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."
You compare apples to oranges. Booze was used by a much greater segment of society when it was legal. With the drugs we speak of, first, they have never been legal (in our lifetime) and second, they are not used by a very broad section of the population. Basically only idiots use drugs, and that population is pretty small.
Ain't gonna happen bro.
Regardless of whether pot or alcohol is good for you, it's abundantly apparent that millions of people are going to use it even under fear of going to jail, so why beat our heads against a tree? You can't put everybody in jail...although they certainly try...it's bad for the economy.
"Alcohol is legal, yet this hasn't happened. How can this be?"
Sure. Alcoholism is no problem at all as long as you overlook, accidents, liver deterioration, heart disease, spouse abuse, family destruction, and job loss. Why not add drugs to the mix and destroy more people and families?
Alcohol is a drug. Aspirin is a drug. Heroin is a drug. Nicotine is a drug. Vioxx is a drug. Viagra is a drug. Marijuana is a drug. Maalox is a drug. Cocaine is a drug. Insulin is a drug.
But I'm guessing you define only those who use drugs you don't want to use as idiots.
Sure...Let's make King County (or more specifically, Downtown Seattle) the only city in America where you can legally walk around stoned out of your mind. You think we have a problem with liberals now? If this idiocy passes, there will be an influx of lefties the likes of which you've never seen. Oh...and let's not forget the 'transient' population...pass this law and it will double.
I'm sorry...if you do drugs, stop. You are killing yourself. If you cannot stop, then you need to be forceably stopped. Period. Meth producers/dealers should be shot on sight and their property seized and sold, with the proceeds going to the local officer widows fund. Same for cocaine, marijuana, and any number of a myriad of illegal substances.
You bet it WILL. Like I've said before, the tide is slowly turning in our favor. But you refuse to answer my question: what will you do once it's made legal again? Will you move to Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, or some other place where they execute folks for simple posession? How will you be able to handle living in the US once us druggies aren't considered to be criminals anymore (provided that we use responsibly)? HMMMMMMMMMM???
Put down the mushrooms and come out with your hands up.
Ding Ding Ding. The right approach.
Isn't that what a war is all about? The winner kills or captures more than the other side and wins.
Same for alcholics and nicotine addcits?
What, you guys still trying to peddle this crap after all this time. I thought ya'll had given up by now as the quackery was so obvious. Must have given you all too much credit for having any sense..
They're just as liable to go to jail for using illegal drugs as the next guy.
You advocted sending people who smoke marijuana to jail for their addiction.
Do you think the Government should send Alcoholics to jail?
Do you think alcohol should be illegal?
Do you think jail is the best thing for an addict?
Some new names and some familiar ones.
...and one mind at a time.
Just like the death penalty isn't going to rehabilitate the murderer, a jail sentance is certainly not going to fix a drug addict - but it will certainly make it more difficult for him to commit his crimes. I've never been one who thought jail was for rehabilitation - its for punishment.
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.