The Failed War On Pot Users

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 10/20/2005 | Debra J. Saunders

[cryptical]

IN 2004, law enforcement officials arrested 771,605 people for marijuana violations, according to federal statistics. Bruce Mirken of the Marijuana Policy Project was so alarmed he sent out a press release noting that there were more arrests for marijuana charges than all violent crimes combined. The number of arrests for possession alone was 684,319.

Said Mirken of the 771,605 statistic: "This is, in fact, an all-time record. This number of arrests is the equivalent of arresting every man, woman and child in San Francisco." Some 40 percent of Americans say they have used marijuana or hashish in their lifetime, and 34 percent of high-school seniors say they have used marijuana in the last year -- even though the last decade has seen a huge spike in marijuana arrests, according to federal research. When the number of marijuana arrests exceeds the population of some states, the country should be asking: Does it make sense to keep millions of otherwise-law-abiding citizens on the dark side of the law?

[robertpaulsen]

So you're saying that if the use of pot by an individual within a state, or growing and selling pot within a state interferes with constitutional federal interstate regulation, Congress can do nothing about it?

Seems kinda pointless to give Congress this power, doesn't it?

[robertpaulsen]

Do you know of any country, in all of recorded history, that resticted its laws to malum in se?

[1Old Pro]

The number of arrests for possession alone was 684,319 That's a lot of Rastafarians

Especially when you consider that only 1 in 1,000 get arrested.

[fr_freak]

Article VI makes clear that our constitution also applies to all the States, and all state & local officials who are pledged to its support.

States too are explicitly forbidden from getting involved in private affairs, or in the matters reserved to the people. [see the 10th]

Fed, state, & local officials are all denied the power or authority to unreasonably regulate our private affairs. [see the 14th]

Yes, Article VI does state that the Constitution shall be the supreme law of the land, above all state and local statutes. The States are not forbidden to do ANYTHING by the 10th Amendment. The 10th Amendment merely establishes the hierarchy of default reserved powers, meaning that the fed's powers are few and defined, the states have some limits, and all others default to the people. The 14th Amendment, however, does limit the States in their ability to abuse citizens of their Constitutional rights, or try to take them away. It still says nothing about whether State or local governments can regulate private affairs. If there were a Constitutional statute, or amendment, specifically forbidding any level of government from making regulations, such as outlawing pot, that is private business, then the States would be unable to create them. However, there is no such statute.

The theory behind the federal system is that the more local the government, the more reflective it is of the people's wishes. Therefore, except in those areas specifically prohibited by the Constitution, the elected state and local representatives can put in place whatever regulation the people, through their representatives, want. That is precisely why, in Roe v. Wade, the justices, who desperately wanted to find a Constitutional justification for preventing States from banning abortion, suddenly discovered an explicit "right to privacy" in the Constitution that no one else had ever seen in almost 200 years. They needed that Constitutional right in order to use Article VI and the 14th Amendment to force states to make abortion legal.

While it may seem that this new "right to privacy" is a protection against instrusive government on the surface, in reality it actually limits the freedom and power of the people because they can no longer regulate their own communities as they see fit; individuals in Washington are dictating what MUST be legal, and what can't be legal, all based on a newly discovered right that is not explicitly stated in the Constitution. More importantly, this new "right" is not applied evenly because, if it were, then the federal, state , and local governments would be unable to ban smoking pot in one's own house because it would be an invasion of the citizen's privacy.

What this also means is that the federal government, in the form of the Supreme Court, can theoretically dictate every detail of ourlives at the local level merely by deciding that there is a Constitutional protection for that behavior, or AGAINST that behavior, found in the penumbras, thereby overriding all state and local legislation. That is the road we have set ourselves on by allowing justices to see more things in the Constitution than are really there, even if some of those things seem beneficial onthe surface.

One more thing to take note of: of the two Supreme Court decisions that we are discussing, 1) the finding of a "right to privacy" in Roe v. Wade and 2) the expansion of the Commerce Clause to include intra-state growth and use of drugs, both of these decisions resulted in expanded power of the federal government over state government (and over the people). Neither resulted in any restriction on the federal government whatsoever. In fact, most of these questionable decisions generally result in the federal government acquiring greater power to regulate local affairs and individual behaviors. That should worry everybody, but especially conservatives.

[LibertarianSchmoe]

"In fact, most of these questionable decisions generally result in the federal government acquiring greater power to regulate local affairs and individual behaviors. That should worry everybody, but especially conservatives."

- the moral of the story.

[fr_freak]

So you're saying that if the use of pot by an individual within a state, or growing and selling pot within a state interferes with constitutional federal interstate regulation, Congress can do nothing about it?

Seems kinda pointless to give Congress this power, doesn't it?

I can't imagine how the use of pot by an individual within a state, or growing and selling within a state, could possibly interfere with the federal government's ability to regulate interstate trade. I'd like to hear what scenario you can come up with. The purpose of allowing the federal government to regulate interstate trade is so that trade disputes do not happen between states as they do between countries. If an individual has no intention of selling his product across state lines, or is only purchasing it to use locally, or is growing it to use or sell locally, how can the federal government's role as interstate trade mediator possibly come into play?

[Chena]

Welcome to America - where there are enough laws to ensure that everyone is a criminal.

What an accurate depiction of the truth. Well said, Lexington Green!

[robertpaulsen]

"I can't imagine how the use of pot by an individual within a state, or growing and selling within a state, could possibly interfere with the federal government's ability to regulate interstate trade."

Well, we're getting ahead of ourselves, aren't we?

My question to you is, and continues to be, IF this local activity DID interfere with Congress' constitutional federal interstate regulatory efforts, can Congress legislate this activity? Or is it your opinion that they cannot, since the activity is confined to the state?

If Congress cannot, then what will this mean to their current regulatory efforts with airline traffic, trucking regulations, railroad, agriculture, communication spectrum, etc.?

[faireturn]

fr_freak wrote:
"-- The purpose of the Constitution was never to be a full outline of each and every right of the citizens, but rather to be a limit on the power of the FEDERAL government to regulate the lives of its citizens, or to interfere with the sovereignty of the States. --"

Article VI makes clear that our constitution also applies to all the States, and all state & local officials who are pledged to its support.

paulsen wrote:
No, he had it right. You're the one misreading the constitution.

Anyone who can read Article VI sees that " any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding" -- all officials are bound by our supreme law.

Article VI makes clear that the contract between the [people of the] states and the federal government (known as the constitution) and the laws written under the contract are supreme.

Exactly what I said. That 'contract', plus its amendments & its laws are the Law of the Land, as written.

It does NOT state that everthing IN the contract is binding upon the states.

That convoluted misreading of the issue was first made by the rebel states in order to justify infringements on individual rights, -- and after they lost the war, the 14th amendment was ratified to clarify that point. -- The 14th says that States cannot deprive us of life, liberty or property, without due process of [constitutional] law.

You do not agree? Can you explain why you favor giving States the power to infringe on rights?

[fr_freak]

Well, we're getting ahead of ourselves, aren't we?

No we're not getting ahead of ourselves. I'm saying very clearly that this question is irrelevant to the discussion, because there is no way that pot smokers or personal growers could possibly be interfering with federal regulation of interstate commerce. You might as well ask me, what if pot smokers interfered with the Senate's ability to advise and consent presidential appointments? It has the same relevance. That is why I am waiting most wholeheartedly to hear your scenario for how a pot smoker could be such a threat to interstate trade.

[faireturn]

fr_freak wrote:

The purpose of the Constitution was never to be a full outline of each and every right of the citizens, but rather to be a limit on the power of the FEDERAL government to regulate the lives of its citizens, or to interfere with the sovereignty of the States.

Article VI makes clear that our constitution also applies to all the States, and all state & local officials who are pledged to its support.

Yes, Article VI does state that the Constitution shall be the supreme law of the land, above all state and local statutes.

Good to see you agree.

A good number of the Founders objected to the inclusion of the Bill of Rights for this very reason, that specifically enumerating any rights is unnecessary since all rights are reserved to the people which are not granted specifically to the federal government (see the 10th amendment).

The 10th also mentions that some powers are prohibited by the Constitution to the States. IE, - the states do not have the power to ignore constitutional rights in writing legislation.

The States are not forbidden to do ANYTHING by the 10th Amendment.

The 10th clearly says that some powers are "prohibited by it to the States," -- You deny those words?

The 10th Amendment merely establishes the hierarchy of default reserved powers, meaning that the fed's powers are few and defined, the states have some limits, and all others default to the people.

I have no idea where you can support that 'hierarchy' idea from the words of the 10th. Can you explain further? You admit that "the states have some limits"; can they ignore our BOR's? Including the 2nd?

So, what this means is that there does not need to be an explicit right to grow and consume pot in the Constitution, because the federal government is explicitly forbidden from getting involved in private affairs, or in the matters reserved to sovereign states.

States too are explicitly forbidden from getting involved in private affairs, or in the matters reserved to the people. [see the 10th]

The states may outlaw it if they wish - the Constitution does not forbid that, but the federal government is denied that authority.

Fed, state, & local officials are all denied the power or authority to unreasonably regulate our private affairs. [see the 14th]

The 14th Amendment, however, does limit the States in their ability to abuse citizens of their Constitutional rights, or try to take them away.

We agree.

It still says nothing about whether State or local governments can regulate private affairs.

You agree that it limits "the States in their ability to abuse citizens". It follows that over-regulating 'private affairs' is abuse.

The Founders set out specifically to avoid a powerful central government, and so placed specific limitation on it in favor of allowing the more local governments, which were assumed to be closer to the actual will of the people, to engage in the actual details of governance.

Engage in reasonable regulatory "details", of course. -- Prohibitionry decrees? of course not.

The theory behind the federal system is that the more local the government, the more reflective it is of the people's wishes.
Therefore, except in those areas specifically prohibited by the Constitution, the elected state and local representatives can put in place whatever regulation the people, through their representatives, want.

Can you agree that an area "specifically prohibited by the Constitution" is the 2nd amendment?

That is precisely why, in Roe v. Wade, the justices, who desperately wanted to find a Constitutional justification for preventing States from banning abortion, suddenly discovered an explicit "right to privacy" in the Constitution that no one else had ever seen in almost 200 years. They needed that Constitutional right in order to use Article VI and the 14th Amendment to force states to make abortion legal.

Would you agree that I have a right to private life, liberty, and private property? And that this is not a new right?

While it may seem that this new "right to privacy" is a protection against instrusive government on the surface, in reality it actually limits the freedom and power of the people because they can no longer regulate their own communities as they see fit;

Can you agree that some communities are violating the Constitution by 'regulating' guns as they see fit?

individuals in Washington are dictating what MUST be legal, and what can't be legal, all based on a newly discovered right that is not explicitly stated in the Constitution.

So are individuals in many States & local governments. Can you agree that ALL of them should obey our BOR's?

More importantly, this new "right" is not applied evenly because, if it were, then the federal, state , and local governments would be unable to ban smoking pot in one's own house because it would be an invasion of the citizen's privacy. What this also means is that the federal government, in the form of the Supreme Court, can theoretically dictate every detail of ourlives at the local level merely by deciding that there is a Constitutional protection for that behavior, or AGAINST that behavior, found in the penumbras, thereby overriding all state and local legislation. That is the road we have set ourselves on by allowing justices to see more things in the Constitution than are really there, even if some of those things seem beneficial onthe surface. One more thing to take note of: of the two Supreme Court decisions that we are discussing, 1) the finding of a "right to privacy" in Roe v. Wade and 2) the expansion of the Commerce Clause to include intra-state growth and use of drugs, both of these decisions resulted in expanded power of the federal government over state government (and over the people). Neither resulted in any restriction on the federal government whatsoever. In fact, most of these questionable decisions generally result in the federal government acquiring greater power to regulate local affairs and individual behaviors. That should worry everybody, but especially conservatives.

You are preaching to the FR choir. Most of us are fully aware that all levels of government in the USA are out of control.

[robertpaulsen]

"there is no way that pot smokers or personal growers could possibly be interfering with federal regulation of interstate commerce"

No way? Oh my, that's the current ruling and it is based on precedent.

"You might as well ask me, what if pot smokers interfered with the Senate's ability to advise and consent presidential appointments?"

In that case, you'd have a point. There is nothing to make one think that there is relevance, and it would be incumbent upon me to provide one.

"That is why I am waiting most wholeheartedly to hear your scenario for how a pot smoker could be such a threat to interstate trade"

What's the point if you don't believe Congress has any authority to legislate intrastate activity? If you admit that Congress has the authority in certain circumstances, then I'll provide you with your proof.

[LibertarianSchmoe]

"If the 'failed' war on drugs is a reason to legalize drugs, the 'failed' war on murder is a valid reason for legalizing murder."

The failure of the war on drugs is NOT the reason to abandon prohibition. The detrimental effects of prohibition and the immorality of an unjust restriction on freedom are the main reasons. But again, comparing murder to smoking pot is simply fallacious. I hate to keep repeating this, but murder is an act which, in and of itself, deprives an innocent person of their fundamental rights.

The law against murder is not only there as a deterrent (which it is NOT for the people who still commit it), but also exists to provide we the people with a legal means to punish and incarcerate the offender. With drug use (and I'm only talking about the act of taking the drug, which is the only thing on this table), there simply is no victim. Don't throw in tangential actions/effects in order to make your arguement. If a person steals your car, THAT is the crime. It doesn't matter whether they were a crack-head or a minister. If a person beats their spouse, it doesn't matter whether they were drunk or sober. They should go to jail. The LIBERALS are the ones who say "X leads to Y, so X should be illegal". WE'RE supposed to be the advocates of personal responsibility.

[quadrant]

Are you foolish or conspiratorial enough to believe they weren't? And even if the motives of the legislators were otherwise, it doesn't matter. Motives are for children, psychologists, conspiracy nuts, novelists, and Hollywood scriptwriters.
Pot laws do protect the public health. One would have to be a village idiot to believe otherwise.

[quadrant]

The prohibitions against pot were on the books long before pot became anything more than the habit of those on the fringe of society. This society is not under any obligations to change its laws because some people decide they wish to act otherwise, especially in areas where public health is concerned. It is their decision that drives the lawlessness and violence. By your reasoning, laws against any crime drive lawlessness. And who says you or anyone has the right (moral or legal) to profit from an illegal act. Profits are to be made from insider trading one Wall Street, but people go to jail for it.
The actions of a room full of drunks is irrelevant to laws against pot.

[quadrant]

I condemn no one. By your actions you condemn yourself and you force society to take action against you.

[quadrant]

Police officials who take bribes from drug dealers must be dealt with severely. But simply because humans are willing to sell their honor for money does not mean that we should surrender to the impulse to allow people to use a harmful substance.
The corruption does not stem from the police officers who take money but from private citizens who willingly and knowingly demonstrate their contempt for society by breaking the law.
One might understand a man who steals because he needs food. One might understand a man who kills his wife and her lover. One might understand a deranged person who commits a crime because voices from heaven tell him to. One might understand a protester who violates laws that prevent him from eating in a public restaurant.
But how does one understand a person, especially a well-educated person - who is willing to live in a society accept its protection but is contemptuous of laws designed to protect the public?

[faireturn]

paulsen wrote:

Do you know of any country, in all of recorded history, that resticted its laws to malum in se?

---

In western civilization, from the beginning of time, there have been only two kinds of HUMAN WRONGS:

MALUM IN SE, from Latin, for wrong in and of itself and MALUM PROHIBITUM, also from Latin, meaning, wrong because society says it's wrong.

We don't need laws to tell us that it is wrong to murder, steal or repudiate an oath to God. Theft, murder and violating a sworn oath to God are MALUM IN SE, whether we have laws against those offenses or not.
All other wrongs, from failure to acquire a building permit to bribery, are wrong because we, society, via our law-makers, have labeled certain acts to be against public policy.

The United States is a codified republic inasmuch as nothing is against the law unless there is a law specifically saying so.
Just like our HUMAN RIGHTS, the basis for all MALUM PROHIBITUM laws is found in the Constitution. The prohibited conduct and the conditions for declaring acts to be against-the-law are spelled out in a constitution, be it federal or state. All provisions, both RIGHTS and wrongs mentioned in a constitution, must be adhered to as a constitution is the supreme law and can only be changed by procedures outlined in its [the constitution's] own text.

When this country was established there were procedures made for writing other rules, orders and laws. These additional laws included STATUTES written by federal and state governments and ORDINANCES enacted by lesser government entities. All rules, orders and laws must CONFORM to -- not violate -- any portion of the U.S. Constitution.
There was no provision then, and there is no provision now, to permit the President, the Senate, Congress or any judge to change -- VIOLATE -- any portion of the Constitution of The United States of America.



EVOLUTION_OR_RIGHTS_AND_WRONGS_IN_AMERICA
Address:http://www.chuckkleinauthor.com/evolution_of_rights.html Changed:1:06 PM on Friday, October 14, 2005

[quadrant]

Only an idiot believes the Constitution does not give the Congress the right to legislate in the public interest and to protect the public health.
Whatever the motives of those who wrote the pot laws, these prohibitions do protect the public health.
Your analogy with gum chewing is flawed. Chewing gum may make the soles of your shoes messy but does not threaten the public health.
Perhaps the Founders didn't include a prohibition against ingesting poison because they felt it unnecessary. Perhaps they felt that only a demented person would act in this way.
If other thinkers believe that pot is not harmful, let them convince Congress to change the laws.

[robertpaulsen]

So your answer is that you know of no country, in all of recorded history, that resticted its laws to malum in se.

Thank you. You made my point.