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?

[faireturn]

You've made your own 'point', once again.

You believe in the power of a majority to make up malum prohibitum laws. Admit it.

[robertpaulsen]

"You believe in the power of a majority to make up malum prohibitum laws. Admit it."

I'm flattered, but this isn't about me. It's about what is, and that is that no country, in all of recorded history, has resticted its laws to malum in se.

And I see no reason to start now.

[quadrant]

The Congress has the right and the duty to legislate to protect public health. The federal government is not prohibited from getting involved in private affairs, if those affairs affect public health and safety.
The federal governments and the states have a shared responsibility to protect public health.
You misunderstand the idea of "state sovereignty". States are sovereign in relation to each other. They are not sovereign in relationship to the federal government. The federal constitution guarantees the existence of the states and the states are dependent on the federal government to protect them from foreign threats, among other things.

[MamaTexan]

The power of a national government in a nation of law abiding citizens is minimum.The power of a national government in a nation of criminals is maximum.

Once government has assumed the authority to define *law*, the Rights of the People are nonexistent.

[faireturn]

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

---

Is there any rational doubt that over 50% of our fed, state, & local laws violate our US Constitution in one detail or another?

[faireturn]

You believe in the power of a majority to make up malum prohibitum laws. Admit it.

I'm flattered, but this isn't about me. It's about what is, and that is that no country, in all of recorded history, has resticted its laws to malum in se.
And I see no reason to start now.

Thanks for the admission.

[LibertarianSchmoe]

"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."

Sure. And only an idiot would believe that the Congress is NOT one of (are there others?) the entities from which the Constitution is meant to protect. Also, this idiot might believe that any laws Congress passes MUST be valid, or else why would they have been passed? But there ARE no idiots on this site...

Public health? That's the problem! How many laws in the Soviet Union existed to protect the "public good"? Laws are a limit to freedom, and when determining whether a law is RIGHT or not (nobody is arguing whether there IS a law, or whether Congress can PASS laws!), one should NOT ask the question "Why should this activity be legal?". Instead, the question should always start from the side of liberty: "Why should this be illegal?"

You can't prove that pot smoking creates a public health issue. And we both agree that it is a personal health issue. But people have the right to abuse their bodies. With cigarettes or fast food or staring at the sun.

"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."

I didn't say the Founders would've included a prohibition against poison ingestion. I said they didn't mention the RIGHT to ingest poison because, at the time, a person (demented or not) could ingest anything they wanted, and to mention that right would have seemed silly....after all, who would pass a LAW to regulate what one does to oneself? Only an idiot...

[somniferum]

No. Did I ever claim there ever was such a country or imply that the law should only punish malum in se crimes?

I was merely pointing out the (gaping) flaw in the all too commonly trotted out "Why not legalize murder" arguement that someone always seems to throw out on these threads.

[fr_freak]

"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.

If you admit that Congress has the authority in certain circumstances, then I'll provide you with your proof.

We seem to have exactly opposite approaches here. I am coming from the position that the federal is engaging in some unconstitutional behavior, aided by bad SC decisions, and you appear to be coming from the position that because the federal government is doing it, it is by definition constitutional, especially if a group of SC justices said they could.

[fr_freak]

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.

Given that every time one of these WoD threads comes up, there are a great many freepers who argue that the federal government should have all the power in the world to chase down dope smokers, I'd have to say that the choir isn't as religious as you think it is.

[fr_freak]

The Congress has the right and the duty to legislate to protect public health. The federal government is not prohibited from getting involved in private affairs, if those affairs affect public health and safety.

I could not possibly disagree with this more. Assigning such a right and duty to Congress gives them unlimited power, because virtually everything can be said to be in the name of public safety or health, just as it's always "for the children". Just being alive is dangerous - there is no aspect of it that can't be regulated in the name of health and safety.

[faireturn]

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?

In effect; --- 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.

Given that every time one of these WoD threads comes up, there are a great many freepers who argue that the federal government should have all the power in the world to chase down dope smokers, I'd have to say that the choir isn't as religious as you think it is.

Yep, many of them claim that except in those areas specifically prohibited by the Constitution, elected fed, state, and local representatives can put in place whatever 'regulations' they can dream up. -- And yet they call themselves constitutional conservatives; - go figure.

[quadrant]

To compare the legislation banning pot with the actions of the Soviet Union involves a stretch of the imagination so great as to stagger the mind. The Soviet Union acted to protect the interests of the ruling elite. And even a Communist government may take actions that are beneficial. The Chinese Communist government closed down opium dens; surely, you cannot condemn such a decision.
Of course the Congress is not required to legislate a prohibition against pot but chose to do so to protect the health of the American people. The courts have upheld this right - and the laws banning pot - and it seems foolish at this point to argue otherwise.
One can argue in the abstract that smoking pot is a personal issue, but legal issues are not argued in the abstract. In the normal course of events growing pot and distributing it involves more than one person, and Congress has the right to regulate interstate commerce, even to ban a substance.
Pot should be illegal because the consensus of medical opinion is that it is harmful to human health. If you think otherwise, get elected to Congress and have the law changed. In the meantime, do the country (and yourself) a service by refraining from breaking the law.
It is foolish to argue the legality of Congress' legislation banning pot. To fixate on such a closed question is the act of a child. If you dislike the law, organize to change it.

[quadrant]

If one has a conspiratorial mind, anything is possible. But the solution for this is an educated citizenry who participate in public affairs and keep their legislators informed. Do you feel yourself unequal to this task? Do you lack interest in public affairs?

[fr_freak]

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

Yes. I believe that all of the gun bans by the various states, such as California, violate the 2nd amendment and should be struck down.

Yep, many of them claim that except in those areas specifically prohibited by the Constitution, elected fed, state, and local representatives can put in place whatever 'regulations' they can dream up. -- And yet they call themselves constitutional conservatives; - go figure.

Since I get the feeling that you're including me in that grouping, let me make a last attempt to clarify my position for you: the Constitution was intended as a contract among the states for the formation and limitation of a federal government. The whole purpose of the document is to limit the powers of the federal government as much as possible. That is why the powers of the 3 branches of federal government are specifically enumerated.

Its primary intention was not to limit the states. It does limit the states as well, in that they cannot violate the any of the specified protections that the Constitution provides, but it does not seek to limit the States to specific powers otherwise. If that were the intention of the Constitution, then the powers of the branches of government within the States would also be specifically enumerated in the federal Constitution.

To suggest that the federal Constitution was intended also to specifically limit the governing powers of local governments (municipalities, etc.) in any way except for those protections laid out is absolutely ludicrous. If that were the case, then it could be easily argued that no local government could make any law whatsoever because they were not specifically granted that power by the federal Constitution.

[fr_freak]

If one has a conspiratorial mind, anything is possible. But the solution for this is an educated citizenry who participate in public affairs and keep their legislators informed. Do you feel yourself unequal to this task? Do you lack interest in public affairs?

Well, all of the Founding Fathers of this country had conspiratorial minds, then. because their purpose in creating the Constitution was to place limits on the federal government according to the philosophy that all governments tend toward tyranny. One thing they all feared most was a powerful central government.

If it were possible to put full faith in the ability of the citizenry to participate in public affairs and keep legislators in line, then why would we even need a constitution, either at the federal or state level? If government started getting out of hand, the educated and selfless citizenry would simply throw them out, correct? Well, I'm sure I don't need to remind you that, even with federal and state Constitutions, we have incumbent politicians at all levels who are steadily overstepping boundaries and creating an ever-increasing oppression of laws, all with the nod and approval of the so-called watchdog branch, the judiciary. In addition, we have just under half the country who identify with a political party whose main platform is that America is evil and must be punished, and that communism is a preferable ideology to capitalism and democracy.

That is the citizenry that we are dealing with. I can be as active as I want in political affairs, but I am one man among 300 million people. So, no, I am not up to the task of keeping an oppressive government at bay. At least, not by myself.

[faireturn]

You agree that the US Constitution:

" - does limit the states as well, in that they cannot violate the any of the specified protections that the Constitution provides,

Yes, we agree, our rights to life, liberty & property are protected, as per the 14th & the BOR's.

but it does not seek to limit the States to specific powers otherwise.

State powers are limited by quite a few other clauses.

If that were the intention of the Constitution, then the powers of the branches of government within the States would also be specifically enumerated in the federal Constitution.

No, that's only addressed by the 'republican form of government' clause.

To suggest that the federal Constitution was intended also to specifically limit the governing powers of local governments (municipalities, etc.) in any way except for those protections laid out is absolutely ludicrous.

It's ludicrous to say that I've suggested that.. Never have.

If that were the case, then it could be easily argued that no local government could make any law whatsoever because they were not specifically granted that power by the federal Constitution.

Yes, 'IF' that were the case, it could be easily argued. Seeing its not, I won't bother refuting a straw man.

[april15Bendovr]

Marijuana can cause you to lose track of time and to feel sluggish and forgetful immediately after using it. The drug may also limit attention span. With daily marijuana use, you may have trouble maintaining attention, shifting attention from one subject to another and processing incoming information for many hours after you last used the drug.

I ask ? if marijuana is proven scientifically to produce these results why would any conservative want a product that artificially creates the same kind of thinking we regularly see in Liberals?

[Mojave]

no country, in all of recorded history, has resticted its laws to malum in se.

Upon this point a page of history is worth a volume of "logic".

(With a tip of the hat to Oliver Wendell Holmes.)

[The Red Zone]

They might forget to vote.