James J. Kilpatrick: Making Sense of Marijuana

uexpress.com ^ | 1/21/04 | James J. Kilpatrick

[Sir Gawain]

Why not just use the Constitution as a defense against Asscroft and the DOJ/BATF/DEA?

[robertpaulsen]

"They appealed to a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit."

More than likely, this will go to the full 9th Circuit and stop there. Congress doesn't recognize smoked marijuana as medicine.

Nor should they.

[newgeezer]

No matter what else was happening (usually not much), smokin' some rope always made me feel better.

Speaking of which, there's a lot of pipeweed happening in those Lord Of The Rings movies...

[Congressman Billybob]

I'm surprised to see that Kilpatrick is still writing. This is a very interesting case. And he correctly describes Wikard v. Filburn so long ago in the Supreme Court.

Filburn's case created a huge loophole in the Constitution, by allowing Congress to regulate goods and services that NEVER CAME ANYWHERE NEAR A STATE LINE. In short, Congress' power over "interstate commerce" was amended to mean power over all commerce, whether or not it was interstate.

This is the first case in a long time where I agree with the Ninth Circuit and consider the Supreme Court dead wrong. However, I have zero hope that this case will be affirmed by the Supreme Court, if it is taken there.

Congressman Billybob

Click here, then click the blue CFR button, to join the anti-CFR effort (or visit the "Hugh & Series, Critical & Pulled by JimRob" thread).

[RonF]

Someone needs to tell me why cocaine is considered medicine and can be legally prescribed, and marijuana isn't and can't. Or why marijuana is considered a drug and nicotine isn't.

[Land of the Free 04]

Filburn's case created a huge loophole in the Constitution, by allowing Congress to regulate goods and services that NEVER CAME ANYWHERE NEAR A STATE LINE. In short, Congress' power over "interstate commerce" was amended to mean power over all commerce, whether or not it was interstate.

And some alleged "conservatives" lap up this FDR-court perversion simply because it can be used against Demon Weed. <spits in disgust>

[Land of the Free 04]

Or why marijuana is considered a drug and nicotine isn't.

Or alcohol. Don't hold your breath waiting for a sane explanation.

[BlackbirdSST]

You have to be a Drug Warrior to have access to that logic. By asking the question, you've proved you have no need to know. Sorry. Blackbird.

[NietzschesJoker]

Which of these things can be easily grown for immediate consumption in any climate and therefore is near impossible to tax and sufficiently regulate through commerce?

[bassmaner]

And some alleged "conservatives" lap up this FDR-court perversion simply because it can be used against Demon Weed.

See post #3 - our old friend rp.

700,000+ arrests of Americans annually for marijuana "crimes", when there's been much more important things for law enforcement to worry about since 9/11/2001. Sad.

[bassmaner]

How many posts until this one gets "backroomed"? Any guesses?

[the_devils_advocate_666]

Imagine... Imagine if all the WoD money suddenly got shifted to combating illegal immigration. Imagine...

[blitzgig]

"700,000+ arrests of Americans annually for marijuana "crimes", when there's been much more important things for law enforcement to worry about since 9/11/2001. Sad."

Agreed, and the overbearing stretch of the commerce clause power makes it just one expression of many possible cases of congressional overreach.

[Yudan]

Ping.

I got no major problems with weed - I think it's pretty harmless.

I generally am for decriminalization of street drugs, period - to eliminate the associated crime. Though I can see the other side of the argument. I have a cousin in Portland, OR - a federal prosecutor (Julius's son, Wardaddy) who made the point to me that his belief was that cocaine and methamphetamine were as close to evil as inanimate substances can get.

He made the point that addicts of hypnotic stimulants like coke and meth will do stuff that even hardcore opiate abusers won't do for their next fix.

But, the cruel pragmatic in me also says let 'em fix - ultimately they'll OD and it'll cleanse the gene pool.

[robertpaulsen]

"And he correctly describes Wikard v. Filburn so long ago in the Supreme Court."

Yes and no. He left out the fact that Filburn was free to grow as much as he wanted provided he paid the fine as outlined in the original legislation.

Keep in mind that the legislation propped up the price of wheat -- but only if the supply were restricted (kinda like OPEC).

Mr. Filburn wanted his cake and to eat it, too. He accepted the increased price for his wheat, then produced more that was allowed. If he would have paid the fine on the excess wheat, he would have been OK.

Now you tell me. If there were 100,000 Mr. Filburns, each producing excess wheat (the excess for their own use), would this "intrastate" use have an effect in interstate commerce? Would this have undercut the legislation?

Damn straight it would. Don't tell me that stictly intrastate commerce does not have an effect on interstate commerce.

Personally, if I were Wickard, I would have said to the farmers, "You don't like the government telling you how much you can and can't produce? You want to produce all the wheat you want? Be my guest. Let's see how you live on $.40 per bushel (world market price at the time) vs. $1.16 (what the federal government was paying under the Agricultural Adjustment program).

[robertpaulsen]

The criteria for drug classification is spelled out, in detail, in the Controlled Substances Act of 1970. I can provide you with a link and a reference to the appropriate section, assuming yours isn't a rhetorical question.

[evets]

labradoodle

[robertpaulsen]

"Imagine if all the WoD money suddenly got shifted to combating illegal immigration. Imagine..."

I forget the exact percentages, but roughly half of the federal drug budget goes to drug education and treament and half to drug interdiction, mostly along the borders.

So I guess you're saying that we should do away with drug education and treatment and put that money on the border? You almost have me convinced.

[Land of the Free 04]

Don't tell me that stictly intrastate commerce does not have an effect on interstate commerce.

Of course it has an effect---but the Constitution does not give the feds authority over that which affects interstate commerce, just the interstate commerce itself.