Posted on 02/25/2005 10:22:10 AM PST by nyg4168
"States' rights" has always been anathema to liberals--a code word for the Southern racism that embraced slavery, and later segregation. Nowadays, however, in an era when Red America controls the federal government and pushes things like a national ban on gay marriage, progressives are embracing states' rights: the founding fathers' idea of Federalism, in which states cede a few key powers to D.C. while maintaining robust sovereignty themselves.
So, what's the latest group to make the case that states' rights should determine policy? Try the flaming liberals at the King County Bar Association (KCBA), who on March 3 will release a radical proposal urging Olympia to reform local drug laws. And by "reform," the KCBA means make certain drugs legal so they can be yanked off the street (a hotbed of violent crime and addiction) and placed in a tightly regulated state market. Regulation could allow for things like safe injection sites, be used to wean addicts off drugs, and sap a black market that gives kids access to drugs.
The mammoth proposal (www.kcba.org/druglaw/proposal.html)--which includes extensive academic research on the history of drug laws, conspiratorial details about the successful efforts of corporations like DuPont and Hearst to squelch hemp production in the 1930s, and dispiriting facts about the failed drug war--is anchored by a 16-page treatise titled "States' Rights: Toward a Federalist Drug Policy."
This states' rights manifesto is the KCBA's rejoinder to the inevitable question: How can Washington State get away with regulating (i.e., legalizing) drugs, like heroin and pot, that the federal government has outlawed under the Controlled Substances Act? It's also a direct challenge to the feds.
"[If our proposals are adopted] we would expect that the U.S. government would seek an injunction in federal court," Roger Goodman, director of the Drug Policy Project of the KCBA, says enthusiastically. Goodman's idea is to force a legal standoff that, he hopes, will eventually set the precedent for states to buck the feds' misguided "war on drugs" by giving states control over the production and distribution of drugs like pot.
The Constitution grants the federal government the right to regulate commerce, which is the cornerstone of the Controlled Substances Act. The KCBA report, which Goodman put together, outlines a couple of states' rights arguments that could be used to trump that authority. The report points out accurately that states have exclusive rights to protect the health, welfare, and safety of their citizens, which includes regulating the practice of medicine. "Recent case law has limited federal authority to meddle in the states' regulation of medical practice," the report says, "particularly limiting the use of the federal Controlled Substances Act to override a state's decisions." This is a reference to a 2002 decision in Oregon v. Ashcroft when the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stopped the feds from using drug law to upend Oregon's Death with Dignity Act where drugs are used in assisted suicide.
The KCBA also argues that when a state becomes a "market participant" by running drug-distribution outlets, the activity would be beyond the scope of federal commerce power. "[C]annabis availability for adults through exclusive state-owned outlets, for instance, would render Washington immune to federal intervention…" the KCBA's states' rights manifesto argues.
Obviously, these legal arguments are just that: arguments. The KCBA readily admits as much. "Whether Washington could now promulgate its own regulatory system… of substances that are currently prohibited under federal law is a critical open question," the report allows. However, raising that question is an important first step in itself. According to Goodman: "That's always part of the reform process."
Which means "relating to an interaction between two or more of them". Game, set, match.
Nope. You answer the questions that have been put to you.
Society looked down on those who "chased the dragon" and those who smoked marijuana. These were not socially accepted drugs. They were used out of view of society.
"Could it possibly have been...the government? (sound of breath being sucked in)"
No. Back then, those drugs were legal. The government paid no attention.
"Hmmmmmm...now why would they do that?
They didn't. That came much later. And the government didn't "stigmatize" the drugs -- they banned them.
"Could it possibly be because of those evil Chinese opium smokers luring in those bored, white domestic housewifes with the seduction of their aphrodisiacal fumes?"
And you sit there wondering, why oh why won't robertpaulsen respond to my posts?
Grow up and ask adult questions. Your odds will improve.
Back then, those drugs were legal.
WOW, you stated the obvious! Go to the head of the class!
The government paid no attention.
Poppycock and balderdash! Even more evidence that you're talking out your nether regions. Just who established the FDA in 1930? Wasn't it the government? What about all of the U.S. food and drug laws? The government, at both the state and Federal level, paid lots of attention, with numerous laws passed concerning those drugs, despite your assertions and apparent attempt at ignorance.
And the government didn't "stigmatize" the drugs -- they banned them.
What a crock! Just who was Anslinger? Didn't he represent the government and didn't he start, with the government's blessing, and money, the Marijuana Madness which was the largest stigmatization program to date?
And you sit there wondering, why oh why won't robertpaulsen respond to my posts?
You've responded to my post, but, IMO you still haven't answered my questions. You've just bandied about the same placatory responses you already threw up and expect me to go away with satisfied with your "answers". You're simply repeating yourself and obfuscating, you're not "answering" anything.
No.
More from that case, indicating that it was narrowly considering state acts that hindered trade, which legalizing drugs would not:
"Interstate trade was not left to be destroyed or impeded by the rivalries of local government. [...] Its [Congress'] authority, extending to these interstate carriers as instruments of interstate commerce, necessarily embraces the right to control their operations in all matters having such a close and substantial relation to interstate traffic that the control is essential or appropriate to the security of that traffic, to the efficiency of the interstate service, and to the maintenance of conditions under which interstate commerce may be conducted upon fair terms and without molestation or hindrance. As it is competent for Congress to legislate to these ends, unquestionably it may seek their attainment by requiring that the agencies of interstate commerce shall not be used in such manner as to cripple, retard, or destroy it."
From Hammer v. Dagenhart, four years later (1918): "When the commerce begins is determined, not by the character of the commodity, nor by the intention of the owner to transfer it to another state for sale, nor by his preparation of it for transportation, but by its actual delivery to a common carrier for transportation, or the actual commencement of its transfer to another state.' [citation deleted] This principle has been recognized often in this court. [citations deleted] If it were otherwise, all manufacture intended for interstate shipment would be brought under federal control to the practical exclusion of the authority of the states, a result certainly not contemplated by the framers of the Constitution when they vested in Congress the authority to regulate commerce among the States."
And another five years after that, Oliver Iron Co. v. Lord stated that a "local business" is not interstate commerce "even though the business be conducted in close connection with interstate commerce."
Correct. That is the definition of "stigmatize".
We don't do that anymore (which was my point) because people, people like philman_36 for example, would call it "bigotry and racial hatred". Which it's not, but it nevertheless stops people from doing so.
Then how many people does alcohol kill?
So you concede that the power to regulate commerce "among the several states" does extend to intrastate commerce that substantially affects interstate commerce -- but only to remove hindrances to that trade?
Hammer v. Dagenhart was overturned by US v. Darby Lumber Company.
"... Oliver Iron Co. v. Lord stated that a "local business" is not interstate commerce "even though the business be conducted in close connection with interstate commerce."
True. But the business was being conducted in close connection with interstate commerce that Congress was not regulating.
"In the absence of Congressional legislation on the subject, state laws which are not regulations of the commerce itself or its instrumentalities are not forbidden, even though they affect interstate commerce. Kidd v. Pearson, 128 U.S. l; Bacon v. Illinois, 227 U.S. 504; Heisler v. Thomas Colliery Co., 260 U.S. 245; Oliver Iron Co. v. Lord, 262 U.S. 172."
-- US v Darby
No, I'm saying that the Shreveport decision doesn't support your position.
Hammer v. Dagenhart was overturned by US v. Darby Lumber Company.
An FDR-court decision, like I said.
Milton Friedman is my idol. Here is what he had to say about the drug war a little over a decade ago. It isn't recent, but the man is a timeless classic and will never be dated in my opinion. I think it is a great read, so enjoy...
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Misc/friedm1.htm
I would also like to speak about my personal experience.
I live in the West End of Cincinnati. The West End is a neighborhood in downtown Cincinnati that is rife with crime, drugs, and prostitutes. For reference if you were wondering, the West End is over 90% black.
I live on the frontlines in the "War on Drugs". We have a crackhouse on my street. The last gunfight we had on my block was around a month ago. You can hear the gunshots at night throughout different parts of my community.
We have a lot of fine and decent people in my community, and they are held hostage by violent gangs that are funded by drugs. I feel that the black community is hit hardest by the war on drugs. It is downright insane here on the frontlines.
I think it was Richard Nixon who started our "War on Drugs". That was a long time ago. We need to be reasonable about the progress of this effort. We need to look at all the time and money spent, and try to access if we are deriving any benefit for it. What are the pros and cons of legalization?
I don't think our current state is the optimal solution. We let violent criminals out of jail because the jails are full, and we have stocked them with people that like to get high. I would feel safer if we locked up people that could harm me, and I care less about people that could harm themselves.
We have bombed foriegn countries because we have a populace that likes to take drugs. We force other countries to crack down on their own people or we will take it out on them in trade agreements. It is all insane. It is a medical problem in my opinion, and we need to treat it as such.
I think we should give legalization a try. We can always go back to where we are today. But our current course hasn't solved anything. The war on drugs has been a failure. We need to evaluate government expenditures on their effectiveness.
[b]Marijuana never kicks down your door in the middle of the night. Marijuana never locks up sick and dying people, does not suppress medical research, does not peek in bedroom windows. Even if one takes every reefer madness allegation of the prohibitionists at face value, marijuana prohibition has done far more harm to far more people than marijuana ever could.[/b]
[i]- William F. Buckley, Jr[/i]
The time has come to free the people.
"In the months before the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the top priority for American intelligence agencies was illegal drug interdiction and twice as many agents were assigned to drug enforcement than to counterterrorism."
http://www.kcba.org/druglaw/proposal/report_it.pdf
Google it yourself. I don't have time for your games.
I am aware of that.
But your justification implied that Congress may indeed regulate intrastate activity if that intrastate activity interfered with the free flow of interstate commerce.
Are you saying now that Congress may not do this? That states are free to impede interstate commerce, and Congress is impotent?
Like you said ... where?
And so what? Every court decision post-FDR is to be ignored?
Are you advocating the legalization of all drugs or just marijuana? Your Buckley quote kinda threw me.
You tell me. Do we have enough agents today assigned to counterterrorism? Should this number be doubled? Tripled? Quadrupled?
Or are you going to give me your answer after the next terrorist attack. Assuming, of course, there is one.
I know it sounds crazy but I am for legalizing all drugs and not just pot. We are destroying our black community with this war on drugs. It is just not right.
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.