Marijuana Ballot Issues Have Little To Do With Drugs

Shout Bits Blog ^ | 07/30/2012 | Shout Bits

[Shout Bits]

This November, as many as eight States will have marijuana ballot issues before their voters. Most are medicinal issues, but States like Oregon and Colorado will decide on full legalization. Just as judging the average alcohol drinker by observing gutter drunks is unfounded, most marijuana users are not actually wild smelly Occupy Wall Street hippies (as annoying as they can be). Pollsters estimate that 25 million Americans regularly consume marijuana, and there simply are not enough Rasta cab drivers and jazz fans to fill those ranks. Politically, the tide is turning in favor of recreational marijuana use, but for the 90% of Americans who are not regular partakers, the marijuana issue has more impact than getting high. In fact, the marijuana issue is a test bed for the entirety of the wrongs Washington imposes on the States and the People.

Marijuana has, of course, been proven to be medically benign. Contrary to government propaganda, marijuana does not engender violent or dangerous behavior – unlike tequila. Further, the drug's use does not seem to rise or fall based on its legality. In The Netherlands, where marijuana is more or less legal, its use is less prevalent than in the US, where marijuana is mostly illegal. Dreamers who think states can balance their budgets by taxing marijuana like tobacco or booze will be disappointed as marijuana usage cannot generate a large tax base as do cigarettes and liquor. Those who foresee a fall in crime as the illegal profit is eliminated are also overly optimistic. Until all vices are legal and regulated, cartels will still trade in violence. In short, should marijuana become legal in the US, expect essentially no impact.

Why, then is the marijuana issue relevant? The marijuana issue brings the 10^th Amendment, the Commerce Clause, and the Supremacy Clause to a poignant head and is a colorful wedge for those who generally support individual liberty and responsibility. Washington's corruption withers in the light of the marijuana issue.

In Wickard v. Filburn, the Supreme Court held that FDR's multi-year attempt to help farmers by forcing them to farm less acreage than they wanted was constitutional. They held that even if farm produce were grown in a single state with seed, fertilizer, and water from only that state, for consumption intrastate, the Commerce clause allowed Washington to dictate any aspect of that farm's operation because the activities of the farm might affect markets out of state. Nothing had to cross state lines to be regulated as interstate commerce. Fast forward 80 years, and this same logic (under a different name) allows Washington to force individuals to buy a minimum level of healthcare products. For those who think Washington knows best, these rulings are wonderful news, but for the libertarian they invite tyranny.

Regardless of Supreme Court decisions, the plain language and original intent of the Commerce Clause is to ensure that states do not enact trade barriers between themselves. It does not say that commerce may be regulated within a state; it does not say that the commerce of individuals may be regulated. The Commerce Clause puts regulating interstate commerce at the same level as trade with foreign nations and Indian tribes, clearly implying that Washington's role is to facilitate free trade, not to dictate how many acres a farmer may plant. Quite often the plain language reading of a law is truer than the convolutions of talented specialist minds.

FDR outlawed marijuana about the same time as he regulated farmers and under the same Commerce Clause authority (in the form of a tax, if that sounds familiar). Indeed, most of Washington's departures from the Constitution's enumerated powers stem from the abuse of the Commerce Clause. Should a State fully legalize marijuana this November, the very heart of Washington's bloat will be tested. Interestingly, Justice Roberts's horrid logic that Obamacare was illegal under the Commerce Clause but legal as a tax gains traction in such a showdown. Should a State's perfect document, its Constitution, be amended to legalize marijuana, that State would be obligated to take the issue to the Supreme Court unless Washington backs down. The marijuana issue may give libertarians another swipe at the Commerce Clause, a gift given by States broadly in favor of Obamacare.

Can Washington imprison someone for growing a plant in Colorado using Colorado materials, all for Colorado or even personal consumption? Is there any boundary to Washington's power over the States and the People? Is Washington's law supreme over a State's, even when Washington's law is not authorized under the Constitution? Does the 10^th Amendment mean anything? Should marijuana be legalized somewhere this November, these questions might be revisited and the tide of Washington's tyranny over its purported masters could be reversed. Even for those who find the herbal libation distasteful, these are good reasons to vote to legalize marijuana.

Shout Bits can be found on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/#!/ShoutBits

[DiogenesLamp]

An utterly false statement.

And you seemed so sensible on the Natural Born Citizen issue.

China’s problem was their pagan, Christless culture. Without Christ, you have nothing.

A Christian culture is not immuned from drugs. It isn't even immuned from the evil influence of Hollywood. It requires the faith of a Saint to counteract the effects of Chemical reactions within your brain synapses. Most Christians would succumb to addiction if given a few samples of Heroin.

I am not disparaging faith, I am only pointing out the realistic facts of addiction. Only those truly touched by God would be able to resist it.

[tacticalogic]

Why you would want to pick the Commerce Clause is beyond me. I regard it as a Defense issue, not an issue of Commerce.

I do that because that's where the people passing the laws claim they find the authority, and they leverage that to claim authority far beyond. That you consider it "Defense" doesn't change that. It is what it is, and that's what we have to deal with - not what it would be in your perfect world.

[tacticalogic]

I'm not going to bother with the rest of your message.

The rest of it was about the unintended consequences. That you won't be bothered with it is not surprising, but it is telling.

[DiogenesLamp]

I do that because that's where the people passing the laws claim they find the authority, and they leverage that to claim authority far beyond. That you consider it "Defense" doesn't change that. It is what it is, and that's what we have to deal with - not what it would be in your perfect world.

I argue that they only cite the Commerce clause because they are lazy, and have become accustomed to citing it so often to justify anything which they do. I argue that the proper clause of the U.S. Constitution to cite is Section 8 dealing with Defense of the nation.

My point is, the U.S. Constitution does grant authority to interdict any material which may be regarded as being used in an attack upon the nation. Nerve Agents, Biological Warfare Agents, Nuclear Fissile Material, and Drugs all Constitute Legally prohibited Contraband in Lawful accordance with the Articles and Requirements of our U.S. Constitution.

"Commerce" only applies to lawful exchanges of goods and services.

[editor-surveyor]

You are certifiably full of ka-ka.

You reject all logic to support your pro-tyranny position; what’s in it for you?

Are you a cop?

[tacticalogic]

My point is, the U.S. Constitution does grant authority to interdict any material which may be regarded as being used in an attack upon the nation. Nerve Agents, Biological Warfare Agents, Nuclear Fissile Material, and Drugs all Constitute Legally prohibited Contraband in Lawful accordance with the Articles and Requirements of our U.S. Constitution.

Where in the Articles do these appear?

"Do not emanate into the penumbra."
-Sign in Clarence Thomas' office.

[DiogenesLamp]

The rest of it was about the unintended consequences. That you won't be bothered with it is not surprising, but it is telling.

Yes it is telling. It is "telling" you that I don't agree with your assertions, and I likewise regarded the rest of your message as not worthy of consideration. I am long accustomed to Libertarian types giving me their "Chicken Little" routine, and I have long grown tired of hearing them screech about how the "Sky is falling" just because we keep very dangerous and addictive substances illegal. (Though we have done so for over 100 years.)

I doubt most libertarians have given any serious thought as to what happened in China, and I likewise doubt they can come up with any reasonable argument as to why a similar disaster would not happen here if we were so foolish as to do what the Chinese did. (Legalize drugs.)

I would suggest you not bring up the topic of "unintended consequences" until after you've come up with an explanation as to how the "unintended consequences" we would face in this nation will not resemble the "unintended consequences" which the Chinese faced after they had legal drugs for so many years. As near as I can tell, legalizing drugs is tantamount to a nation putting a gun to it's head and pulling the trigger. Except that it happens slowly.

[DiogenesLamp]

You are certifiably full of ka-ka.

You reject all logic to support your pro-tyranny position; what’s in it for you?

What's in it for me? Not getting robbed by drug addicts. Not having people run into me on the highway because they are too stoned to drive straight. Not having to support worthless bums who want to sit around all day getting high. Not having a society on a path towards suicide. THAT's what's in it for me.

Are you a cop?

No. Not even close. Electronics Engineer/Tech.

I think i'm done arguing with you. I'm starting to hear Twilight Zone music every time I see your name pop up.

[DiogenesLamp]

Where in the Articles do these appear?

Already covered this. Read up thread. It's under Section 8 Dealing with Defense of the Nation.

[tacticalogic]

I'm not a Libertarian, I'm an original intent Constitutionalist.

There is no enumerated power for the federal government to conduct the domestic "war on drugs". You claim they use the Commerce Clause because they're too lazy to use Defense, but all that does is excuse you for being too lazy to be bothered with getting the amendment we need to enumerate the power, and do it the way it was intended.

[tnlibertarian]

I won't blame marijuana for his loss, but I bet there were plenty of times that he could have been training in the pool but he decided to get high instead.

"I was going to train for another gold, but then I got high.
I was going to do just what my coach told, but then I got high.
Now Subway's going to drop me cold, and I know why.
Because I got high, because I got high, because I got high."

[tacticalogic]

Already covered this. Read up thread. It's under Section 8 Dealing with Defense of the Nation.

None of the things you mention appear in that section.

[editor-surveyor]

Every one of the problems that you mention began here when the drugs were outlawed.

The mystique of the forbidden.

[editor-surveyor]

Waste of time to communicate with the kook.

Notice his use of “graphics” in post 148.

[DiogenesLamp]

There is no enumerated power for the federal government to conduct the domestic "war on drugs". You claim they use the Commerce Clause because they're too lazy to use Defense, but all that does is excuse you for being too lazy to be bothered with getting the amendment we need to enumerate the power, and do it the way it was intended.

It is a mistake to believe that the Constitution will have specificity on many issues. It is an outline of General Principles. James Madison explains why it is not more specific here.

What could the Convention have done? If they had in general terms declared the Common law to be in force, they would have broken in upon the legal Code of every State in the most material points: they wd. have done more, they would have brought over from G.B. a thousand heterogeneous & antirepublican doctrines, and even the ecclesiastical Hierarchy itself, for that is a part of the Common law. If they had undertaken a discrimination, they must have formed a digest of laws, instead of a Constitution.”

The U.S. Constitution does not mention meteorites. Yet were someone to drop meteorites on us from above, who would argue that we can do nothing because the constitution doesn't mention attack by meteorites?

Bringing drugs into our country is an attack on our society. Whether the intent behind this smuggling is to destroy us or merely profit from us is irrelevant to the consequences. Our people die as a result, and some of our people's lives are ruined. Add to that the damage they do to the rest of society on their spiral downward and you easily have sufficient justification for attacking and killing anyone who engages in this activity.

The Constitution specifies that we defend our nation from attack. It does not need to list all manners of attack.

[DiogenesLamp]

Waste of time to communicate with the kook.

Yes, but which kook?

[longtermmemmory]

not for perpetual impairment. people who have have seizures or special meds are suspended pending reexamination and medical release as a matter of course. ANY use of “medicinal” pot would fall in the same class.

Odd how none of the potheads ever discuss the fact that there are commecially available, dose controlled, drugs which have the idential alleged medicial properties as pot. As always this is just a pretext for recreational pot.

[tacticalogic]

Bringing drugs into our country is an attack on our society.

Why do you keep arguing points that are not in contention?

Any interdiction at the border is well within the original intent of the Commerce power. Burying my doctor in paperwork that I'm going to end up having to pay for is not, and isn't stopping anyone from bringing drugs into the country.

[Aevery_Freeman]

Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is a chemical and an exorbitant tax is a de facto ban but if you wish to trust the government, feel free. I, for one, remain skeptical.

I have no objection to the Government insuring that Ammunition is produced with the Public's safety in mind.

Nope, I can't trust the government to ensure the safety of anything involving my Second Amendment rights (and damn little else).

[DiogenesLamp]

Nope, I can't trust the government to ensure the safety of anything involving my Second Amendment rights (and damn little else).

Fair enough. A lot of people feel the same way, and that's why guns and ammunition sales are the highest they've ever been. I would suggest that any attempt by the Government to ban or severely hinder sales of Guns or Ammunition ought to be regarded as an attempt at tyranny to which the public should respond appropriately.