Medical Marijuana and the End of Federalism

Mens News Daily ^ | 9 June 05 | Yakov Bok

[muawiyah]

Ah, yes, the medical marijuana ruling ~ guess that marks the end of medical marijuana.

Fads do come and go don't they.

What I'd like to know is just exactly how it is that an internationally traded product could ever be believed to be a strictly local thing?

Betcha' the druggies'd really like it if a vote were taken among all the producers and a marketing board set up.

Then they'd be in the same pickle as the orange growers.

[television is just wrong]

They cannot control illegal use, nor can their control medicinal use. I read an article 3 years ago about the growing of Marijuana in our National Parks. If you stumble upon it you will simply not survive. They are grown in parts rarely traveled.

Our government cannot control that, they cannot control illegal immigration, and they cannot control importation of illicit substances.

They have our borders wide open, and have very small say so over what is going back and forth.

[A Balrog of Morgoth]

Medical Marijuana and the End of Federalism by Yakov Bok

Yakov Bok's definition of Federalism was dead before he was even born, unless he's older then 63.

Maybe his next article will be about the potential to split the atom to create a superweapon.

[R. Scott]

What I'd like to know is just exactly how it is that an internationally traded product could ever be believed to be a strictly local thing?

When the product is produced strictly for personal consumption – like Filburn’s 12 acres of wheat?

[Vaquero]

Dude.....Dave's not here.

[An American In Dairyland]

I'm just enjoying the fact that the liberal's beloved Supreme Court once again ruled against one of their pet projects. Here's hoping it happens again and soon.

[Noachian]

What about vegetables?

If I grow corn in my backyard, for my own consumption, am I adversely affecting the corn market because I didn't buy it?

Does that mean growing your own corn is now illegal?

[ddantas]

They cannot control illegal use, nor can their control medicinal use.
The answer is to legalize marijuana...use federal government resources on more important things than tracking stoners.

[elc]

"Betcha' the druggies'd really like it if a vote were taken among all the producers and a marketing board set up."

What do "druggies" have to do with medicinal marijuana?

[Wolfie]

"Again" and "soon", for sure. But it won't be the liberals that get pissed.

Stewart Case Goes to Conference June 9 (USSC, RKBA)

[rhombus]

I'm just enjoying the fact that the liberal's beloved Supreme Court once again ruled against one of their pet projects. Here's hoping it happens again and soon.

And the Conservatives who champion states rights were sold out by Scalia. You've got a weird sense of victory my friend.

[ddantas]

Does that mean growing your own corn is now illegal?
Yes, in one of the cases the Court cited, Wickard vs. Filburn, he was growing wheat for his own consumption, and the answer was, yes, the federal government can regulate it because it affects the interstate commerce. This case was an affirmation in some ways of that precedent.

[JAWs]

If I grow corn in my backyard, for my own consumption, am I adversely affecting the corn market because I didn't buy it?
Does that mean growing your own corn is now illegal?

According to the Supreme Court, in theory, at least, your private corn growing can be regulated under the Commerce Clause. The Commerce Clause authorizes the Feds to regulate interstate commerce. During the New Deal, the Nine Old Men, as they were labeled, under political pressure reinterpreted to Commerce Clause to give it unprecedented flexibility and the government broader powers.

[edeal]

So, can I now use this ruling as an excuse for not doing housework or mowing the lawn.

Cleaning the house myself alters demand on cleaning services which effects price. So doing the dishes are now illegal.

You know, doesn't NOT doing something effect interstate commerce as well? By the courts logic, congress should be able to force us to max our credit cards since not doing so has an effect on interstate commerce.

Where does it end?

[An American In Dairyland]

And the Conservatives who champion states rights were sold out by Scalia. You've got a weird sense of victory my friend.

I didn't say anything about a victory. I said I personally enjoyed seeing the liberal's beloved Supreme Court tell them NO for a change. You read things into my comment that aren't there, "my friend."

[Blzbba]

"I'm just enjoying the fact that the liberal's beloved Supreme Court once again ruled against one of their pet projects. Here's hoping it happens again and soon."


It is amusing that the conservatives on the SCOTUS sided with the marijuana users whilst the liberals predictably sided with more federalist intervention.


What's not amusing is how many conservative Freepers are siding with the liberal SCOTUS in this case.

[NJ_gent]

"Ah, yes, the medical marijuana ruling ~ guess that marks the end of medical marijuana."

In what way? The only thing it does is affirm that states have no rights under the 'interstate commerce' clause because anything and everything can be construed to be potential interstate commerce. As for medical marijuana, 99% of the arrests for marijuana possession are made by local and state police. The laws passed by the states were not invalidated by the Supreme Court; they still stand. What the court said is that even though the state may consider it legal for an individual to produce and use marijuana under a doctor's orders, the Federal government may still arrest those involved under their own laws. What's actually been happening is that the Federal government has only been stepping in in cases deemed blatently abusive of medical marijuana laws. They aren't breaking down the doors of 80 year old cancer patients; they're going after the 'clubs' that have started up where people are smoking up with no real reason beyond recreation.

So no, medical marijuana isn't done; just states' rights. But then again, those have been dead for a long time. The curious thing is why Scalia went the other way. The only fathomable reasoning I can come up with is that he wanted to stay on the administration's good side for when the Chief Justice position opens up. If that's the case, then I've lost a lot of respect for Scalia. There just is absolutely no Constitutional support for this ruling, which is why the liberal members of the court went for it and why the conservative members (with the exception of Scalia) said no way.

This case had very little to do with marijuana and a whole lot to do with the scope of the 'interstate commerce' clause. Conservatives who still believe in Federalism lost out bigtime on this case, as it could have been a great case to push back the ever-expanding power of the Federal government.

[rhombus]

OK my apologies, friend... I get a little tired of the drug warriors on FR who take one or more of the following arguments:
1) Fed Gov't has every right under interstate commerce
2) The real agenda is just getting high and we don't need another vice legalized
3) It's a serious medical danger and they cite bogus brain cancer studies and/or
4) You must be an addict, can I help you get right with Jesus.

Reading these same arguments over and over again, gets a little tiring and drives many a good Republican into the waiting arms of Libertarians.

[Noachian]

...Wickard vs. Filburn, he was growing wheat for his own consumption,...

The way I understand it, in W vs F, the farmer signed a federal contract to grow only so much wheat, and by growing more he violated that contract.

But, the people in California using medical marijuana signed nothing, so the Wickard precedent is a matter of apples and oranges and shouldn't have been used.

It seems that the SC is grasping for straws, in this case, to involve itself into states rights. A clear violation of the 10th Amendment.