Posted on 07/27/2011 10:42:14 AM PDT by Kaslin
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, a Republican and former U.S. attorney, has never been keen on his state's Compassionate Use of Medical Marijuana Act, which his predecessor, Jon Corzine, signed into law on the last day of his administration. But last week, Christie announced that New Jersey will proceed with plans to let six nonprofit organizations distribute marijuana to patients with "debilitating medical conditions" such as cancer, AIDS and multiple sclerosis, despite the risk of federal prosecution.
In Arizona, meanwhile, the Medical Marijuana Act approved by voters last November remains on hold thanks to Gov. Jan Brewer, who worries that it conflicts with the federal Controlled Substances Act. Brewer, a Republican who proudly advocates a "new federalism" that "protects the States and (their) citizens against an overreaching federal government," in this case seems happy to let the Obama administration override the will of Arizona's voters.
Although President Obama has repeatedly said he opposes "using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws on this issue," several U.S. attorneys warned last spring that compliance with state law offers no protection against federal prosecution for growing or distributing marijuana. That position was confirmed by a June 29 memo from Deputy Attorney General James Cole.
Citing this reversal, Brewer has asked a federal judge to decide whether the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act, which she opposed before the election, "complies with federal law" or is "pre-empted in whole or in part because of an irreconcilable conflict with federal law." Oddly, Brewer expresses no preference between those two diametrically opposed choices, which reinforces the impression that her suit is a veiled attempt to overturn Arizona's law without antagonizing its supporters.
Brewer claims to be concerned about the legal exposure of state employees who license and regulate dispensaries. But Dennis Burke, the U.S. attorney for Arizona, says he has "no intention of targeting or going after people who are implementing ... state law."
In any case, all state regulators would be doing is determining who qualifies for a medical exemption from state drug penalties. As the American Civil Liberties Union notes in a motion to dismiss Brewer's suit, performing that function does not conflict with the Controlled Substances Act or prevent the federal government from enforcing it.
The ACLU argues that there are no plausible grounds for charging state employees with a federal crime, since licensing and regulating dispensaries does not involve growing or distributing marijuana and does not meet the intent and knowledge requirements for convicting someone of conspiracy, aiding and abetting, acting as an accessory or money laundering. The group adds that regulators could not be prosecuted simply for failing to rat out licensees to the feds, since "respecting confidentiality does not constitute an affirmative act," which is required to convict someone of concealing a felony.
Although Vermont, Delaware and New Jersey have proceeded with plans for state-licensed dispensaries despite the prosecution threats, Brewer is not the only governor who has capitulated to federal pressure. Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire, a Democrat who had supported a bill that would have authorized dispensaries, decided to veto it after receiving a threatening letter from U.S. attorneys. Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee, who ran as an independent, likewise has halted plans for dispensaries.
But Brewer's timidity is especially striking in light of her devotion to state autonomy in areas such as health care, where she has challenged federally mandated insurance, and immigration, where she has sought to pick up the slack from an administration she perceives as insufficiently committed to enforcing the law. "The United States has a federal government, not a national government," she declared in a speech last March, promising to "pursue a policy of renewed federalism" and complaining that "never during our nearly 100 years of statehood has federal interference ... been more blatant."
Two months later, Brewer surrendered to federal interference by suspending her state's medical marijuana program. Legal scholars often bemoan "the drug exception to the Fourth Amendment." Apparently there is also a drug exception to the 10th Amendment.
Huck, Huck, Huck.............
If only law was as clear as you wish it were.........
It was the intent of the Founders, in their own words, that the Constitution be interpreted per their writings, as it was written. And so it was until the beginnings of the last century, with T. Roosevelt, W. Wilson and F.D. Roosevelt, the great socialists. So you’re saying that you agree with THEM? What would that make you, then? Surely not Conservative!
I agree with that.
First, there is nothing IN the Constitution that says so, and that's all that matters. The Constitution is law. Nothing else.
Second, the framers couldn't agree on the meaning of the Constitution. Hamilton and Washington (and later Marshall) all said the power to create a national bank was implied. Jefferson and Madison said it was not (they lost the argument.)
Later as president Madison flip-flopped and authorized the second nat'l bank. He couldn't even agree with himself!
I've sometimes said they should have made a glossary, and it should have been included as part of the Constitution.
My views make me an antifederalist.
I’m not wishing anything. Facts are facts. What I want has nothing at all to do with it.
FWIW, not only is Marbury v. Madison the most cited case, it is also the most often incorrectly construed case.
Marshall's ultimate conclusion in Marbury v. Madison was that SCOTUS was powerless to render the remedy sought; and this in spite of a law. The rationale for finding SCOTUS powerless was that the court was bound to follow the superior law, the constitution, when a law and the constitution are at odds.
Correct me if I'm wrong. The difference between you and I in this discussion is that you find "the law" to be legitimate, properly flowing from the consent of the governed. That sort of "respect" as opposed to "respect" for the Mafia or the Nazis or MS-13 on account of their superior firepower.
I think you and I are likely to agree on what Congress and the courts say, after all, they more or less provide direct assertions. The federal government, supported by SCOTUS in the Raich decision, has assumed the power to bring federal criminal charges for possession of pot. Similarly, Congress has modified the "no guns in a school zone act" so that it is the exercise of a judicially-endorsed constitutional power of the federal government.
What isn't clear is whether or not you and I are in agreement that these assertions of federal power, by Congress and the federal courts, deserve moral respect. I find them ultra vires.
And no, I don't think our government deserves moral respect. Government, to me, is no different than organized crime. They force you to pay tribute, in order to protect you from other criminal organizations. And they require you to do their bidding or else suffer the consequences. How is that different than the mafia?
As for what is or isn't beyond their power, the question is a circular one, because the "geniuses" who wrote the Constitution left the inmates in charge of the asylum. At best we have branches checking each other, but no check when all are on the same page. If the Congress says it's OK, and the president agrees, and the SCOTUS agrees, that's that. What I personally think has no relevance.
So did the founders, and they rebelled with force of violence. "Consent of the governed" is a shorthand that aims to legitimize government. When the public is against the force of government, as happens from time to time, then "consent of the governed" is demonstrated to be absent.
As I understand your statement, you find violation of law to be unacceptable, no matter what the circumstance; and even when the government deserves none of your personal moral respect.
-- What I personally think has no relevance. --
Tough shot to call. At some "critical mass" point, disdain for and rejection of the legitimacy of the established government will have an effect on a wider future than ones own personal fate.
Where did you ever get that idea? Um. No. My lawyer advises me to leave it at that.
Theirs was a unique situation. They were the elites of the colonies. The political leaders. They were wealthy. They were isolated. It's not as if a bunch of middle class schmos rose up and beat the Empire.
From your statements. You claim to "live under the government as you found it," and that as it pertains to the US constitution, there is no such thing, today, as consent of the governed.
-- My lawyer advises me to leave it at that. --
What, to stifle expression of opinion and personal attitude?
You say "[government] Credibility has nothing to do with it." I disagree. My objective is to spread the sentiment that the government lacks credibility for want of basic logic, for want of simple honesty, for want of assent by the public, and for lack of comport with the limits imposed by the constitution. I don't advocate total anarchy, but I'd welcome a collapse of the federal government and a reset to "Articles of Confederation." Not that I think a reset that radical will happen, but I think society is ill served by giving a whiff of respect to corrupt government institutions.
And they had a spirit of personal independence. Maybe you have that spirit too, but if you have it, you are clearly reluctant to show it.
“If our Governor had ovaries, she would accept that the will of Arizonans conflicts with federal law on this matter, and have state authorities warn businessmen of any impending DEA raids on state-legal enterprise that they may know about. We could make this really embarrassing for Obama.”
IF one really feels that state’s rights are being diminished....I can understand some degree of resistance by a state government. However, it needs to be over a much more noble cause than marijuana.
“Unfortunately Doc, the synthetic version (Marinol) has none of the nausea-combating properties that the actual smoke has. Having endured 40 days of radiation and 5 months of brutal chemo two years ago, I was given scripts for every anti-nausea med they had and none had any effect at all. At the insistence of a friend, I tried a few puffs of weed and within moments I felt a rush of relief throughout my gut. I was able to drink water and even eat a little.”
I have no doubt that your personal experience as related here is true. In the sense that you experienced “relief.” However, it could have simply been a “pacebo effect” where the drug worked based upon the power of suggestion. Or, it was the “being stoned” effect that, that you otherwise disliked, caused the relief. It is so hard to know.
Personally, as long as the drug (marijuana in this case) is properly prescribed and used strictly by the person it is prescribed for, I have no problem with medical use....even if it a pacebo effect. I just don’t want this to be a back door way of legalizing more intoxicating drugs. We have enough problems with alcohol as it is.
Glad you are doing better. Uncontrolled nausea is really a terrrible thing to deal with on top of cancer.
The most basic question is...
Is drug criminalization found somewhere in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution?
It appears on a cursory reading that drug and alcohol use and control are the responsibility of the states.
Of course, THAT horse left the barn decades ago. *sigh*
“IF one really feels that state’s rights are being diminished....I can understand some degree of resistance by a state government. However, it needs to be over a much more noble cause than marijuana.”
The noble cause for conservatives here is pushback against the DEA’s trashing of the Constitution. You don’t have to care anything about the specific substance at issue to appreciate the value of getting our constitution back.
I have seen this beneficial effect first hand and was amazed so I have no objection to medicinal use. In fact why not just legalize it and tax it.
I can guarantee to you that the relief I felt was not a placebo effect, nor was it just the stoned feeling that gave the relief. The relief to my stomach and intestines came as a wave of relief, nearly instantly after taking a puff, and even before the stoned feeling came over me.
This gastrointestinal relief was a direct result from something in the smoke that is not in the synthetic drug. I continued using it during and after my treatment, and it allowed me to keep fluids down and eat a little. I am the last person in the world who would ever use drugs, and I don’t even like taking the things that are prescribed for me. But this is one drug that I would not be without since my GI tract will never be the same (my cancer was a colorectal type, and the radiation did permanent damage.)
I still keep some of the weed on hand for the times when the diarrhea is so severe that it causes me to vomit (this often happens in the middle of the night.) I smoke a puff or two so that I can swallow the Imodium and keep it down. That doesn’t happen very often, but when it does happen I am thankful to have a remedy — one that works instantly and reliably.
Please open your mind and maybe do some research of your own of people who use this drug as a necessity. Just stroll through any cancer center, ask around, and you will change your mind about it being a placebo effect.
And if you or anyone you know ever finds themselves facing cancer treatment, get your hands on some weed and a pipe. Don’t hesitate. It will make all the difference in surviving. The cancer can take you slowly, but the effects of the treatment can kill you in a matter of days if you can’t keep fluids down.
FRegards,
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.