Posted on 06/06/2005 7:36:18 PM PDT by sactodan
The Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision ruled today that Federal Agents may arrest medical marijuana users in States that allow marijuana to be prescribed by a physician. The decision was not based on the marijuana debate, is it harmful or beneficial? The Federal Government claimed it has the right to regulate interstate commerce.
Ten states presently have laws on the books that allow Medical Marijuana, California being one of them. California voters approved Proposition 215 in November of 1996 in a 55.6% to 44.4% vote.
Do you agree with the ruling because you are against illegal drug use, or are you against it because the Court appears to be using the Interstate Commerce ruling to extend the reach of the Federal Government?
As a conservative, I am going with State's Rights. Medical marijuana, like it or not was legalized in California by initiative. The will of the people is being subverted by activist judges, once again.
Is it possible, that maybe... it has something to do with the states which haven't "legalized" """MEDICINAL""" pot? And how the interstate commerce laws MIGHT be a problem? Do you think.. the States, themselves, which have legalized pot should erect a border control between states which haven't legalized pot -- to prevent the "carrying out of a legal state" into an "unlegalized state" pot?
Just batting ideas here with you.
Interesting idea, but not a very good one.
Anyone can carry a licensed gun into a city with strict gun regulations. Does that possibility, the possibility that someone might cross state lines and thereby be in violation of another jurisdiction's local laws, mean that no state has the right to issue carry permits?
Let the states each set their own policy. If someone comes into their state and breaks the local laws, what's the problem with simply letting the state prosecute them under their laws?
If we twist the definition enough, anything and everything can be construed as "interstate commerce" and therefore subject to federal control. If that's the case, why bother having state governments at all?
Thomas's dissent focuses narrowly on a "poor woman" who supposedly is in desperate straits and needs to smoke a joint every two hours to keep her back pain at bay. "All she is doing is growing a few sprigs of marijuana in a windowsill box for her own health needs. How can that possibly affect other states under the commerce clause? " he asks.
Scalia, more realistically, looks beyond the poor suffering woman, her back pain, and window sill weed patch and sees five hundred thousand enterprising California pot heads and their physician accomplices quietly stockpiling marijuana seeds, writing prescriptions, and cultivating tens of thousands of prime land in anticipation of growing thousands of tons of "legal" medicinal marijuana to shove through the loophole in ten thousand different creative ways.
The stuff WILL be sold and distributed outside the state. Anyone who thinks otherwise is living in fantasyland. California's "benevolent" legislation will become my state's curse.
However, your argument is nonetheless a good one --
Does that possibility, the possibility that someone might cross state lines and thereby be in violation of another jurisdiction's local laws, mean that no state has the right to issue carry permits?
As I brought up elsewhere, another "personal" matter -- the gay marriage issue. Hawaii was (may still be) issuing "marriage certificates for gays". Mid 90s. Gay marrieds out of Hawaii were demanding (DEMANDING) recognition of their marriage in the other states of the US. Health Benefits, etc. the list goes on.
Here's the scurry point: What if a gay married moved to... Kansas. Would their marriage by annulled? Not recognized? Should the state of Kansas HAVE to recognize the marriage?
States are making individual decisions on the matter of "gay marriage". And as of current, 10 states in the US have made pot legal in their states. My point being -- there are no constitutional"isms" on either pot or gay marriage -- but since not all states have decided, the issue is sticky.
But since we're on this page, what blows my mind is that every state I've seen try to aggressively deal with 'ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS" in their own state, is shot down. Meaning.. like CA and AZ, they are voting FOR MEANS to aggressively deal with illegal immigration. But the press and so many do not respect these states rights. Could there be an "interstate commerce" issue here? Wondering...
States don't have rights, they have powers, as does the Federal Government. However powers of the states are many, while those of the federales are limited to those specifically granted to them in the Constitution. I don't see anything in there about regulating intrastate commerce in Pot, or anything else for that matter. Growing for your own use isn't even commerce,let alone intestate commerce.
State's rights are an anachronism in today's federal government. They have been dying a slow death for decades. The fed pi**es on the graves of the Framers every single time.
I can only dream of Texas succeeding from the US someday LOL.
You may be correct, however as the Constitution was written THAT IS NOT A POWER GIVEN TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT!
Beside are California's alcohol laws, not mention Nevada's which is closer and more has even less regulation, any more of a threat to the peace and well being of Utah? Not only that, if pot is such a threat then Utah can set up checkpoints on I-80 at Eastline to check for it just like California checks for agricultural pests.
I don't see anything in there about regulating intrastate commerce in Pot, or anything else for that matter. Growing for your own use isn't even commerce,let alone intestate commerce.
you, me, and most others see it that way, but the darned fools in Washington D.C. don't. Even if you could provide proof positive that your pot came from your backyard, you never sold it, never shared it, and only used it within the confines of your house, somehow via interstate commerce, the feds can bust you.
I just love it because it pisses off Libertarians, and old hippies. If in fact they are two different animals.
On the contrary, according to the original Constitution the states have the RIGHT to not ratify any amendment with which they do not agree. Also, they have the RIGHT not to be forcefully compelled to do so.
Sure, states have powers not specifically delegated to the federal government. They also have rights that were supposed to serve as a check to federal interference.
Also, there are many instances in which the federal government has overstepped its limits set forth by the Constitution. This case is another such example. Our state governments are routinely overruled by federal courts in cases which deal with the sole rights and powers of state goverment.
IMHO, it looks like a beeline towards socialism or quasi-monarchy.
Ninth. MJ was well known at the time the Constitution was written,. Lots of folks smoked otherwise consumed it. If it was so bad that the federal government needed to control it, there would be a power to do so in the Constitution.
As far as the California pot heads exporting to other states, that would come under Interstate commerce, but one could also say the same thing about foreign sources, although in those cases it's often not legal in the country of origin, and that doesn't seem to make any difference in folks exporting it to the US.
I think this decision is humorous in that one of the opinions said something to the effect that if they allow medicinal use of pot, crooked doctors would be writing false perscriptions. What a crock. We can't stop the tons of the stuff that comes into the country or is grown here and they're actually worried that doctors writing bad perscriptions is going to have some kind of major impact? Please. Americans consume tons of pot. I can't believe we haven't legalized it just for the tax revenue... never mind how popular it is.
No, because it wouldn't fit their definition of marriage. BTW, states only have to recognize either other acts in whatever way Congress determines. In the absence of Congressional legislation defining how states are to recognize "gay marriage", the states don't have to do so. It's even questionable that they would have to do so even if Congress did so legislate.
Right not states are not required to recognize each other's concealed carry permits, and even in those case where they have done so bilaterally (and voluntarily) the person with such a permit must obey the laws and rules of the state they are in, not those of their home state. Since may states will soon, or do now, define marriage as only between a man and a woman, they would not have to recognize "gay marriage", because those would not be legal under their laws.
Those are powers, not rights. Check the Constitution. It never mentions rights in conjunction with either state or federal governments, only with "persons" or "the people".
Rights are somethimg people have against governments.
"State's Rights" are whatever the federal government delegates to them, which are whatever the federal court says is okay.
There really has been no such thing as "rights" since well before the Civil War, at least since Dred Scot federalized southern slaveholding and imposed it on the northern states.
Before I continue, I want to stress that I am not advocating the use of any drug. But I believe in our Constitution, and I think we need to return to the idea of strictly following the supreme law of the land. The Constitution was not written to give the People rights. Those come to us from God. The Constitution was written so that we, the People, could delegate certain limited powers to our federal government, and to prohibit that government from exercising powers not granted to it by the Constitution.
If we allow our federal government the power to dictate as such, then they can also tell us one day sugar is outlawed, simply because there was a "scientific" study that showed it to be bad for us. Ditto for corn, as one of it's derivitives (corn syrup) when added to food, can cause obesity if taken in large quantities. They could make it illegal to grow poppies, because the plant can be processed into a dangerous drug.
Or they could tell you that you couldn't drink alcohol. Oops, wait a minute. That one was tried, wasn't it? Only, n the case of prohibition, it was done properly, legally, through a constitutional amendment, which granted the government the specific power to prohibit the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors. Notice that not even that amendment prohibited the consumption of alcohol. If you had alcohol in your house prior to the enactment of the 18th Amendment, technically you could still legally consume it.
If marijuana is so terrible, and we, as a nation, want to outlaw it on a national basis, let's do it legally, with a Constitutional Amendment, ratified by We, the People. Otherwise, I want my government to stay out of my life. Whatever you or I choose to do in the privacy of our homes, is our business, not the government's.
The Supreme Court has been wrong before. It was wrong this time.
The commerce clause authorized Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not everthing that "affects" interstate commerce, which is everything, and not everything the Supreme Court says affects interstate commerce.
Why does it bother you so if someone you don't know uses drugs? If you want to control the dangerous side effects associated with drug use, namely, the crime that often accompanies such usage, then, by all means, criminalize the crimes that have actual victims. If someone commits a personal crime while under the influence of a drug, double, or triple the regular punishment. But why is it a crime simply to grow a plant? Or to simply possess a plant? Or to ingest a plant? Is that really a power you feel comfortable surrendering to the federal government?
I agree. Another win for the drug war fascists.
Additionally, there appears to be virtually no limit to Federal power these days, thanks in large part to the ongoing absurd interpretation of the commerce clause.
The ferragummit can tell you what plants you can grow in your back yard, and if you defy them, they can throw you in prison. Reeks of Tyranny to me. They can overrule God!
And ALL THREE DISSENTERS WERE REPUBLICAN APPOINTEES; some of them still understand.
IMHO, Justice Scalia and his leftist cohorts are Authoritarian fools on this issue, medical or not.
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.