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
Phelps did his part in the relay last night. Lochte lost it for them.
No, my humor is intact. Didn’t think I needed a sarc tag to pull ‘gunners chain.
FReegards
It should be implicit that living in a republic means that people in other states may be allowed to do things you, and the people in your state disagree with. If you and the people in your state want to make it illegal it is then your responsibility to enforce that prohibition in your state. That's how it was designed.
Myself calls me and myself and I all manner of names
and it's for the English to toss the frauds in the Thames.
This should be reported to the authorities forthwith.
Yuppers, a blog pimp.
And a skunk weed fan apparently.
LOL!
LOL.
Paranoid much?
Lost me on this lie.
Next up, he’ll hear that I Am Not A Mod actually IS a mod.
I am firmly for the pro-drug agenda. Legalize all of it.
Every argument you make sounds to me like the arguments made by the anti-gunners - return to the Wild West, blood in the streets as cartels take over, etc.
The difference between us and them is, this experiment has already been done before, and we have the results. They are not good for your side.
Chests of Opium imported into China. 
As I have pointed out above, Both State and Federal governments are legally empowered by the Constitution to declare drug usage illegal. Not under commerce, but under defense.
I am of divided mind on the issue. I would agree that an appeal to the tenth amendment is the best argument I have heard regarding the legalization of Marijuana. The question is, would the same argument apply to heroin or cocaine? I think not. Where to draw the line? and How?
[giggles!] FReegards to you too. I admire your straight-faced reply, in that case. [smiles]
In Obamaland, it is okay to smoke marijuana but if you smoke a cigarette in public you will go to jail.
Source, please.
I didn’t make any argument at all.
I made a guess as to how his ideas would be received.
As it turns out, I was only half right on that.
A lot of people have commented on what they think I meant, but I didn’t take any position one way or another.
I did get a lot of people to express their opinions. Isn’t that nice?
That may be the section of the Constitution THEY cite as authorization for the Drug War, but I will point out that "Wars" are fought by the Department of Defense, not the Department of Commerce, and I do indeed regard the pursuit of the drug war to be defensive in nature.
When China tried to ban the importation of opium, it was their fighting men and ships that confronted the British. Now no one can deny that they regarded their version of the drug war (which they lost) as being an ACTUAL war, one that would have consequences such as the enslavement of their citizens should they lose. Well they lost, and their citizens indeed did become slaves to their drug importing masters.
My point is, Just because Congress and the authorities are pointing at the wrong authorization for waging the War on Drugs, that doesn't mean they do not have a correct authority backing them. They do. It is the requirement by the constitution for the Government to defend the nation from attack.
If we want federal government to wage a domestic drug war, then we need to enumerate the power for them to do that.
I am not concerned that they will do things which I merely don't like, I am concerned only that they may do something which constitutes an injury to me and mine. Pollution drifts across the border. At that point it becomes MY problem.
There was no declaration of war, there is no discernible "enemy". The "war on drugs" is as much a real "war" as the "war on poverty".
In your mind that rationalization might justify the drug war, while de-legitimizing all the other abuses of the Commerce Clause, but in Washington and in the courts it will not.
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.