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

[humblegunner]

Outer Darkness bar and grill

I've waked up in their parking lot a time or two.

[Darksheare]

I love the idiots who believe they can drive under the influence of performance unenhancing drugs.
It’s really a hoot to drive 35 miles an hour in a 55 zone while watching the slowpoke in front of you play tag with the lane marker lines.
Then, after they finally do speed up and slam into somebody, they argue that the drugs don’t impair them at all.

They didn’t get to watch the show from everyone else’s perspective.

Like that lady a couple years back on the Taconic in NY, stopped at a rest area, smoked some dope, then got onto the highway the wrong way, killed herself and a bunch of kids.
The dopers were quick to claim the drugs had nothing to do with it.

Personally, if someone wants to destroy themselves, fine by me.
Leave me out of your suicide plans and stay off the darn roads.

[Leto]

Well I have used both alcohol and pot, haven’t used either for 30 years. If one should be illegal it would be alcohol, more dangerous IMO as someone who had used both drugs.

It is no business of the government to tell you that you can’t use any plants that are part of the environment, synthetic/refined drugs developed by man is a different story.

[humblegunner]

stay off the darn roads.

That would be why I waked up in the parking lot, yo.

[Darksheare]

Yeah, they have a nice ambience.
Grunting shambling deer in the lawn, wobbling patons that moan and wail.
Great place.

[Darksheare]

Ever wake up strapped to the roof of a moving vehicle?
It’s an experience.

[DiogenesLamp]

If you honestly belive any state would do this, then you need to find somewhere else to live. If you don't really believe they'd do it, then you need to stop building strawmen. You insult the intelligence of everyone else when you try to put crap like that out there as a rational argument.

At one time, I honestly believed no State would behave as has California. At this time, I no longer discern a limit regarding the insanity of other states. Apart from that, my allusion to letting street gangs play with nuclear weapons is a metaphor intentionally exaggerated for effect.

They are trying to do "Gay Marriage" in California. Had they succeeded, it would have affected me in my home state as well.

[DiogenesLamp]

And in 2012, 1,316,562,729 people are addicted to government.

You are confusing the term "addiction" with a tacit acknowledgement that we must have a government to enforce laws.

[tacticalogic]

Throwing a Constitutional mantle over its shoulders does not disguise the underlying truth of life-altering narcotics.

And the life-altering nature of narcotics does not enumerate powers.

All of the arguments for continuing the drug war as it is now rely on denying there is any abuse of the Commerce Clause, or denying that it is of any consequence. Neither of these are arguments that we should be making. It makes us complicit in that abuse and leaves us compromised in any attempt to rectify the multitiude of other abuses it has spawned, and to reign in the exponential growth of the federal government that has resulted from it.

[Notary Sojac]

We do not make a declaration of war against pirates.

I'm having a hard time establishing the moral equivalence between

(a) those who attack law-abiding merchants or travelers on the high seas, killing or kidnapping them and stealing their property, and

(b) those who wish to sell a product to citizens who would (other than their private use of said product) be considered law-abiding and respectful of their neighbors.

I guess it's just me.

[shibumi]

"Grunting shambling deer in the lawn,
wobbling patons that moan and wail."
Spirits gush forth
Along with bits of Tombstone pizza
Emptying the guts of debauched revelers.

You know, with some work, and a good guitar riff, it could be a free-form intro to some great grunge nonsense.

[DiogenesLamp]

Federal authority to exercise control over goods coming across our border from foreign countries is well within the original intent of the Commerce Clause.

Commerce does not apply to illegal activities. Importing Sex Slaves, or Drugs, or Anthrax spores do not constitute "Commerce."

This is commerce "with foreign nations", not interstate commerce. The were specified separately because "with" and "among" mean different things, and were intended to be treated differently. If it was all intended to be treated the same, they would simply have said "to regulate commerce" and left it at that.

Again, it is NOT Commerce because it is illegal. I also noticed that you did not answer my question. (Does the government have a right and a duty to ban the importation of fissile material?) The reason you did not answer my question is because you know that you must acknowledge that they can, and in doing so you destroy the basis for your own argument.

We The People... Have a Right and a Duty to ban dangerous and destructive substances.

[Darksheare]

I inspire madness.
Usually via my coffee.

“Wharbagarbble is my cry!”

[editor-surveyor]

Marijuana is a healing substance of high value, and for that reason its tie to drugs should be severed.

We should not allow our governments to regulate possession or use of any herb (except driving or operating machinery under the influence thereof).

Most of the force behind marijuana laws comes from those who would lose their cash cows if it were legalized, such as big pharma and the AMA.

[Notary Sojac]

You can SAY you're only lighting your field on fire over on your side of the boundary, but should I object because of the possibility that your fire won't STAY on your side of the boundary?

I would like to nominate this statement for "Most Inept Analogy of the 21st Century So Far".

[DiogenesLamp]

It's 'pro-freedom' to be against the pointless War on [Some] Drugs. The anti-drug illusion is a scam to scare people into handing over their liberties.

I disagree that the War on Drugs is a scam. It has produced very beneficial and positive results. In 1900, the addiction rate was something like ~2%. Today, the addiction rate is still around just ~2%. The natural progression of drug addiction without interdiction is a an exponential function that looks like this:

Chests of Opium imported into China

China is an example of what happens when you allow drugs to be legalized in your country. America is an example of what happens when you don't. The Fact that we have held the addiction rate down to ~2% demonstrates that our efforts have been a great success. Had we not waged a war on drugs, our addiction rate would very likely be in the +30% range by now.

[DiogenesLamp]

Amen! We aren’t buying the false substitution of “Liberty” for “Libertine.”

[tacticalogic]

We The People... Have a Right and a Duty to ban dangerous and destructive substances.

Fair enough. Now, which level of government are you going to use to do it? If you're going to have your state do it, then all you need is for the legislature to enact that prohibition and make the necessary provisions to enforce it. If you want the national government to do it, then you need to enumerate a power for that, because there is currently no "dangerous substances" power granted to Congress by the States, and enumerated in the Constitution.

[DiogenesLamp]

Well I have used both alcohol and pot, haven’t used either for 30 years. If one should be illegal it would be alcohol, more dangerous IMO as someone who had used both drugs.

I agree with you that Alcohol appears to be far more dangerous. It kills 100,000 people every year. Pot? Not so much.

It is no business of the government to tell you that you can’t use any plants that are part of the environment, synthetic/refined drugs developed by man is a different story.

Up to a point. The Debate is whether or not Marijuana is on one side of the line or the other. Mushrooms are natural parts of the environment. Which side of the line do you regard them to be on?

[TheOldLady]

I haven’t quite recovered just yet from the last time I drank your coffee, sweetie. Only a few more fingers and my nose still have to grow back, though. Give me a few more hours.