Posted on 03/04/2005 5:15:52 PM PST by Know your rights
Can California have its marijuana and smoke it too?
Since voters passed the Medical Marijuana Act in 1996, the state law has been seemingly in contradiction with federal laws that say marijuana is an illegal drug under any circumstances.
The U.S. Supreme Court is now reviewing Ashcroft vs. Raich, in which a decision is expected any day regarding the federal government's authority over the matter.
And according to Americans for Safe Access, a group working for medical marijuana rights, now may be as good a time as any for a ruling to be made.
"Right now, the Supreme Court is definitely oriented towards state rights," said campaign director Hilary McQuie. "I don't want to make a bet, but that more than any other factor could be in favor of the Reich decision."
California resident Angel Raich, a prescribed medical marijuana user, sued the federal government in 2002 to challenge federal laws that banned her from using the substance under the Medical Marijuana Act.
After the act passed, federal agents began periodic raids in California to break up marijuana cooperatives, saying that the federal Controlled Substance Act (CSA) does not recognize medical marijuana.
While the US Constitution grants policing power to states, it stipulates that the federal government may intervene when the situation involves commerce between states.
According to court documents, the federal government believes it can override the state law using the CSA because there are sales taking place.
But a Dec 16, 2003 ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decided that using "the CSA is an unconstitutional exercise of Congress' Commerce Clause authority." The government's appeal of that decision landed the case in the Supreme Court in April of 2004.
Patrick Murphy, a California drug policy expert, says that the case could easily go either way at this point; regardless, Californians who support medical marijuana shouldn't panic if the court rules in favor the government.
"The notion of an individual in possession is now a question that a state can make a judgment on and this decision won't overturn that," Murphy said. "More likely, this could settle the question of whether state law is trumped by federal."
The Drug Free America Foundation, an umbrella group that filed a brief in favor of the government's position, did not return calls from The California Aggie for comment.
Despite the assurance that medical marijuana users would still be protected under state law, some wonder whether the federal government could use a win to conduct more frequent raids.
Murphy said the likelihood of such action is low, although the government may still decide to target doctors in an effort to make an example of them.
"But you have to have someone out there willing to make the arrest, and then you also have to have someone willing to prosecute it, and it's just not a very good use of resources," he continued. "Frankly, drugs just aren't a priority for the federal government anymore."
Even a ruling in favor of Raich, although viewed as a big boost for medical marijuana advocates, is something McQuie said is only a minor protection in the larger picture.
"It doesn't end the fight for medical marijuana if it wins because we need to have it rescheduled at the federal level," McQuie said. "But it is a move in the right direction."
Sure I can stop...I go w/o marijuana quite a lot. Marijuana isn't physically addictive & it doesn't bother me one iota when I don't have it, & that's one thing I love about it. I don't drink 'cuz I HATE the taste of alcohol & it makes folks turn violent, & that isn't my style.
Now for tobacco, that's a totally different matter--it took me 5 MONTHS (using a nicotine patch) of going thru pure hell b4 I began to feel confident that I had kicked the habit. It messed up my sleeping pattern severely, I had the shakes, stomach cramps, loss of appetite, severe headaches....it was terrible! It's been a lil over 2 yrs since I've had a cigarette, & even now I could go back on them 'cuz I miss it (I still feel like one of my best friends had moved away or died).
I guess that's where we part ways: 'cuz as far as I'm concerned, NOTHING in the Constitution is negotiable--the 9th & 10th Amendments are being blatantly ignored, but IMO they carry just as much weight as the 1st & 2nd do.
I pray you can go without marijuana again. If it's easy to stop, you should be able to. Hopefully this can happen.
I'm not a libertarian. If you go to extremes then all federal laws are illegal for 200 years worth that aren't amendments.
It's not the case, and I feel sorry for you libertarians that feel that is such.
BTW, I smoked for 2 years and gave it up at the drop of a hat. No problem whatsoever. From your experience, you kicked nicotine. Can you kick pot?
LIKE I SAID, I go w/o quite a lot...& I don't care when I do. Pot isn't a major factor in my life, 'cuz I have goals to achieve, things to do, etc. You might like to drink a glass of wine during dinner or drink a few beers while watching a football game (I dunno)...but for me, I like to kick back in my recliner, turn on the TV or stereo, & smoke a joint. SO WHAT????????
I'd like to see you go without it forever. I will pray for that. You don't need it.
If you can't stop forever, you're addicted. I hope that's not the case.
"Put simply, much if not all of Art. I, 8 (including portions of the Commerce Clause itself) would be surplusage if Congress had been given authority over matters that substantially affect interstate commerce. An interpretation of cl. 3 that makes the rest of 8 superfluous simply cannot be correct. Yet this Court's Commerce Clause jurisprudence has endorsed just such an interpretation: the power we have accorded Congress has swallowed Art. I, 8."
"Indeed, if a substantial effects test can be appended to the Commerce Clause, why not to every other power of the Federal Government. There is no reason for singling out the Commerce Clause for special treatment."
"Accordingly, Congress could regulate all matters that substantially affect the Army and Navy, bankruptcies, tax collection, expenditures, and so on. In that case, the clauses of 8 all mutually overlap, something we can assume the Founding Fathers never intended."
Do you agree with Justice Thomas' opinion on the substantial effects doctrine?
Please give some explanation of this case and source links, thanks.
Do you mean you smoked cigs for only 2 yrs??? I was a tobacco addict for 19 yrs...my dad quit cold turkey when I was in elementary school, so I don't remember his experience (I'm 42 now). My mom, sis, & 3 aunts quit by using the gum about 8 yrs ago, & that eventually motivated me to try to quit cigs in Jan 2003....but it wasn't until the following JUNE b4 I knew the worst was over & my addiction was gone (for the most part).
Cigarettes do not alter the mind state very much at all. There's no reward really. The only 'reward' comes when you are away from them and need one to feel normal again.
A nonsmoker that smokes feels virtually nothing.
The same can't be said of illegal drugs. Cigs are addictive purely through social pressure. They are very easy to drop and forget, becaue the mind altering properties are near zero.
Illegal drugs such as pot are far harder to get off of. Think about it.. You gave up cigs, yet you still do pot. And you will KEEP doing pot too. No matter what.
I ask you, which are you more addicted to? Which was easier to really stop?
No, you're dead wrong when you say that if I can't go forever that must mean I'm addicted...I know what addiction is all about, thanx to nicotine. The absence of pot has no effects on me whatsoever. Somethines I go w/o 'cuz I WANT TO; other times, the supply isn't there. But it makes me no difference, 'cuz I'll be alright w/ it or w/o it (but if I had my drithers, I'd rather be w/ it, just like having pecan pie or something else like that which I love).
Comparing it to pecan pie is insanity. They obviously aren't both the same intoxication effect. It appears the drug THC has severely altered your ability to think.
I'll pray for you, it's very sad to see people like this. I hope God will guide you away from this and towards his light.
No, if I had a cigarette right now, I'd probably feel a mild buzz...but I probably wouldn't like it, & I'd cough my lungs out. Maybe more of a dizzy feeling than a buzz, but it's been such a long time that I don't wanna find out again.
Cigs are useless, the main effect is probably oxygen deprivation from the CO in the lungs. Makes you a little tipsy.
People that can't drop cigs, there's some problem there. And if pot is easier, you should certainly never need it again.
Again, God help you.
Pot is MUCH easier to go w/o than nicotine...when I smoked cigs, I couldn't go more than 4 hrs w/o getting "that feeling" (craving another one). Things eventually became almost unbearable after that, & the ONLY thing that kept my addiction from rearing its ugly head was another cig.
But w/ pot, if I go a week, or even a month or longer, it doesn't bother me. It's that simple!
www.constitution.org/ussc/514-549c.htm
What I quoted is pretty much the gist of his argument against the substantial effects test. Any initial thoughts?
You say you're 42. Then be an adult. Give up that drug for good. You gave up tobacco. Can you do the same for good with pot?
Looks like that was a gun case. In which case, I will gladly agree with Thomas on the gun issue.
I can't believe you would say that it's hampered my ability to think! That's outrageous. I know good & well what my own experiences are, & how to deal w/ them. But believe what you want...I doubt if I'll be able to change your mind any more than you'll be able to change mine.
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.