Posted on 07/30/2012 10:38:42 AM PDT by 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 10th 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 10th 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
Government will never be qualified to determine anything; it is too easily manipulated by evil men, and relies on premises not found in God’s word.
>> “IOW pot heads have no money for cars or gas.” <<
.
True, but also equally true for all other types of psychological dependency. The founders were right, only property owners should vote.
HUH? They compared the change in traffic fatalities in states since MM laws were enacted to the change in traffic fatalities in neighboring states without such laws.
Your claim makes no sense and I doubt you actually read the study.
No they can't. Ownership of such items is specifically protected by the U.S. Constitution under Amendment II. Apart from that, drug usage is an activity that constitutes a reckless endangerment to the public.
Ha! Ha! No they can't declare lead or Potassium Nitrate or anything they want a public health hazard and ban it. No they can't declare Big Gulps Public Enemy Number 1 either.
Thanks for the laugh. Oh, that it were true.
Mushrooms grow out of the ground as do hemp plants. So IMO both should be legal.
I'm throwing the maudlin melodramatic flag on this bravo sierra, Old Sarge.
I know and have known plenty of potheads, and even the crunchiest, Phishiest, most patchoulied up among them never reach the Reefer Madness-like state you suggest here.
Enforcement of laws is one thing. However, based on your activity on this thread, you seem to be addicted to a form of government that attempts to reduce an extremely generalized and highly nebulous social "risk" by criminalizing a naturally-occurring substance.
That's about as "conservative" as your garden variety leftist societal engineering project.
Well, people who would refuse those roadside exercises would also refuse breathalyzers and similar tests, so even if they were just drunk, we’d have to do a blood test, same as with marijuana, or prescription drugs like the ambien that Kennedy was on when he crashed. I really don’t see what the big difference is here.
As for suspending licenses, it’s only done for prescription drugs or a medical condition that will cause some perpetual impairment. I don’t see how that applies here so that doctors would have to report anything.
Ask Laz about it, that’s why I pinged him to it.
Not sure why or how you are trying to twist this. Bottom line, China went from very low addiction to very high addiction between the time Britain started importing opium and the time it stopped. On the other hand, We nipped it in the bud back around 1900 and as a result of the war on drugs, our addiction rate is still only 1.5%, and that's by YOUR numbers.
You are simply re-proving the same point I am making. The war on drugs is a HUGE success, because we didn't end up with 20% of our population addicted to drugs.
If you really believe that, then lets discuss dynamite. Its usage currently requires an explosives license, but if I am to understand you correctly, you have no objections to letting anybody play with it. Do I understand you correctly?
How about pharmaceuticals? Apparently you feel that people ought to be able to prescribe themselves whatever medication that they see fit, rather than licensing doctors or Pharmacists. Your position seems to be: "We don't need no stinking license!"
If you can't follow my logic, I perceive that it is only because you don't want to. It's easy to follow, but some people do not like where it leads.
Sure, but only if I can first be persuaded that Marijuana cannot pose the sort of threat that Opium or Cocaine poses. I regard some of the harder drugs to be existential (Threatening our very existence) threats to our nation. I have read quite a lot about what Opium did to China, and I am convinced it was the breakdown in society which was caused by Opium addiction that led first to the Japanese invasion of China, and thereafter to the ascendency of the Communist Mao government with it's 100 million subsequent deaths.
Now could Marijuana trigger such an event here? If the answer is yes, then the 10th amendment cannot protect it. If the answer is no, then allowing it would seemingly fall within the tenth Amendment's purview.
The question I am not certain of in my own mind is which side of the line is Marijuana on? Would ubiquitous society-wide usage of the drug destroy our ability to maintain a functioning nation? I don't know. I know it makes worthless lazy bums out of the people I know who use it, but presumably it may not have that effect on everyone.
I would suggest that Licensing it's usage would address this issue. It would establish the idea that the State has a right to regulate it (Under the State's tenth amendment powers) and that it is being watched closely enough to guarantee that any unintended consequences can be ameliorated by tightening the requirements for licensing.
For that matter, I think consumers of Alcohol ought to have a box on their drivers license that can be checked to verify that they have been advised of their rights and responsibilities, and which can be unchecked for people convicted of drunk driving or other abuses of the substance.
It would keep the sales and use of it legal, while reducing traffic accidents by repeat offenders. (I know a guy with 5 D.U.I.s and another with 7 D.U.I.s.) Bartenders could ask to see their license (which they often do anyways) and if they don't have that box checked, they can be refused service.
But getting back to Marijuana, the question is just how much of a threat to a functioning society is Marijuana? I don't know. I would suggest the best way to figure this out is to look at societies that have already legalized it and see what kind of bad consequences resulted.
People claim that Portugal is having success with this approach, but there are dissenters who claim the Portuguese government is just making up their claims of success. People often cite Amsterdam Netherlands as an example of successful integration of Marijuana and Society, but the latest news from that Country is that they are now banning it's sale or use by Foreign Tourists.
From my perspective, it's still an open question, though I would think allowing licenses for it would address my strongest concerns.
Why you would want to pick the Commerce Clause is beyond me. I regard it as a Defense issue, not an issue of Commerce. But the point remains. If we can legitimately ban the import of fissile material under the Commerce Clause, we can likewise legitimately ban the import of Drugs under the Commerce Clause.
I'm not going to bother with the rest of your message.
Even if what you say is true (Which I do not believe) then I will point out to you that the Lack of a War on Drugs is what destroyed China, and caused the deaths of over 100 million people.
Had our History gone the other way, you would be weeping and wailing and gnashing your teeth all the while asking "Why?!! Oh Why didn't we stop this horror when it was small?!"
This is what legalized drugs looks like.
What is worse than the War on Drugs? The alternative is worse. Far worse.
Regulation of Chemicals is not banning.
Thanks for the laugh. Oh, that it were true.
Take a deep breath and consider the distinction calmly. I recognize the State's duty to insure the safety of the public from misuse of dangerous substances. Chemicals ARE dangerous, and a release of Chlorine gas has the potential to kill thousands of innocent people. In an effort to insure that incompetent people are not handling dangerous Chemicals, they are regulated by State and Federal agencies.
Regulation is not banning. They are still available for use by Demonstrably competent people to use for making products which require them. Ammunition is one such product. I have no objection to the Government insuring that Ammunition is produced with the Public's safety in mind.
“If you really believe that, then lets discuss dynamite. Its usage currently requires an explosives license, but if I am to understand you correctly, you have no objections to letting anybody play with it. Do I understand you correctly?”
No, I’m talking about currently unlicensed items which can be used irresponsibly. Take inhalants for example. Anyone can go buy spraypaint (though minors are usually barred by local ordinance). Most of us only use it to paint stuff, but a few fools choose to inhale it and get high, get addicted to it, and ruin their lives. We aren’t forced to either license spraypaint or ban it because of that situation. We simply let the fools do what they will, and lock them up when they become a nuisance or danger to the rest of us.
There are thousands of other examples that could be brought up of similar things that don’t force us to make the choice you suggest.
That a substance is "naturally occurring" is irrelevant to the point. There are a multitude of "naturally occurring" substances that are down right deadly, and of course we don't let just anyone play with them. Arsenic, Hemlock and Strychnine come to mind.
The Socially destructive effects of drugs are not "nebulous" there are very well documented and innumerably verified consequences to tolerance of drugs in any society or culture. The argument here is whether or not Marijuana is sufficiently dangerous as to be a threat to the existence of a society. Opium obviously is, and I would expect the evidence to reveal that meth and cocaine are as well.
This is not guess work. This is not "theory." These experiments have been run, and the consequences of tolerating highly addictive drugs have been uniformly horrifying. To my knowledge there are no good examples of a working culture which embraces highly addictive and dangerous drugs.
The question in my mind is, "Will Marijuana cause the same results, albeit slower?" I don't know. Everyone I know who smokes the stuff is a worthless bum. Maybe this doesn't happen to everyone who smokes it, but it certainly seems to happen to a lot of people who do.
Cocaine and Heroin grow out of the ground too.
>> “then I will point out to you that the Lack of a War on Drugs is what destroyed China, and caused the deaths of over 100 million people.” <<
.
An utterly false statement.
China’s problem was their pagan, Christless culture. Without Christ, you have nothing.
I do not know about your community, but in my community the City Council passed an ordinance regulating sales of the stuff. The State passed a law limiting the purchase of Meth ingredient Pseudo-Ephedrine.
It is not in any communities best interest to have drug addled kooks wandering up and down their streets.
There are thousands of other examples that could be brought up of similar things that don’t force us to make the choice you suggest.
Possibly, but why would we have need of regulating substances that are not being abused? It is only as a result of the abuse of Medical elixirs in the late 1800s that prompted the creation of laws banning the use of certain ingredients (mostly cocaine) in those patent medicines. It was the result of a widespread and rapidly increasing addiction to those patent medicines that led lawmakers to take action against them.
Again, why ban or regulate something which is NOT being abused?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.