Medical marijuana: The real stakes

TownHall.com ^ | 12-10-04 | Jeff Jacoby

[robertpaulsen]

"If it works, is controlled and prescribed by a doctor,"

Moot point. The product is neither controlled or prescribed by a doctor.

If marijuana were teated the same as any other drug in the medical community, I would have no problem supporting it. The medical marijuana legalizers want an exception made for their "medicine".

That, I don't support.

[Beckwith]

Do you believe the Founding Fathers . . .

What I know is that the primary founding father, George Washington, maintained copious notes on the germination and growing of Cannabis at his estate, Mount Vernon.

Reference: Library of Congress.

[scottybk]

As a 3d year law student, I too found Wickard absurd, a relic of WWII and the New Deal that strains "effect" on interstate commerce to the point of absurdity. Scalia should see Wickard for what it was: a wartime decision that was tailored for a specific set of facts/cirsumstances, that was an "emergency" measure lacking the aura of stare decisis. I will be very, very disappointed in Scalia and Thomas if they vote to uphold this absurdity because they dislike marijunana.

[scottybk]

As a 3d year law student, I too found Wickard absurd, a relic of WWII and the New Deal that strains "effect" on interstate commerce to the point of absurdity. Scalia should see Wickard for what it was: a wartime decision that was tailored for a specific set of facts/cirsumstances, that was an "emergency" measure lacking the aura of stare decisis. I will be very, very disappointed in Scalia and Thomas if they vote to uphold this absurdity because they dislike marijunana.

[robertpaulsen]

corkoman, I'm shocked! Do you really believe I would make a statement I couldn't support? For shame.

The following is an excerpt from Study casts doubt on marijuana's effectiveness as glaucoma treatment:

"But to be effective, Green said a patient would have to smoke an unrealistic amount of marijuana."

"If you want to maintain a low interocular pressure with marijuana, then you have to smoke a joint every 1 to 2 hours which is 10 to 12 joints a day, which is 4,000 a year," he said. "That's by anybody's definition -- no matter how liberal you are -- a considerable consumption."

"His study is published in the recent issue of the American Medical Association's journal, Opthamology."

[gdani]

If marijuana were teated the same as any other drug in the medical community, I would have no problem supporting it

Perhaps one of the differences between the two is that most prescription meds have potentially far worse side effects than marijuana.

Heck, you can't kill youself by smoking too much marijuana. But how many prescription meds can you say the same thing about?

[robertpaulsen]

"The 21st amendment reversed the 18th amendment. What amendment would your suggested amendment be repealing?"

None. Who says an amendment has to repeal another amendment?

But if we're going to turn a power like drug legalization over to the states, I believe all states should have a say so in that decision. Think of the impact of state drug legalization on the surrounding states who choose not to.

State alcohol legaization worked only because all states legalized. That would not happen with drugs.

[evad]

Perhaps you should do your homework and read up on Soros and his quest for total drug legalization ..

Perhaps you should stick to my particular point which is that a controlled drug should be available if it works.

I couldn't care less what Soros is trying to do or anyone else who is trying to pervert the system.

[VaBarrister]

Exactly. This case could legitimize Wickard for the sake of so-called-morals. Wickard could easily be distinguished on the grounds that it was a wartime decision to protect the nation's wheat industry.

[Protagoras]

The real difference for the poster is that he is terrified that someone might actually have a pleasant sensation from a substance without the permission of a group of armed people.

[robertpaulsen]

Wickard, on the surface, IS laughable. One farmer, a couple of bushels of wheat, for his own personal use, is going to bring down the entire United States Agricultural Adjustment Act?

Of course it's not that simple, as you well know.

[Beckwith]

I'm going to make a flat-out statement here.

More damage has been done to our society by Budweiser (or Coors) and Phillip Morris (or American Tobacco) than marijuana has caused in 6,000 years.

[evad]

>>Moot point. The product is neither controlled or prescribed by a doctor.<<

My point is that it could be, like any other 'approved' drug, some of which are much more dangerous than marijuana.

"If it works, is controlled and prescribed by a doctor,"

I fail to see how this statement is moot. If that's the case then what's the point of ever postulating any premise?

It isn't the way it is so why bother?

[Protagoras]

which is that a controlled drug should be available if it works.

A better idea would be if substances were available, period.

[VaBarrister]

<> Not to mention the benefit to the snack and pizza industry.

[robertpaulsen]

"It is just important to know where all this crap starts and what starts it."

Why is it important? That's not the current reasoning.

None of those arguments were used by Congress in passing the Controlled Substances Act of 1970.

[Durus]

The federal government and state governments (with the exception of Montana, and that is dubious) do not have the enumerated power of drug legalization. Using the amendment process to remove a power that the federal government usurped in the first place borders on the absurd.

[TKDietz]

"I don't see how. All you have to do is examine the activity in question, and inquire whether regulation of that activity is within the constitutional purview of the federal government. Anything else just unnecessarily muddies the issue."

What activity are you examining? Are you looking at whether the federal government outlaw marijuana altogether, or whether a person can grow a small amount of marijuana and use it within his state or have someone grow it for him for use within his state? The federal laws make no mention of medical marijuana. Possession or manufacturing of marijuana is illegal under federal law regardless of the purpose for the possession or manufacturing? Something else that has to be considered under current interpretation of the commerce clause accepted by the Supreme Court is whether the activity has an effect on interstate commerce. This calls into question how narrowly tailored the state laws are that define the conduct in question.

Again, this is all relevant, but certainly not the whole ball of wax. There is a lot to look at here. But make no mistake about it, this is a states rights issue. We're looking at federalism and just how far the feds can encroach in areas traditionally left up to the states. When this country was founded the sovereign colonies were agreeing to join together under a central authority that had very limited powers. The federal government was there to see that things ran smoothly between the states, but the these states were supposed to keep a great measure of their sovereignty. Otherwise they never would have signed on. A lot of us believe that the Supreme Court has made some important errors in interpreting the Constitution that have taken a severely eroded the sovereignty of the individual states, and that's not a good thing. The Constitution was full of little checks and balances built in by design to keep the federal government and any of its individual branches from ever having too much power. We were getting out of a situation at the time where we felt like we were being run over by a tyrannical government in England, and we didn't want that situation to develop here with our own far central government. The founding fathers tried to build in safeguards to protect against this, and those safeguards are no less important today than they were over 200 years ago.

[robertpaulsen]

You should then also be consistent with your anarchist views and call for the legalization of all drugs, not just marijuana.

And if you were consistent and honest you would mention that you also favor no restrictions on prostitution, gambling, pornography, and gay rights.

Am I correct?

[inquest]

Are you looking at whether the federal government outlaw marijuana altogether, or whether a person can grow a small amount of marijuana and use it within his state or have someone grow it for him for use within his state?

If those second two types of activity are constitutionally off-limits to the federal government, then it doesn't have the full power to do the first. Again, it doesn't matter what state law says.