terms of precedent and principle. Government should not, as a rule, be in the “nudge and wink” business when it comes to issues of regulation and legal obligations.
I understand and even applaud the motivations in this particular case, but i could envision a scenario where someone else might ask the government to develop a similar system that would allow people to circumvent regulations that i care about, like environmental emissions laws or something like that. I’m not sure i’d want to open that door.
I agree. Just trying to think of workarounds that allow states to decide what their citizenry do with their spare time.
Looks like Trump will shed jobs faster than he can pretend to create them.
Unless he has the nerve to tell the Stiff-Necked Gnome to back off.
I would still like to see what happens if a state goes into court and asks what the constitutional warrant is to regulate a commodity that is produced and consumed inside said state and never crosses a state line. By contrast, it took an amendment to prohibit alcohol.
And Sessions is much more dangerous than people think.
Care to elaborate?
CA is eliminating any differentiation between medical and recreational grows, its all about size and method of operation.
It’s already happened. Spoiler: the federal government won.
The US is obligated by the Single Convention on Narcotics to criminalize the production and distribution of cannabis buds (though not leaves).
Wow, so much for Scalia’s textualism, huh? I guess when the demon weed is involved, things change.
On a purely logical basis, Clarence Thomas’s dissent in that case makes a lot of sense to me:
How is this relevant to the question of federalism?
Your placing of this observation in this post seems to suggest that America’s obligation under the Single Convention on Narcotics supersedes the constitutional issues of federal authority. Is that the case?
No. The federal authority to regulate stuff that doesn’t actually move in interstate commerce was established in Wickard v. Filburn in 1942. The problem with the treaty is that the US is arguably not living up to its obligations if it doesn’t continue to prosecute marijuana producers at the federal level.
seems to me the more logical and easier solution is for the state to eliminate the licensing requirement , as it makes no sense to require licenses but keep no records. But of course they won’t want to do that.
Also, just because people don’t need a prescription, doesn’t mean it isn’t medicine. Can the government demand a pharmacy provide them a list of all customers who bought OTC laxatives, for example? Seems to me, medical privacy still applies even if you didn’t get permission from your doctor in writing ahead of time.
I don’t doubt it, but it doesn’t really change the substance of my observation.
I’ve always been intrigued by the relationship between textualism and originalism, on the one hand, and Supreme Court precedent, on the other. Shouldn’t a true textualist or originalist (i understand the difference between these two things, but i think this applies to both of them) reject the idea of precedent out of hand? What does it matter what the court ruled in 1942 if that court did not adopt a textualist/originalist (depending on your preference) approach to the ruling?
Hell, in some ways the textualist/originalist position seems to undermine the notion of a professional judiciary. Why not just take a historical or political science expert on the text of the Constitution, and on the social and political circumstances of its creation, and drop her into a Supreme Court chair? If she knows what the Constitution says, and is an expert on the historical context in which it was produced, and the ideas of the people who were living at the time and how they understood the issues, then what more does she need to determine whether a law conforms to the Constitution, whether it be a plain reading of the text, or an assessment of the original intent of the people who produced it?
Objection, your honor. Non-responsive. 
I’m not arguing that the federal government doesn’t have an obligation to prosecute marijuana producers under the treaty.
I am simply suggesting that, if the Supreme Court were to rule that the federal government did NOT actually have to power to do this under the US Constitution, the presence of an international treaty would not somehow render the court’s decision null and void, and allow the Feds to carry on regardless. Or does the government have the right to ignore the Constitution and the Court if an international treaty places an obligation on the United States to exercise a particular type of internal control?
Nobody rejects precedent out of hand, because all schools of judicial thought respect the principle of stare decisis.
Textualist and originalist judges don’t come up with their interpretations of how the text should be interpreted based on original research. They play referee between competing experts; their own expertise is irrelevant. For example, the (absurd) “prefatory clause” argument that Scalia relied on in DC v. Heller came from an amicus brief submitted by the Eagle Forum & Legal Defense Fund. He didn’t make it up himself.
No, the treaty is irrelevant to the constitutional question. I only bring it up as a factor in the policy question of whether the feds should interfere with marijuana in states where it is legal.
I don’t want to make this partisan-politicky, but the recent change in management might mean that former policy when it comes to Fed/State law enforcement division won’t stay status quo.
“Might”? See post 9.