Posted on 05/10/2006 7:31:03 AM PDT by cryptical
America's war on drugs is actually a Raid on Taxpayers. The war costs an estimated $70 billion a year to prosecute, and the drugs keep pouring in. But while the War on Drugs may have failed its official mission, it is a great success as a job-creation program. Thousands of drug agents, police, detectives, prosecutors, judges, anti-drug activists, prison guards and their support staffs can thank the program for their daily bread and health benefits.
The American people are clearly not ready to decriminalize cocaine, heroine or other hard drugs, but they're well on their way to easing up on marijuana. A Zogby poll found that nearly half of Americans now want pot legal and regulated, like alcohol. Few buy into the "demon drug" propaganda anymore, and for a simple reason: Several countries have decriminalized marijuana with little effect on public health.
Americans could save a ton of money doing the same. The taxpayers spend almost $8 billion a year enforcing the ban on marijuana, according to a report by visiting Harvard economist Jeffrey A. Miron. State and local governments consume about $5 billion of the total.
The war on pot fills our jails. America arrests 755,000 people every year for marijuana infractions -- the vast majority for possession, not dealing. An estimated 80,000 people now sit behind bars on marijuana offenses.
The Bush administration stoutly supports the campaign against marijuana, which others think is crazy. Compare the Canadian and American approach to medical marijuana: The Canadian Postal Service delivers it right into the mailboxes of Canadian cancer patients. The U.S. Justice Department invades the patients' backyards and rips out cannabis plants, even those grown with a state's blessing.
The Bush administration isn't going to last forever, nor is the patience of Americans paying for and suffering under the ludicrous war on marijuana. Surely letting sick people smoke marijuana to ease their discomfort -- 11 states have approved such, including Rhode Island -- would be a good start for a more enlightened drug policy.
For the drug warriors, however, this toe in the water seems a foot in the door for eventual decriminalization of pot. That's understandable. Relaxing the rules on marijuana would greatly reduce the need for their services.
Remember the Supreme Court case two years ago, when Justice Stephen Breyer innocently suggested that the federal Food and Drug Administration be asked to rule on whether marijuana had an accepted medical use? Well, the FDA has just ruled. In a total lie, the FDA said that no scientific studies back the use of marijuana for medical purposes. Actually, the prestigious Institute of Medicine issued its findings in 1999 that marijuana helped patients for pain and for the relief of nausea and vomiting caused by chemotherapy.
The federal government "loves to ignore our report," John Benson, a professor of medicine at the University of Nebraska and co-chairman of the committee that wrote the Institute of Medicine" study, said after the FDA issued its "advisory."
The Drug Enforcement Administration, which feeds off the drug war, plays a big part in stopping this and all future efforts to reach educated opinions on marijuana. Lyle Craker, a University of Massachusetts authority on medicinal plants, wanted to grow marijuana for the purpose of evaluating its possible medical uses. The DEA said no, insisting that he use marijuana from a University of Mississippi lab. The DEA knows full well that the UMiss pot is low-quality and therefore useless for study.
The drug warriors' incentive to keep the game going is pretty obvious. But what's in it for taxpayers?
Miron's Harvard study looked beyond what the public pays to enforce the marijuana laws. It also investigated how much money would roll in if marijuana were legal and taxed like alcohol. The answer was over $6 billion in annual tax revenues. Do the math: If government stopped outlawing marijuana and started taxing it, its coffers would be $14 billion richer every year.
We could use that money. For example, $14 billion could pay for all the anti-terrorism port-security measures required in the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002.
More than 500 economists of every political stripe have endorsed the Miron study. Growing numbers of Americans are beginning to agree with them: The war against marijuana is an expensive failure -- and pointless, too.
Froma Harrop is a Journal editorial writer and syndicated columnist. She may be reached by e-mail at: fharrop@projo.com.
Man, I'll tell you this, I have problems reconciling what he says in the section titled "Principles of interpretation" and in the section that I cited (which takes about what commerce is, and what the power to regulate it entails). Because clearly, he makes the case that commerce can be regulated down to the local level. And with respect to Wickard, the court is clearly deriving their authority to regulate at the local level from that section. And clearly the economic situation as described as to why regulation of commerce was necessary is quite apparent.
What struck me the most about how Wickard reads, is the apparent socialism in its method. The bottom line is that Congress is making the market. Its not about two people engaged in a transaction, but Congress is defining the market place itself. On the one hand there's a glut of wheat in areas, and on the other hand large areas need wheat. The worldwide wheat market is also glutted. Keep in mind, that the economy is still dealing with the fallout of the previous decade of the Depression. Superficially it would seem logical to regulate commerce in such fashion so as to stimulate growth.
On the one hand, a guy has nobody to sell to (glut), and on the other hand a guy is forced to buy at a higher price than they can be self-subsistant. I'm not contesting the issue respecting Constitutional authority for Congress to act, but it seems misguided in that its not a lack of market that's the problem, its a screwed up distribution system needing regulation. I believe in free-market enterprise, and a bushel of wheat will bear whatever the market commands. Isn't that the principle of Laissez Faire?
If Kansas is knee deep in wheat, and Maine needs wheat, then it needs to get to Maine somehow. The price of wheat in Maine may be higher than in Kansas (because of the incurred transportation costs). But the fundamental price of wheat should be based on free market forces. The problem is that if the farmer can't make money growing wheat they won't grow it. In the Wickard case, the problem is not the individual but in the aggregate. What if all the farmers stop growing wheat one season because they didn't make money the previous season? Suddenly the price of wheat goes from $0.40/bsh to $10.00/bsh. Is the regulation of commerce with the objective of price stability a good or bad thing? In theory the idea of such regulation would be to minimize boom and bust cycles. However, and that notwithstanding, I wonder how much of the cause behind the Great Depression was due to misguided regulatory efforts. In that case, however, issues peripheral to commerce were causative: messing around with the money supply. That's a whole seperate issue, although not entirely immaterial: the fiat money supply. That'll be sure to stir up a big controversy there between what are derided as "gold-bugs" and The Fed. What the hell are those guys doing? They're regulating the "commerce" of money. Again, a free market economists cringe at such talk. Of course, the rational behind that is putatively the idea of smoothing out economic boom-bust cycles in the financial markets.
With respect to the War on Poverty, that strikes as just more of the same kind of socialist redistribution of wealth policy that seems integral to the Wickard case. It would seem that regulatory acts by Congress can be completely Constitutional, but socialist in nature. It has been said that the death of the Republic is usually marked by the discovery of the people that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury. The Republic usually decays to that of democracy soon to be followed by a dictatorship.
Ron Paul's web-site has an article titled Not Yours to Give. It can bee Googled on the web too. The thing is that the point being made in that essay is the crux of the entire Welfare State issue that faces us presently. The problem is we've been on that slippery slope for about 150 years now. I read a book somewhere that stated a 65 or 70 year old man in 1950 wouldn't recognize the country around them compared to that they grew up in. And we've come a long way concerning those defining issues in 1950. The issues described as already being in affect in 1950 compared to 1900 is mind boggling.
A problem I have with respect to the issue of the unconstitutionality of health laws can best be summed up in the case I cited previously: Brooks v. United States, 267 U.S. 432, 436 -437 (1925). That case pertains specifically to transportation of stolen automobiles across state lines as falling under the purvue of the Commerce Clause. The Court dismissed the appeal on lack of foundation for appeal. The reasons cited collide with the premise that health laws inherently are unconstitutional. I would really like to see what reasoning you'd have in justifying one over the other. Because if any of the reasoning stated in Brooks is incorrect, then the present system of government is so far from what putatively is enshrined in the Constitution that the status quo and the ideal are as seperated as from here to Alpha Centuri (and we'll never get back there). And I'll say it again: absolutely no basis would exist for even the basic Pure Food & Drug act of 1906. I don't know what you think about Teddy Rosevelt as respecting strict constitutional interpretion, but he was instrumental in getting that act to pass. And the motivation for his action in that regard stemmed from his horrification about what John Upton Sinclair wrote in The Jungle.
It seems to me, that a great deal of argument with respect to States right to self-regulation is akin to what was in effect under the Articles of Confederation: and that just plain didn't work (on many levels), and Marshal points that out explicitely in Gibbons.
You asked a question previously concerning the architecture of the Republic. I'll tell you this: the Republic took a major hit when the popular election of Senators was implemented. Because the Senate is the house where the State's interests are vested. And I've argued with people about that vigorously. The concern being that governors and legislatures would only appoint Senators of the controling party in the state. I fail to see how that's different that the President appointing Supreme Court justices who serve for life terms. But I digress...
As I quoted Jefferson previously:
instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please.The question comes down to whether Congress is abusing its power to regulate commerce (despite entirely good intentions). The monster is at the door (I'll open the door up: what about Home Land Security and The Patriot Act?). People will mock and dismiss offhandedly with a wave, no civil rights are being violated. Uh, yeah BUT look at what Congress is doing in the name of regulating commerce for the general welfare, what if the power granted through the Patriot Act is abused in the same fashion (all for the General Welfare?). Frankly, I feel that the Act fall short of Constitutional muster without an outright Declaration of War. Who would Congress declare war against in this so called War Against Terrorism? What would an instrument like that look like? And lastly but not least, such instrument would give Congress sweeping powers respecting the economy (raising the specter of even greater regulations of commerce and other more Draconian measures than are already in effect, e.g., suspension of writ of habeas corpus, Guantanimo, internment camps, etc. In my mind I believe that could too easily become Orwell writ large.
Respecting Supreme Court inferences pertaining to the Constitution, it seems to me that Marshall did a whole lot of inferring in the section about what commerce is and what the power to regulate it entails in the Gibbons case, so where should one draw the line in that regard?
Suprisingly enough, and despite the altruistic motives respecting the General Welfare clause, the Court struck down the Child Labor Act. The Court's opinion concerning that is evident BROOKS v. U S, 267 U.S. 432 (1925)
in dicata 437:
In Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251 , 38 S. Ct. 529, 3 A. L. R. 649, Ann. Cas. 1918E, 724, it was held that a federal law forbidding the transportation of articles manufactured by child labor in one state to another was invalid because it was really not a regulation of interstate commerce but a congressional attempt to regulate labor in the state of origin by an embargo on its external trade. Articles made by child labor and transported into other states were harmless and could be properly transported without injuring any person who either bought or used them. In referring to the cases already cited, upon which the argument for the validity of the Child Labor Act (Comp. St. 8819a-8819f) was based, this court pointed out that in each of them the use of interstate commerce had contributed to the accomplishment of harmful results to people of other states, and that the congressional power over interstate transportation in such cases could only be effectively exercised by prohibiting it. The clear distinction between authorities first cited and the Child Labor Case leaves no doubt where the right lies in this case.
If the commerce clause were construed to reach all enterprises and transactions which could be said to have an indirect effect upon interstate commerce, the federal authority would embrace practically all the activities of the people, and the authority of the state over its domestic concerns would exist only by sufferance of the federal government. Indeed, on such a theory, even the development of the state's commercial facilities would be subject to federal controlThe above is the first act (everything is indirect commerce), with Wickard being the closing act of the play in that the opinion rendered is that no longer can commerce be viewed strictly as being "direct" or "indirect", or purely from manufacturing or production formulas, and that local activity in aggregate affects commerce nationally and therefor must be regulated locally.
Frankly, I believe the Republic in its true form only lasted the first 50 years or so after its founding. Jackson's struggle against a central bank was a battle one, but the Republic ended up essentially losing the "war". I believe the issue pertaining to slavery was really what set the country on the course of the slippery slope; that inherently was an issue over state's rights.
Furthermore, the Reconstruction Era was also formative in what I'd term the Second Republic, in that the issue of whether or not the states actually secceded or not - the view being they never left the Union in the first place, the Union being indissoluble (the states that secceded merely being rebellious) - but the Confederate States had to make certain concession with respect to being admitted back to the Union. That's political sophistry at its epitome IMHO. Its no suprise that this extends to the Supreme Court in its interpretation of the Constitution with respect to the commerce clause (or Roe v Wade), Congress' interpretation of the Welfare Clause, or even the Executive branch respecting use of the armed forces.
From a strictly Constitutional perspective, nowhere can it be found a mandate for a standing army. In fact that would be anathema to the Founders. Would that be a good idea to disband the military in this day and age? What would it take to call up the military on a moments notice today? Think about that and its consequences. Constitutionally Congress has the power to make war, the Executive has the authority to prosecute war.
What if we didn't have a standing army? The War Powers Act would be a moot point. Clearly without a U.S. military, the rest of the world would have nothing to fear, right? How would we have countered the Soviet threat? If we would've disbanded our military after VJ day, the Soviets would've stood down right?
Indeed. Marshall went to the trouble to explicitly state that the ruling in Ogden v Gibbons did not extend federal reach to purely intrastate commerce. He must have had some reason to make that statement. I'm finding it hard to accept that current doctrine is consistent with Marshall's writings when it renders distinctions he was careful to explicitly state become virtually non-existent.
You forget that the Constitution is a "living document" ... I know, because Al Gore told me so.
I keep hearing arguments about "How would we do without this or that?". No one will address the issue with regards to Washington's warnings in his Farewell Address and explain why it is impossible to enact these things by the process of public debate, vote, and amendment of the Constitution.
It's always presented as if it's self-evident truth that we simply cannot manage to govern ouselves without resorting to and relying on the lowest kind of sophistry to get anything done.
They want it to be a "living document" so they can starve it to death.
I would speculate whereby any transaction, operation is entirely intrastate would not be reachable by the commerce clause. Landscaping could be an example of such thing, especially since its almost entirely a service. IF the supplies/materials used in such activity were entirely of local origin, that'd be entirely intrastate commerce (subject only to local regulation and ordinance). The only wrinkle there would be if one used a phone where the phone line looped outside state lines.
However, things get pretty weird now a days (considering the global economy we're in. And Congress clearly has the power to regulate trade with foreign nations. So who knows what could be interpreted concerning anything anymore.
The biggest problem I see is that things used to be clear cut and dried, i.e., either "direct" or "indirect". What it seems like they started doing is regulating in the abstract. When one engages in abstract reasoning and philosophy all bets are off and the sky's the limit.
I've heard that in higher level mathematics courses that philosophies of mathematical truths are debated. 2+2 might not necessarily be 4 as a truth. Some of the modern physics work with charmed particles and the like start getting into Eastern religous metaphysical concepts.
Clearly in Wickard, we're no longer dealing with tangible fungible markets, but abstract concepts of national markets created by regulation of commerce. Its enough to make anybodys head spin.
Under current doctrine, it can't be purely intrastate. If the material and labor weren't available locally, you might have to seek them in interstate commerce, and they have declared that to be sufficient.
Living document, right, sort of like words have sort of meanings, and the way they're put together in a sentance sort of conveys meaning; the same order of words could sort of mean something one day, and depending on how one looks at the words (or perceives their importance relative to the other words) the next day could have a sort of entirely different suggestion as to connotation.
A good of this would be those octagon shaped traffic signs. Sometimes they're red, other times they're three sided. Or that yellow traffic light, one time it means caution, another time it means go really fast, and other times it means stop sign.
And how does that square with stare decisis?
In the Shreveport Rate Cases (Houston, E. & W.T.R. Co. v. United States), 234 U.S. 342 , 34 S.Ct. 833, the Court held that railroad rates of an admittedly intrastate character and fixed by authority of the state might, nevertheless, be revised by the Federal Government because of the economic effects which they had upon interstate commerce. The opinion of Mr. Justice Hughes found federal intervention constitutionally authorized because of 'matters having such a close and substantial relation to interstate traffic that the control is essential or appropriate to the security of that traffic, to the efficiency of the interstate service, and to the maintenance of the conditions under which interstate commerce may be conducted upon fair terms and without molestation or hindrance.' 234 U.S. at page 351, 34 S.Ct. at page 836.The Court's recognition of the relevance of the economic effects in the application of the Commerce Clause ex- [317 U.S. 111, 124] emplified by this statement has made the mechanical application of legal formulas no longer feasible. Once an economic measure of the reach of the power granted to Congress in the Commerce Clause is accepted, questions of federal power cannot be decided simply by finding the activity in question to be 'production' nor can consideration of its economic effects be foreclosed by calling them 'indirect.' The present Chief Justice has said in summary of the present state of the law: 'The commerce power is not confined in its exercise to the regulation of commerce among the states. It extends to those activities intrastate which so affect interstate commerce, or the exertion of the power of Congress over it, as to make regulation of them appropriate means to the attainment of a legitimate end, the effective execution of the granted power to regulate interstate commerce. ... The power of Congress over interstate commerce is plenary and complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations other than are prescribed in the Constitution . ... It follows that no form of state activity can constitutionally thwart the regulatory power granted by the commerce clause to Congress. Hence the reach of that power extends to those intrastate activities which in a substantial way interfere with or obstruct the exercise of the granted power.' United States v. Wrightwood Dairy Co., 315 U.S. 110, 119 , 62 S.Ct. 523, 526.
Whether the subject of the regulation in question was 'production,' 'consumption,' or 'marketing' is, therefore, not material for purposes of deciding the question of federal power before us. That an activity is of local character may help in a doubtful case to determine whether Congress intended to reach it. 26 The same consideration might help in determining whether in the absence of Congressional action it would be permissible for the state [317 U.S. 111, 125] to exert its power on the subject matter, even though in so doing it to some degree affected interstate commerce. But even if appellee's activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect.'
I wonder what the state of affairs would be if the moral, ethical and political philosophy of today's Buchananites could reach back a couple decades or two, and shake hands with an unbroken line of generations sharing the same ideals from that of the Founders.
If that were true, there'd no peep from anybody about a anti-drug war; we wouldn't need one.
In 1758, young George Washington decided to seek a seat in the Virginia House of Burgesses. He had been stymied in an earlier bid, he believed, by one crucial error: he had not "treated" the voters properly. This time, determined to correct his ways: at a pub eleven miles from where he lived, his "hospitality" coordinator, Lt. Charles Smith, purchased the following amounts of "persuasion" to inspire the voters to vote for Washington:
28 gallons of rum;
50 gallons of rum punch;
34 gallons of wine;
46 gallons of beer; and
2 gallons of cider (more than likely, hard).
397 voters enjoyed Washington's campaign cheer. And just like at every party, you know some people drank, some people drank a lot, and some peole didn't drink anything. So do the math. Anyways, its unclear how influencial his campaign "gifts" were, but Washington did win the election. In the 1840's there was what was called the "Log Cabin and Hard Cider campaign", with the slogan "Tipacanoe and Old Tyler too!" hurrah'd during the campaign revelry. I'm certain that this must be some type of revisionist history by the left, to justify getting the crack addicts to the polls ya think?
I'll tell ya one thing, back in the day people put their back into their living. There wasn't any time for fooling around. After a hard days work, what did they do? They went to the tavern and drank. What did they talk about? The Knicks? The OJ trial? Debated who shot JR? Discussed their favorite on American Idol? Talked about the latest episode of Young Man, Poor Man, Rich Man, Begger Man, Thief? No they debated politics. Of all things imagine that. What two things are forbidden to discuss in polite company? What really should not be discussed especially when you've been drinking?
And so what was the result of these backwood hick type uneducated boor agrarian farmers sitting around in the pub steeping their brains in alchohol and debating (arguing more like)? They overthrew the chains of tyranny of the greatest power on the planet at the time (and it being at the zenith of its power), and formed the most perfect government history has ever known. I marvel at the audacity of these men, and their astuteness too (its all too apparent if one reads the essay Not Yours To Give at Ron Paul's web-site.
You know, perhaps we should legalize all drugs:
"Well ya see, Norm, it's like this. A herd of buffalo can only move as fast as the slowest buffalo. And when the herd is hunted, it is the slowest and weakest ones at the back that are killed first. This natural selection is good for the herd as a whole, because the general speed and health of the whole group keeps improving by the regular killing of the weakest members. In much the same way, the human brain can only operate as fast as the slowest brain cells. Excessive intake of alcohol, as we know, kills brain cells. But naturally, it attacks the slowest and weakest brain cells first. In this way, regular consumption of beer eliminates the weaker brain cells, making the brain a faster and more efficient machine! That's why you always feel smarter after a few beers."
In the Shreveport case, federal authority in the matter was established "by reason of their control of the carriers". The bulk of the opinion was given to establishing the railroad as a common carrier, an "instrument of interstate commerce", and all of the cited precedent was from cases involving regulating interstate carriers.
While the case for federal regulation of interstate carriers was well established, the Court disingenuously extended that control to encompass the general population with virtually no explaination of what legal precedent or principle enabled that expansion of federal power.
That decision was written by "living document" liberals bent on expanding federal power by any means at their disposal, and they will lie to you.
That Harvard study got its marijuana numbers as a percentage of the police department budget.
For example, if the budget was $10 million and the police department spent 10% of their time arresting marijuana users and dealers, then the department would "save" $1 million if marijuana was legal.
Do you really believe that their next year's budget request would be $9 million? Do you think the department would be "downsized"?
The Libertarians support the WOD? They certainly support open borders!
Where do you come up with these zingers of yours?
Strongly agree with legalization -- 23.5%.
Somewhat agree with legalization -- 17.4%.
Somewhat disagree with legalization -- 11.4%.
Strongly disagree with legalization -- 45.3%.
Nearly half the public strongly opposes legalization, and less than a quarter strongly supports it.
Go here to read more: http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/survey.htm
In regard to cannabis, there is no such thing. Lotta people think they're the kings of the growing process, but thats true among apples and avacodos, too.
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.