Whatever you say, Chicken Little.
Posted on 04/22/2004 8:23:49 PM PDT by writer33
SAN FRANCISCO -- A judge on Wednesday ordered the federal government not to raid or prosecute a California group that grows and distributes marijuana for its sick members.
The decision by U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel in San Jose was the first interpretation of an appeals court's December ruling that federal prosecutions of medical marijuana users are unconstitutional if the pot isn't sold, transported across state lines or used for non-medicinal purposes. Nine states including Cali fornia and Washington allow medical marijuana use, but the Justice Department contends that federal drug laws take precedence.
Fogel ruled that the federal government cannot raid or prosecute the 250 members of the Wo/Men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana, which sued the government after the Drug Enforcement Administration in 2002 raided its Santa Cruz County growing operation and seized 167 marijuana plants.
The group's director, Valerie Corral, said the group had been receiving and growing marijuana in secret since the raid out of fear of being prosecuted. But with Fogel's decision, the group plans on immediately planting hundreds of plants at Corral's one-acre property.
"You better believe it we're gonna plant," said Corral, who uses marijuana to alleviate epileptic seizures.
Justice Department spokesman Charles Miller said the government was reviewing the decision.
Federalism seems to be making a comeback. This decision is a restriction on the federal government's powers as claimed via the Commerce Clause. From this little seed, a might oak could grow.
Justice Clarence Thomas seems to agree.
I continue to believe that we must "temper our Commerce Clause jurisprudence" and return to an interpretation better rooted in the Clause's original understanding.
-- Justice Thomas concurring, Printz vs United States, June 27, 1997.
Both cocaine and methamphetamine are on the DEA's Schedule II, which means the DEA recognized them as having a currently accepted medical use.
I wonder if another Circuit court found that a full-auto AK-47 can be used as a hammer, we could get that legalized. Only for pounding nails, mind you!
It would be interesting indeed, if that's what the court had done. But the medical utility of cannabis was not in itself a question that was before the court. For someone who weighs in on this topic as frequently as you do, you seem to have a very tenuous grasp of the issues. Have you even read the court's decision? Can't you even get your facts straight?
The question considered and determined by the court in the Dec. 16 decision was whether the Commerce Clause empowered the Federal government to regulate non-commerce which moreover is conducted intra-state. The court found that this was an unacceptable interpretation which resulted in unwarranted intrusion into the reserved powers of the States. The people of CA themselves have already recognized that cannabis does have medical utility and voted an initiative to that effect into law. You may not agree with the people's decision, but that's irrelevant here.
Those who would defend the ingenious Federal/State system crafted at 1787 Convention should be cheering this decision to the high heavens. It's one of the few traces of sanity we've actually seen -- especially from that particular court. But to those whose prohibitionist rage and lunacy exceeds their loyalty to our Constitution and their love of liberty under law, this decision has prompted at best smug and cynical resignation sprinkled with the usual silly jokes, and little thoughtful commentary.
Here's a commentary from the last of the great Tenth Amendment Conservatives, one who actually understands original Federalism, James J. Kilpatrick:
Making Sense of Marijuana.
And since it probably doesn't matter to you at all, here's the actual case:
http://angeljustice.org/downloads/ninthcircuitdecision.pdf
I would humbly suggest you get your head out of your ass before you spew nonsense the next time, ok?
Kind Regards;
Whoa there youngster. For someone who's only been on this forum for 6 weeks, you may want to be a little more careful in your accusations.
Because you're new, I'm going to go easy with my response. Yes, I know the issues. Yes, I've read the case, probably a half-dozen times. But I have this feeling you haven't.
First, the Ninth Circuit only ruled that "the appellants have demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on their claim that, as applied to them, the CSA is an unconstitutional exercise of Congress’ Commerce Clause authority."
The Ninth Circuit "decline(d) to reach the appellants’ other arguments, which are based on the principles of federalism embodied in the Tenth Amendment, the appellants’ alleged fundamental rights under the Fifth and Ninth Amendments, and the doctrine of medical necessity."
Just so we're crystal clear on what the Ninth Circuit ruled. It was strictly Commerce Clause.
Now, Raich v Ashcroft is a medical marijuana case. Medical marijuana is what places it in a different "class of activities". Your statement that "the medical utility of cannabis was not in itself a question that was before the court" is true. It was assumed by the court that cannabis has medical utility. According to the Ninth Circuit:
"Clearly, the way in which the activity or class of activities is defined is critical. We find that the appellants’ class of activities — the intrastate, noncommercial cultivation, possession and use of marijuana for personal medical purposes on the advice of a physician — is, in fact, different in kind from drug trafficking."
Congress has ruled that marijuana is a Schedule I drug -- no medical use. How can a product with no medical use be placed by the Ninth Circuit into a "separate and distinct class of activities" defined as "marijuana for personal medical purposes on the advice of a physician"? Answer: It can't. No more than the Fifth Circuit court could declare that a full-auto AK-47 is a hammer and is therefore legal.
The Ninth Circuit applied the Morrison four-factor test for determining whether a regulated activity “substantially affects” interstate commerce. The court concluded on three of those four factors that the law violated the constitution -- ergo, their statement that the appelants have a strong likelihood of success on their claim.
BUT, two of those three tests (the first and the last) rely heavily on the fact that "medical" marijuana is a different animal from recreational marijuana. Congress has a finding that says there isn't.
So, let me ask you. Who determines whether marijuana has medical value -- Congress or a three-member panel (one of whom dissented) of the Ninth Circuit, the most overturned appellate court in the nation by far?
It is my contention that the USSC will overturn the Ninth Circuit (again) on the fact that Congress has declared marijuana a Schedule I drug with no medical use. Therefore, there is no "special class" which differentiates this product from recreational marijuana. That's my opinion.
"one who actually understands original Federalism"
And do you also understand Federalism to be the ability of individual states to undermine and negate Congress' attempt to regulate commerce for the good of the nation? That greedy farmers like Filburn should be allowed to flood the world market with wheat, thereby driving down the price and forcing wheat farmers into bankruptcy?
"Dr. Lars Ekman, president of research and development at Elan, said the companies expect to seek approval for the drug at the end of 2003 in the United States and Europe. Depending on the regulatory process, the drug could be available as early as the end of 2004, he said."
I bring this up because smoked marijuana has been shown to interfere with the immune system. Personally, I'm not real big on using anecdotal stories as a basis for our medical system. I'd prefer research and studies.
Uh, where is the demon weed?
There are almost a half million arrests per year in the US. How many users not arrested? Millions! If it is legalized we could expect to see millions more.
The Darwinism of Mother Nature will take care of them by itself.
No. Our tax dollars will take care of them.
Whatever you say, Chicken Little.
You don't say, but I assume you mean drug arrests. There were more than that. Over 600,000 of those arrests were for marijuana, a drug that's less harmful to the individual and society than alcohol.
The fact that there were so many arrests isn't a reflection of how well our drug enforcement policies are working, it's an indictment of how ridiculous they are.
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.