Wonder if all those dollars made off the cannabis trade, in inconceivably high amounts because of the illegality, could possibly be used to influence Congress to keep it illegal?
Posted on 09/17/2007 7:17:18 PM PDT by neverdem
Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) recently said that, if elected president, he would end the federal raids on medical marijuana patients and their health care providers.
That makes the Democratic field unanimous now — all would end the raids and allow the states to craft their own medical marijuana policy, free from federal interference. By contrast, just two of the remaining GOP candidates — Rep. Ron Paul (Texas) and Rep. Tom Tancredo (Colo.) — and none of the front-runners have promised to call off the raids.
This is unfortunate for a party that once fancied itself the torch-bearer for federalism — the idea that most laws should be made on as local a level as possible, both to encourage state “laboratories of democracy” to experiment with different policies and to allow people to utilize the freedom of movement to choose to live in those jurisdictions with laws that best reflect their own values.
If ever there were an issue for which federalism would seem to be an ideal solution, it’s the medical marijuana issue, which touches on crime, medical policy, privacy and individual freedom — all the sorts of values-laden areas of public policy that states are best equipped to deal with on a case-by-case basis, and for which a one-size-fits-all federal policy seems particularly clunky and ill-suited.
Yet the GOP won’t let go. The White House continues to send federal SWAT teams into convalescent centers, dispensaries and treatment centers, often putting sick people on the receiving end of paramilitary tactics, gun barrels and terrifying raids.
It’s difficult to understand how the same party that (correctly, in my view) argues that the federal government has no business telling the states how they should regulate their businesses, set their speed limits, keep their air and water free of pollution or regulate the sale of firearms within their borders can at the same time feel that the federal government can and should tell states that they aren’t allowed to let sick people obtain relief wherever they might find it.
Medical marijuana is probably a nonstarter politically.
Though polls show most Americans support medical marijuana, few decide their votes on the issue, save for a cadre of drug reform activists and the people who actually need the stuff to treat their symptoms.
But the issue ought to be of wider concern to principled federalists, because it was the GOP’s stubborn support for near-limitless federal power to fight the drug war that killed the nascent federalism revolution before it ever grew wings.
That short-lived revolution began in 1995, when the William Rehnquist-led Supreme Court ruled in U.S. v. Lopez that Congress had no constitutional authority to regulate the sale of guns near schools, then again in 2000 with U.S. v. Morrison, which struck down the 1994 federal Violence Against Women Act.
Those two cases ended 60 years of Supreme Court deference to Capitol Hill on the issue of whether the Constitution actually permitted the Congress to enact the laws it was passing. Some legal scholars thought it possible that the court might look for an opportunity to overturn Wickard v. Filburn, the notorious 1942 ruling which said that under the Interstate Commerce Clause, Congress can regulate the wheat a man grows on his own land for his own use.
That opportunity came in Gonzales v. Raich, in which the Bush administration argued that the commerce clause allows the federal government to prohibit marijuana grown in one’s own home for one’s own use, even for medical treatment, even in states that had legalized the drug for that purpose. The Supreme Court upheld the government’s right to prohibit marijuana, even under these limited circumstances.
The court’s left wing was joined by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Antonin Scalia — who had formed the federalist majority in Lopez and Morrison — to uphold the federal supremacy of the Controlled Substances Act when it conflicts with state law. Justice John Paul Stevens’ majority opinion cited Filburn as the controlling case law. The court’s principled federalists — Clarence Thomas, Sandra Day O’Connor and Rehnquist — wrote in dissent.
The Washington Post explained in an editorial a few weeks later how Raich was about much more than medical marijuana. It was about the proper scope and the defining limits of the federal government. The editorial was one of support for a recent federal ruling upholding the Environmental Protection Agency’s decision to halt a construction project due to an endangered cave-dwelling bug native only to Texas that was found on the planned construction site.
Had Raich gone the other way, the Post noted, the EPA likely wouldn’t have been able to prevent a hospital from being built in order to save the insect. The Post thought this was a glorious benefit from the Raich decision.
I suspect most Republicans feel otherwise.
Raich represented the last chance to rein in a Congress that sees no constitutional limits whatsoever on the reach and breadth of its power. It was GOP devotion to the drug war that subverted it, killing the Rehnquist federalism revolution in its infancy, narrowly limiting Lopez and Morrison and freeing the Congress to legislate wherever it pleases, with little or no constitutional constraints.
Over the past few months, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson have tried to position themselves as the standard-bearers for federalism. The Los Angeles Times’ Ron Brownstein recently praised Giuliani’s federalist approach to contentious social issues like gun control, gay rights, health care and abortion. Thompson has written several columns touting local control over the past few months.
But Giuliani has spent most of his career advocating for more federal power to fight the federal war on drugs. He has declared that he would continue the Drug Enforcement Administration raids on medical marijuana facilities, overruling state law.
Thompson is the only candidate yet to take a public position on the raids. While he’s right to note his impressive pro-federalist voting record in the Senate, he also voted for a number of bills strengthening the federal war on drugs.
And while Thompson’s campaign essays rightly decry the federalization of crime and the soaring U.S. prison population, they’re curiously silent on the war on drugs — a leading cause of both of these troubling trends. Thompson’s campaign did not respond to inquiries about his position on the DEA raids for this article.
Giuliani and Thompson claim they want to reinvigorate discussion of the virtues of federalism. Terrific. But you can’t argue that states should be free to make their own policies without federal interference — except when you happen to disagree with them. You can be a federalist, or you can be an ardent drug warrior. But you can’t be both.
Radley Balko is a senior editor for reason. This article originally appeared in The Politico.
That assumes the FDA is infallible, and its rules can't be revoked. Be that as it may, smoking is one of the quickest ways to deliver the active ingredient or ingredients. Even if smoking is problematic, at least one company made solutions of marijuana extract delivered by metered dose inhalers, like the ones used by folks with asthma and other chronic respiratory diseases.
I love the irony! A Pothead writing in Reason magazine!
Who has misconstrued federalism?
I'm amazed at the folks who think they can give back handed insults, e.g. your statement or the ban on online gambling, to libertarians, and then cry in their beer when the GOP loses Congress last November. IIRC, Conrad Burns in Montana and George Allen in Virginia lost their Senate seats by margins that were less than the votes in the Libertarian column in each state.
If you like irony, the author of the ban on online gambling in the House, Jim Leach, also lost his seat. Self identified conservatives are about one third of the electorate. Self identified small 'l' libertarians are about ten to fifteen percent of the electorate. We have more than enough enemies without alienating part of the GOP big tent.
Marijuana is Indian hemp... INDIA is in Asia...
Marijuana is not indigenous to North America.
My sentiments exactly. Legalize it for those over 21.
"Medical" marijuana is a con job, a huge crock of shiite.
But, even though you might think it should be completely legal for adults, the druggie fascist will scream bloody murder if you think any other way than they do...
That's only partly why I hate druggie scums...
Here is the other part:
I had a dream a girlfriend was going to die in high school. Her parents hated my guts. I begged her, and them not to let her go on a weekend trip with some of her goofy girlfriends. They dismissed me as being a nut, of course. She was killed en route in a head on collision - they (four girls) were all under the influence of mescaline, alcohol and marijuana... something I did know she was into...I loved her most dearly... I hate druggies and drunks with a screaming passion to this very day (gritting my teeth). So if you or anyone else happen to be offended by my blatantly vicious and mortally violent views against drugs and their pushers, you will know why... It has been chemical warfare against the young people of this country since the 1960s...
WHAT MORE DO YOU POTHEAD DOPE FIENDS WANT? I SAID IT SHOULD BE LEGAL FOR ADULTS!
I disagree. Any "legalization" implies regulation, and with regulation come liability. This is why I feel there should be no government involvement with the stuff.
Any commercial processing and packaging should be illegal.
Driving high should be considered DUI.
As for kids, schools can decide what substances are allowed on campus. ie, some have even banned soda.
This does push the growth and distribution into the underground market. So what, thats where it is now. As for prosecuting dope dealers, I'll be you can get them on tax evasion. Remember Al Capone.
I feel this would alleviate some of the over crowding of jails and burden on local governments who are trying to prosecute minor marijuana possession cases without growing government envelopment.
So, I catch somebody giving or selling the stuff to my kids, I could just cut their throats? Sounds fair...
Well, that way you wont have to worry about sending them to college. LOL Joking aside, shouldn't it be the parents responsibility to teach their children that smoking dope is bad? Weather or not it is illegal doesn't change the fact that it should be the parents responsibility to instill values and the character necessary to make the right decisions in life.
Wonder if all those dollars made off the cannabis trade, in inconceivably high amounts because of the illegality, could possibly be used to influence Congress to keep it illegal?
It is my responsibility to PROTECT them from filth. If the police and the courts won't do it, I'm perfectly happy do it myself, in fact, I would prefer it... a .22LR round only costs a nickel, which is much less than what it costs me in taxes for the legal system.
I suspect it will all be over by Christmas.
“If it was legal to grow yer own, who would ever pay for it?”
I dunno its legal to grow cucumbers and I still see lots of folks buying them at the grocery ;-)
What liability? Can you cite a single case where government was successfully sued for harm done by any product it regulated?
Any commercial processing and packaging should be illegal. [...] This does push the growth and distribution into the underground market. So what, thats where it is now.
It's there now putting inflated profits into criminal hands, that's "so what." I happen to think enriching criminals is bad policy.
Take for example...
1. Tobacco
2. Pharmaceuticals
Both industries have been sued for harm done by their government regulated products. If you think government should regulate marijuana and corporations should distribute it, I think you are an idiot.
Selling THC in a processed form, as a pharmaceutical drug, is one thing but the sale and distribution of pot is another.
This sort of thing is best left unregulated. If people want to be stupid enough to somke a poisonous weed, let them have at it. But don't put a label on it, regulate it, and sell it in a store.
Both industries have been sued for harm done by their government regulated products.
And yet they're both still in business ... and others, such as brewers and distillers, have never been sued (AFAIK). Pretty weak argument for nonregulation.
(So do you agree that enriching criminals is bad policy?)
Look, bottom line, if you left the government regulate the stuff, you loose freedoms, and are liable to adhere to their regulations. The could very well say, only skank weed is ok for sale and distribution. Now, you may know a fellow who grows the “good stuff”, guess what, its still illegal. Why? Regulations.
I have no idea why all the “legalize marijuana” dope heads don't get it. If you regulate it, it will suck! Don't let big brother in on this, just argue for decriminalization.
We lose more freedoms if we let government criminalize the stuff.
If you regulate it, it will suck!
So all legal (i.e., regulated) alcoholic beverages "suck"? That's not been my experience, nor do I know anyone who would agree with that.
Medical marijuana is largely a fraud. However, I can fiund no real Constitutional authority for the war on drugs save importation.
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.