Medical marijuana: The real stakes

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

[evad]

The arguments are mainly against "smoked" marijuana for medical purposes.

If it works, is controlled and prescribed by a doctor, it wouldn't matter to me if they smoke it, inject it or by what means it eventually reaches the blood stream.

I find it an illogical premise that this whole desire for medical use of marijuana is just a way to open the gates for a bunch of dope smokers.

[corkoman]

To reduce the intraocular pressure caused by glaucoma, it would require smoking 10 joints/day, every day

OK Ok RP - please produce your reference to this interesting little pharmacology factoid.

Or did you just invent this to support your totalitarian bent?

[tacticalogic]

If Ashcroft v. Raich is decided for the government, future law students will have an even more appalling case to study.

If the government's argument that there can be no "as applied challenge" to commerce clause legislation prevails, it may be the last one.

[gdani]

No major medical association supports smoked marijuana for medical reasons. None.

Heh. Follow the money.

[robertpaulsen]

The Commerce Clause says nothing about "interstate" or "intrastate". It says, "... among the several states."

This has been interpreted as commerce from the point of origin within the state to its final destination within another. It does not, however, give Congress the power to regulate commerce that is entirely within one state.

BUT, if Congress IS regulating interstate commerce and some intrastate activity "substantially effects" Congress' interstate regulatory efforts, the Necessary and Proper Clause gives Congress the power to write laws covering that particular intrastate activity.

Think about it. Do you believe the Founding Fathers would give Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce, yet allow the individual states to undermine and subvert their regulatory efforts? Why give Congress the power to begin with?

As many a court have said, "this is not our domain". This is between the people and their elected representatives.

And I agree. If the people don't like the drug laws, don't like what Congress is doing with their authority, it is up to the people to remedy that, not the courts.

[Durus]

The 21st amendment reversed the 18th amendment. What amendment would your suggested amendment be repealing?
Seriously, are you suggesting that we pass an amendment removing a power of the (federal) govt. when that power isn't even enumerated in the first place? Have you any idea how dangerous of a precedent that would be?

[Ancesthntr]

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."

If he used to laugh at Wickard, presumably that was because it was so ridiculous and unbelieveable a decision. "...but that's what Wickard says"???!!! So bleeding what - is Scalia a robot? He is in exactly the perfect position to do something about it, which none of us can - he's on the Supreme Court, for crying out loud. He's not bound by precedent - if he was, then the Court could never have overruled Plessey v. Fergusen with Brown v. Board, and segregation would still be the law of the land. The Court is constantly interpreting the law, and finding that old decisions are either incorrect or inapplicable. What makes this case any different?

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.

I couldn't agree more. This case is perhaps the single most important case that most of us will ever see, not because of the marijuana/War on Drugs issue (the MJ is merely a vehicle for deciding the larger issue), but because this will determine, for decades or longer into the future, what the role of the fed.gov will be vs. that of the states. Is it to be the Lord and Master, dictating to the states and people because of its outrageously expanded Commerce Clause powers, or is it to return to its traditional and intended role as a regulator of INTERSTATE commerce? We all are waiting and watching.

[inquest]

If a state wants to allow something and has narrowly tailored state laws that discourage interstate commerce in thing or activity, then those laws are relevant in the determination of whether the activity involves interstate commerce.

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.

[Protagoras]

This thread is bound to......

[Beckwith]

The illegalization of marijuana occurred in 1937 when the tortured soul of Harry J. Anslinger lobbied for its outlaw via the Marijuana Tax Stamp Act.

Driven primarily by racial fears, this piece of shit managed to outlaw a mostly benign natural psychoactive plant.

The following are excerpts of Mr. Anslinger's testimony before a Senate hearing on marijuana in 1937:

"There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz, and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others."

"...the primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races."

"Marijuana is an addictive drug which produces in its users insanity, criminality, and death."

"You smoke a joint and you're likely to kill your brother."

"Marijuana is the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind."

Reference: http://www.heartbone.com/no_thugs/hja.htm

I don't want to get into A Free Republic shootout about whether marijuana is evil or benign. It is just important to know where all this crap starts and what starts it.

By the way, if you have a Marijuana Tax Stamp you can legally grow it. Except if you have one, the Feds arrest you for it. How's that for a Catch 22?

[robertpaulsen]

"then there would have been no need for the 18th amendment"

There was no need for the 18th. The temperance reformers thought it would be harder to overturn than a federal statute.

Once the 18th was passed, the 21st was necessary to repeal it. Read Section 2 of the 21st amendment -- it turns the legalization power over to the states from the federal government.

[Indie]

MJ should be legal.

Amen. To the hypocrites WOD supporters who think otherwise, then at least be consistent with your fascism and outlaw alcohol, cigarettes and caffeine. I don't argue the case anymore because talking with WOD supporters is like reasoning w/ Rats; name calling and false "facts" is all they can come up with, not logic.

[inquest]

Do you believe the Founding Fathers would give Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce, yet allow the individual states to undermine and subvert their regulatory efforts?

If you're going to take an originalist approach to the issue, it's abundantly clear that that power was listed in the Constitution so as to take it away from the states, not to give Congress any new powers. 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. And accordingly Congress never tried to exercise such a power until 100 years after the Constitution went into effect.

[Protagoras]

ROTFLMAO,,,,you stiil trying to peddle that BS?

PS, no one buys it.

[robertpaulsen]

"and leave regulation up to the states like it is for alcohol and tobacco."

Fine. Pass an amendment similar in wording to the 21st which, in Section 2, turned the alcohol legalization decision over to the states.

[Beckwith]

Even during Prohibition, it was legal to produce a small amount of liquor, wine or beer for one's own consumption.

If the fascists at the DEA took the same approach to marijuana, one could grow five or six plants a year for personal consumption.

It would dramatically reduce drug dealing and a whole crapload of associated problems.

If a person could grow their own, they would never meet a dealer who would want them to buy crank, smack, crack and all the other bad stuff in the marketplace.

[Beckwith]

Even during Prohibition, it was legal to produce a small amount of liquor, wine or beer for one's own consumption.

If the fascists at the DEA took the same approach to marijuana, one could grow five or six plants a year for personal consumption.

It would dramatically reduce drug dealing and a whole crapload of associated problems.

If a person could grow their own, they would never meet a dealer who would want them to buy crank, smack, crack and all the other bad stuff in the marketplace.

[Beckwith]

Soory, I stutter . . .

[69ConvertibleFirebird]

Oh... got to this one late. Well it's never to late to post my standard response to the Marijuana threads:

Uh, oh... I can feel the inrush of Freeper pot-heads flocking here to post their "Legalize Marijuana NOW!!!" rants. It's not a good feeling...

[WildTurkey]

I find it an illogical premise that this whole desire for medical use of marijuana is just a way to open the gates for a bunch of dope smokers.

Perhaps you should do your homework and read up on Soros and his quest for total drug legalization and how he is using the medical marijuana scam as the "camel's nose under the tent" toward total drug legalization.