Posted on 12/17/2004 9:12:14 AM PST by inquest
Ashcroft v. Raich, the Supreme Court's medical marijuana case, isn't really about medical marijuana. It's about power -- the power of Congress to exert control, and the power of the Constitution to rein Congress in.
The named plaintiff in this case is Angel McClary Raich, a California mother of two afflicted with an awful array of diseases, including tumors in her brain and uterus, asthma, severe weight loss, and endometriosis. To ease her symptoms, doctors put her on dozens of standard medications. When none of them helped, they prescribed marijuana. That did help -- so much so that Raich, who had been confined to a wheelchair, was again able to walk.
Raich's marijuana was supplied to her for free from two donors who grew it in California, using only California soil, water, and supplies. Under the state's Compassionate Use Act of 1996, which exempts the use of marijuana under a doctor's supervision from criminal sanction, all of this was perfectly legal.
But under the federal Controlled Substances Act of 1970, the possession of marijuana for any reason is illegal. The question for the court is which law should prevail in this case: state or federal?
Normally that wouldn't be an issue. Under the Constitution, a valid exercise of federal power trumps any conflicting state law. But is the application of the federal drug law to Raich a valid exercise of federal power? Does Congress have the right to criminalize the possession of minuscule amounts of marijuana, not bought on the illicit drug market, and used as medicine?
Americans often forget that the federal government was never intended to have limitless authority. Unlike the states, which have a broad "police power" to regulate public health, safety, and welfare, the national government has only the powers granted to it by the Constitution. Where does the Constitution empower Congress to bar pain-wracked patients from using the marijuana their doctors say they need?
According to the Bush administration, it says it in the Commerce Clause, which authorizes Congress to "regulate commerce . . . among the several states." And it is true that those words have long been treated as a broad grant of power allowing Congress to control almost anything it chooses.
The Supreme Court's most expansive reading of the Commerce Clause came in Wickard v. Filburn, a unanimous 1942 decision about a farmer who grew more wheat on his farm than was allowed under federal law. Roscoe Filburn argued that his excess wheat was none of Washington's business, since it all remained on his farm -- some of it he ground into flour, for his family, some he fed to his livestock, and some he planted the following year. None of it entered interstate commerce, so what right did Congress have to penalize it?
But a unanimous Supreme Court ruled against Filburn. It held that his 239 excess bushels of wheat affected the national wheat market whether he sold it or not, since wheat he produced for his own use was wheat he didn't have to buy elsewhere. If other farmers did the same thing, demand for wheat -- and its price -- would fall. That ruling threw the door open to virtually unbridled congressional activism. After all, if wheat that never left the farm it grew on was tied to "interstate commerce" and therefore subject to federal control, what wasn't? Not surprisingly, the years since Wickard have seen a vast expansion of federal authority.
Still, the Supreme Court has never actually held that congressional power under the Commerce Clause is unlimited. Twice in the past 10 years, in fact, it has struck down laws that could not be justified as commerce-related even under Wickard's hyperloose standard. But if the government gets its way in this case, the court really will have remade the Commerce Clause into a license to regulate anything. For unlike Filburn -- who was, after all, engaged in the business of running a farm and selling grain -- Raich is engaged in no commercial or economic activity of any kind. She is not buying or selling a thing. The marijuana she uses is not displacing any other marijuana.
But that point seemed lost on the court during last week's oral argument. "It looks like Wickard to me," Justice Antonin Scalia said. "I always used to laugh at Wickard, but that's what Wickard says."
Well, if Wickard says that Congress can ban or penalize Angel Raich's marijuana -- noncommercial, medically necessary, locally grown, and legal under state law -- then it says Congress can reach absolutely any activity at all. When I was a law student in the 1980s, I didn't laugh at Wickard, I was appalled by it. If Ashcroft v. Raich is decided for the government, future law students will have an even more appalling case to study.
With the possible exception of turning America into a police state (a scenario some WODdites seem to have no problem with).
Except to those who wind up in jail for using illegal drugs rather than legal drugs.
So your saying that Holland's culture is just like ours? Why do you insist on comparing our drug use with drug use of different countries?
"Use in states that have decriminalized is about the same as use in states with harsher laws."
Similarly, you continue to make this STUPID comparison between states. The attitude towards drugs in all the states are the same, huh?
I told you before. Give me the usage numbers before and after decriminalization on a state by state basis, then you'll have my attention.
Here I thought you were just talking about the legalization of harmless little weeds, and making those of us who are against drugs look like uncompromising extremists.
Lo and behold, enter the real extremist who wants to legalize all drugs. You realize this position puts you among maybe .001% of the population who feel this way?
Legalize all drugs and the gangs would go away? In your dreams.
If they wouldn't be selling to minors they'd be exporting our now-legal recreational drugs to every nation on the globe. Oh, that wouldn't be allowed? Who's gonna stop them -- the DEA is no more. Oh, you'd keep the DEA? Better quadruple their numbers -- they've got a big job to do.
"Everyone knows where to get pot or someone who can get it."
True. In every survey, teens say marijuana is easier to get than alcohol.
Yet, teens use alcohol 2:1 over pot. Why is that? Could it be because alcohol is legal (for adults) and therefore has an implied acceptance by society? And you want this for all drugs?
"100s of billions upon billions of taxpayer dollars spent"
The federal government spends about $11 billion per year on the WOD. Half of that money goes for drug treatment and anti-drug advertising and the other half towards border patrol and overseas drug interdiction.
"70% of our prisoners up on drug charges.
Geez. Where do you get your numbers? In the United States we have about 2 million people in jail and prison. Of that 2 million, 450,000 are there on drug charges, primarily for dealing drugs. That's 22%, not 70%.
"Tax it and spend taxes on rehab and education"
Let's tax it the way we do cigarettes. Tax it high and drive the product underground, then use the revenue for the general fund.
One poster did .... wait, that was you, don't you remember? You said, "the ratio could change because of relatively increased use in the lower 48."
Now, weasel out of it by reming us that you said "could" change and "relatively" increased use.
Why do I friggin' bother?
Oh, and keep showing up on these drug threads, MrLeRoy. The more people who know how a banned poster (a banned Soros troll is more descriptive) actually conducts himself, the better.
One poster did .... wait, that was you, don't you remember? You said, "the ratio could change because of relatively increased use in the lower 48."
Now, weasel out of it by reming us that you said "could" change
The only weaseling here is yours; to say "could" is explicitly not to "posit." How long will you attempt to defend your latest dishonesty before you slink away?
Just like the mob gets rich exporting alcohol to dry countries? Peddle your silly fables elsewhere.
True. In every survey, teens say marijuana is easier to get than alcohol.
Yet, teens use alcohol 2:1 over pot. Why is that?
Quite possibly because they prefer its effects.
Posit (v): to suggest something as a basic fact or principle from which a further idea is formed or developed.
You were .... suggesting something ("could change because") as a basic fact ("relatively increased use in the lower 48") from which a further idea is formed or developed (that would be weak evidence that legalization for Alaskan adults did impact teen use).
In 1988, a survey indicated the Alaskan teen rate was double that of the lower 48. Today, after Alaska recriminalized, the teen rate is about the same.
The only way that does NOT mean that legalization for Alaskan adults had an impact on teen use is if teen use in the lower 48 DOUBLED from 1988 to the present to equal that of Alaska.
Now, if you are not saying that, then shut up. My statement stands.
Not all. With marijuana legalization, I'd say we'd go from 6% to 20%, half of them under 21.
In 1979, when marijuana was illegal, we were over 13%. So I think 20% is a conservative figure under legalization. Maybe 25%.
And for what? What do we, society, get in return? Nada (that's Spanish for bupkis).
Actually, what we'll get is, "If marijuana, why not peyote? Nitrous? Shrooms? LSD? Ecstasy? GHB? Ketamine?
Not that you care. Hell, you probably agree. So, this isn't about marijuana at all, is it?
I"m just not interested in opening up a Pandora's box for no reason. Even with a good reason or two I'd be reluctant. But this is a no brainer.
Robert I seem to have hit a nerve... is it because you back the current never win, always spend, contributing to crime method? Don't worry, you are right, a lot of people want to keep drugs illegal.. like the crack slinging murderers on the streets. Odd that both my govt. and law enforcement agree with street murderers and drug lords alike. Let me take the time to respond if I may. I have left your comments in quotes.
rp"Ah. So your bit about a "non-physically addictive weed whose mild effects include increased appetite and a euphoric feeling" was ... what? A mistake? Not what you really meant?
Here I thought you were just talking about the legalization of harmless little weeds, and making those of us who are against drugs look like uncompromising extremists."rp
I assume you think marijuana is physically addictive by your quotes? Wrong, it can be psychologically addictive like sugar and food however. It is not a matter of being 'against drugs', society would indeed be better if they never existed, but they are here and will ALWAYS be. Accepting this fact, a fact you understand cannot change regardless of money spend and policy... should we not look for alternative methods for dealing with it? Extremism would be if I advocated the injecting of innocents with drugs against their will, I am only offering an alternative. Snatch the pebble from my hand grasshopper.
rp"Lo and behold, enter the real extremist who wants to legalize all drugs. You realize this position puts you among maybe .001% of the population who feel this way?"rp
I think I dealt with the extremist issue above, no need to keep beating a dead dog. Do you really think that I represent only .001% of opinion? I understand it is not the majority opionion currently, but most people have not given it any thought. Since I am not running for office or trying to be necessarily popular, this does not concern me and does not affect my judgement.
rp"Legalize all drugs and the gangs would go away? In your dreams."rp
Tell me Robert, what would the gangs do in ways of making up the vast quantities of cash they had so easily made prior to drugs becoming legal? Is it in your dream where gangs are just a bunch of hooligans hanging out under an overpass waiting to mug an old lady? You know damn well what I am talking about... gun slinging gangstas that would bust a cap in your ass. They have mo' money and use it to buy the finest in illegal weaponry and for controlling and terrorizing entire neighborhoods. I just can't imagine the Crenshaw Crips sustaining their empire on purse money. No sir, this is not a dream but a distinct reality that modern powerful gangs are completely propped up by the smuggling, distribution and selling of drugs. If you don't think so, then it is you who is dreaming on a white cloud where the clouds are beautiful all the time...
rp"If they wouldn't be selling to minors they'd be exporting our now-legal recreational drugs to every nation on the globe. Oh, that wouldn't be allowed? Who's gonna stop them -- the DEA is no more. Oh, you'd keep the DEA? Better quadruple their numbers -- they've got a big job to do."rp
Where does this logic come from? Why would Columbia bother to ship cocaine to the U.S. for distribution (where it would be made legally) when it already has the means to get drugs to Europe etc.? The DEA guys should be converted to border guards.. and ipso facto.. you now have tight border control btw. If you mean however what about those who would ship U.S. made drugs to other countries... let them worry about it.. not our concern, let thier DEA or whatever inspect or planes and shipments if they like. Also make it a fine punishable by a minimum 20 years in prison for the exportation of drugs for those who are caught passively.
"Everyone knows where to get pot or someone who can get it."
rp"True. In every survey, teens say marijuana is easier to get than alcohol.
Yet, teens use alcohol 2:1 over pot. Why is that? Could it be because alcohol is legal (for adults) and therefore has an implied acceptance by society? And you want this for all drugs?"rp
They do these surveys in high school... Do you think kids are going to say they do drugs on a public form in school? Some do, most do not. I took a survey at school in my math class in front of a PE teacher I respected and lied about not smoking cigareetes. I bet if I took a anonymous survey of every divorced father in front of a police station that I would have amazingly high percentages of men who pay their child support regularly and on time.
"100s of billions upon billions of taxpayer dollars spent"
rp"The federal government spends about $11 billion per year on the WOD. Half of that money goes for drug treatment and anti-drug advertising and the other half towards border patrol and overseas drug interdiction."rp
Yeah.. right. How many people are employed by the Federal govt. just to find or fight drugs? How many extra police are needed because of drugs? Don't we send AWACS and special forces to burn down coca plantations? I dunno, I admit I took that number out of the air, but there is sure more than 11 billion if you look at all the related expenses. I would sure appreciate if it someone could find a true number... I will post if I find one. Lots of money that goes to agencies and state and local govt.s gets tied up with "War on Drugs"
"70% of our prisoners up on drug charges.
rp"Geez. Where do you get your numbers? In the United States we have about 2 million people in jail and prison. Of that 2 million, 450,000 are there on drug charges, primarily for dealing drugs. That's 22%, not 70%."rp
From what I see, about 13% on possession alone, total of 30% from selling... now.. what about the murder rate? Why are one in six young black men murdered? Gangsters are not only locked up for drug possession you know... I should have stipulated 'drug related' Drug-related crime can be considered to include criminal offences in breach of drug legislation, crimes committed under the influence of illicit drugs, crimes committed by users to support their drug habit (mainly acquisitive crime and drug dealing) and systemic crimes committed as part of the functioning of illicit markets (fight for territories, bribing of officials, etc.). Except for drug law offences, routinely available data do not provide information on these categories and, when available, they come from ad hoc local studies and are not suitable for extrapolation.
"Tax it and spend taxes on rehab and education"
rp"Let's tax it the way we do cigarettes. Tax it high and drive the product underground, then use the revenue for the general fund."rp
Now Robert, why would we want to do that? That would go against the whole point right? Honestly Robert, the point is it should be taxed and those revenues earmarked for such programs... not to negate the whole idea.
Thank you, and have a nice day.
$s Billions
Year `89 `90 `91 `92 `93 `94 --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Stolen 148 154 160 168 176 184 2 Incarceration 73 80 88 96 104 112 3 Lost taxes 41 43 45 47 49 51 4 Construction 20 21 23 25 25 25 5 Federal War 7 10 12 13 20 25 6 Extra Welfare 13 14 15 16 17 18 7 Harrassment 10 11 12 13 14 15 --------------------------------------------------------------------- Totals 312 333 355 378 405 430
Reagan's 8 years: $1.860 Trillion Bush's 4 years: $1.378 Trillion
Notes
Wrong; I suggested it as a possible alternative, not a fact ("basic" or otherwise).
In 1988, a survey indicated the Alaskan teen rate was double that of the lower 48. Today, after Alaska recriminalized, the teen rate is about the same.
The only way that does NOT mean that legalization for Alaskan adults had an impact on teen use is if teen use in the lower 48 DOUBLED from 1988 to the present to equal that of Alaska.
That follows only if Alaskan teen use remained steady. (Then there are the methodological problems that TKDietz has so ably explained.)
Oh, I see. No basis in fact.
So, basically, you simply pulled that statement out of your a$$, posted it, and called it debate, huh?
This is what we, at FR, call "trolling", MrLeRoy -- people who post just to get a reaction from someone.
Now, either support the basis of your statement, "the ratio could change because of relatively increased use in the lower 48" or I report it as abuse. I told you before, I'm tired of your silly games.
Think? History says we're capable. And, that 13.2% was when marijuana was illegal.
"Things have changed since then, and people are a lot smarter about drugs."
Make the argument when it suits you, TKDietz. You're flexible. Need I remind you that not too long ago you were posting that drug use was increasing?
"As for your comment about half the people who will try ... right now only about 30% of those who report past month use are under 21 ..."
Let's go back to Alaska. Legalize marijuana for adults (in a restrictive manner, to boot) and teen use is double. That 30% becomes 60%. I used a conservative 50%. It's possible, is my point.
"The biggest part of these people are 18 through 20 ..."
Currently. Why do you insist that percentage would remain after legalization? Some older teens, knowing marijuana is legal in a year or two, may wait rather than getting in trouble. Use among 14 to 16-year-olds may explode.
But, for sake of argument, let's go with your numbers. That means the vast majority of those arrested are 18 to 20, yes? Almost all, if you're to be believed. And we both agree that they are not "a bunch of little kids".
My question. How long before there comes the cry (from public defenders like you) to lower the legal marijuana age to 18? That would drastically reduce ..., well, that would drastically reduce what you're trying to drastically reduce today, now wouldn't it?
"I don't want those drugs to be legalized.
YOU don't want. Why am I not reassured?
Legalizing marijuana will make it that much easier to legalize the other soft drugs, whether you want that or not. Similar arguments can be made for those drugs that are/were made for marijuana.
So, to summarize. We legalize marijuana for those 21 and older, followed some time later by reducing the age to 18.
Marijuana use increases, teen use doubles. More are introduced to drugs at an earlier age.
Now, other soft drugs are legalized for 18-year-olds. Use of those drugs increases.
And for what? What have we gained by legalizing these drugs to 18-year-olds?
Besides the obvious -- making your job easier.
Oops, I meant to say look at Table 1.20A: http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/nhsda/2k3tabs/PDF/Sect1peTabs19to27.pdf
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.