Medical marijuana: The real stakes

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

[TKDietz]

"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."

Should say:
"A lot of us believe that the Supreme Court has made some important errors in interpreting the Constitution that have severely eroded the sovereignty of the individual states, and that's not a good thing."

"and we didn't want that situation to develop here with our own far central government."

Should say:
"and we didn't want that situation to develop here with our own far away central government."

[TKDietz]

"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."

I don't think it's as simple as that, but you have a right to your opinion. I bet the Supreme Court examines the state law in their opinion on Ashcroft v. Raich though.

[jrfaug06]

Liberals love all this states right shit when it involves gay marriage, and free dope, but when it comes to invasive intrusion in all areas of our life by the federal goverment from how much mileage my car has to get to what kind of shortwave radio I can use they say its the fed's responsiblity. John

[jrfaug06]

The real test will come when a state legailizes marijuana, that, too me, would have a better chance of getting by then this silly medical marijuana deal. John

[inquest]

I bet the Supreme Court examines the state law in their opinion on Ashcroft v. Raich though.

That's the problem. They're always looking for an excuse to muddy up a simple issue. Gives them far more wiggle room that way.

[Beckwith]

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

Why is it important?

Translation: I can't be bothered with anything that's not on Entertainment Tonight . . .

[robertpaulsen]

"... that the purpose of the clause was to give the federal government any restrictive power over actual commercial transactions within the country."

Scintilla? Perhaps more than that.

How about United States v. The William, 28 Fed. Cas. 614, no. 16,700 D.Mass. 1808, just 19 years after ratifcation?

"Further, the power to regulate commerce is not to be confined to the adoption of measures, exclusively beneficial to commerce itself, or tending to its advancement; but, in our national system, as in all modern sovereignties, it is also to be considered as an instrument for other purposes of general policy and interest."

Now, surely there were a few Founding Fathers alive in 1808 to say, "Hey, that's not what we meant!". Did anyone say that?

Are you saying that since Congress didn't exercise their power for 100 years that they never had that power? I hope that's not your logic or your argument.

[Wolfie]

Both sides love States Rights until a State does something they disagree with.

[robertpaulsen]

"you stiil trying to peddle that BS?"

Didn't I once ask you to show me where the 18th amendment was necessary? You said it was, IIRC.

So, find any proof? Link? Quote? Web site? Snopes?

You have anything, other than an opinion (and insults)? Thought not.

[Beckwith]

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Doesn't say anything about cannabis being under the purview of the federal government. This is either a state's rights issue or personal issue. It's only a federal issue because of the tax.

[inquest]

First of all, I'm quite willing to bet that that case was referring to foreign commerce, not interstate commerce. Considering that one of the parties appeared to be a ship, that's a reasonably safe bet.

Secondly, this is what I said: "There isn't a scintilla of evidence from the writings of either federalists or anti-federalists at the time that the purpose of the clause was to give the federal government any restrictive power over actual commercial transactions within the country." Your cite didn't contradict that. All it referred to were the end goals that particular measures were to shoot for, not the nature of those measures themselves.

[Protagoras]

Didn't I ask you once whether you had stopped beating your wife yet?

Didn't I ask you to prove a negative?

Thought not.

No one buys the snake oil son, give it up.

[robertpaulsen]

Non-prescription medications can kill. There's some kind of number floating around concerning aspirin.

"Can this drug kill you" is not one of the criteria.

Marinol is approved. Sativex is seeking approval. I support these drugs, no problem.

Smoked marijuana is not medicine.

[TKDietz]

And no one seems to care about states rights as long as the federal government is doing something they agree with.

I don't think most people get it. Most probably have no idea what federalism is or what people mean when they talk about states rights. Of course huge numbers of people in this country couldn't even name the vice president or the attorney general.

That's why it is so important for our Supreme Court to do the right thing and defend the Constitution. The masses don't get it and they don't know what they are losing when the federal government is allowed to usurp the authority of the states. By the time they do get it, it's going to be too late, if it's not already.

[robertpaulsen]

The original Agricultural Adjustment Act was passed in 1933, well before our involvement in the war. Even the revised Act was passed in 1938.

[gdani]

Marinol is approved.

And often leaves it's takers unable to do simple tasks because it's so powerful.

Smoked marijuana is not medicine

If it relieves pain and helps people with chronic illnesses, why do you care?

It's obvious why physicians and drug companies care -- there's no money in something that can be grown in a ditch outside.

[Protagoras]

Marinol is approved. Sativex is seeking approval.

Can you think a single thing that doesn't need approval?

[VaBarrister]

Its constitutionality as regulating interstate commerce was never questioned. It only became an issue when Filburn sued the Secretary of Agriculture to prevent the enforcement of the Act because his actions were purely intrastate. This occurred in 1941.

[Protagoras]

why do you care?

Some where, somebody is doing something which is "unapproved".

[robertpaulsen]

"Even during Prohibition, it was legal to produce a small amount of liquor, ..."

Ah, a lot of things were legal during Prohibition, including drugs. Heroin was available over the counter until 1924.

We live in a different world today. Not a lot of "personal responsibility" goin' on.