LocalGrowGuy
- 2,497
- 263
Cannabis crop coverage - Check the local mags, I see ads for crop insurance for cannabis on a regular basis. The first unpaid google result is , but being in the industry, I'd like to see what the limitations and exclusions are before I would sign on the dotted line. I would also question how the insurance company operates or addresses the Commerce Clause, if it's an in-state carrier it might not apply, but that's not my gig.
I have asked before and not seen any response or feedback, but I do not believe cannabis will be part of ANY national insurance program, again, because of the commerce clause and probably more likely, the supremacy clause. The Controlled Substances Act does not recognize the medical benefits or use of marijuana, and the courts have generally agreed that making an exception for medical marijuana would make the entire Act unenforceable. Most importantly however, I don't see how cannabis crop insurance or coverage for seed stock would be included in this type of legislation. Marijuana is still schedule one, and that makes anything related effectively a non-starter.
The only cannabis insurance I can see happening, while keeping in mind it's schedule one status and the supremecy clause in mind. However, I think Hickenloopers recent claims of state sovereignty and state's rights make this more pertinent, I just wish this stuff was being discussed in 2012 with 1284 and 106:
Dissenting opinions in Gonzales v Reich via wiki-
Justice O'Connor dissented joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who authored the majority opinions in United States v. Lopez and United States v. Morrison. O'Connor began her opinion by citing Lopez, which she followed with a reference to Justice Louis Brandeis's dissenting opinion in New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann:
We enforce the "outer limits" of Congress' Commerce Clause authority not for their own sake, but to protect historic spheres of state sovereignty from excessive federal encroachment and thereby to maintain the distribution of power fundamental to our federalist system of government. United States v. Lopez, 514 U. S. 549, 557 (1995); NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U. S. 1, 37 (1937). One of federalism's chief virtues, of course, is that it promotes innovation by allowing for the possibility that "a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country." New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U. S. 262, 311 (1932) (Brandeis, J., dissenting).
She concluded:
Relying on Congress’ abstract assertions, the Court has endorsed making it a federal crime to grow small amounts of marijuana in one’s own home for one’s own medicinal use. This overreaching stifles an express choice by some States, concerned for the lives and liberties of their people, to regulate medical marijuana differently. If I were a California citizen, I would not have voted for the medical marijuana ballot initiative; if I were a California legislator I would not have supported the Compassionate Use Act. But whatever the wisdom of California’s experiment with medical marijuana, the federalism principles that have driven our Commerce Clause cases require that room for experiment be protected in this case.
Justice Thomas also wrote a separate dissent, stating in part:
Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything—and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.
Respondent's local cultivation and consumption of marijuana is not "Commerce... among the several States."
[...]
Certainly no evidence from the founding suggests that "commerce" included the mere possession of a good or some personal activity that did not involve trade or exchange for value. In the early days of the Republic, it would have been unthinkable that Congress could prohibit the local cultivation, possession, and consumption of marijuana.
[...]
If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption (not because it is interstate commerce, but because it is inextricably bound up with interstate commerce), then Congress' Article I powers – as expanded by the Necessary and Proper Clause – have no meaningful limits. Whether Congress aims at the possession of drugs, guns, or any number of other items, it may continue to "appropria[te] state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce."
[...]
If the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States. This makes a mockery of Madison's assurance to the people of New York that the "powers delegated" to the Federal Government are "few and defined", while those of the States are "numerous and indefinite."
As it relates to health insurance in Colorado, Amendment 20 specifically states that insurance companies are not liable for claims related to marijuana, medical or otherwise.
