Posted on 01/25/2003 11:28:51 AM PST by freepatriot32
OAKLAND, Calif., Jan. 20 — As a marijuana celebrity, Ed Rosenthal has been on a career roll. The author of a dozen cannabis self-help books and a magazine advice column, "Ask Ed," Mr. Rosenthal is the pothead's answer to Ann Landers, Judge Judy, Martha Stewart and the Burpee Garden Wizard all in one.
Can't get rid of the powdery mildew on your cannabis seedling? Try a 20 percent skim-milk solution. The feds got you in court on charges of cultivation? Challenge their crop yield estimates. Want a high without the harmful tar? Use a pipe that vaporizes it.
Mr. Rosenthal's renown has taken him to the Senate, where he testified about marijuana sentencing laws, and to a dozen foreign countries, where he worked as a consultant to hemp and marijuana growers. Throughout it all, he has carried on with impunity.
Until now.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Operative words. Past tense.
or a mistake of law is generally no defense to a criminal prosecution."
This is just way wrong, and lawyer ought to know better than to say such a thing. It is our constitutional right as jurors to try both the prosecuted and the laws they are prosecuted under. That's why we have trials by jury, instead of trial by lawyers.
It looks to me like Mr. Rosenthal has a pretty good case, and the Supremes have been avoiding having to say anything about marijuana & the 9th and 10th amendments, and the feeble-minded use of the commerce clause to allow federal what-you-put-in-your-mouth cops to operate, and I expect they intend to keep it that way. I predict that whatever the circuit court decides will stand--the Supremes will decline the case--they don't want to open that can of worms.
On Tuesday, August 29, 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Co-op to distribute medical marijuana to California patients whose doctors recommend the herb. The 7-1 decision came as the result of an emergency request from the Clinton administration asking the court to postpone allowing a decision by U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer to take effect. So they'll also rule that way again.
Round and round. What a friggin waste of time and money.
I agree. The Feds should just respect the 10th Amendment and save everyone the hassle. This is a matter for State governments.
And they should start with drugs? With all of the Federal violations of the 10th Amendment, you want to start with drugs? Why? Why is it so goddamn important to make this the very first issue to rally the people around?
Is it necessary to list the alphabet agencies that exceed Federal constitutional authority? The NEA for starters. HHS, HUD, EPA, FDA, etc. But legalizing drugs is where we should start?
Get rid of the nanny state first, then we'll talk about legalizing drugs.
I have argued over and over on this forum that we have an out of control Federal government that is acting unconstitutionally in the areas you mentioned.
The difference is that very few at FR defend HHS, HUD, EPA, etc. on constitutional grounds. There is simply not much debate on those subjects.
Fight your battles when the opportunity presents itself, such as the clear Tenth Amendment violation that is the subject of this thread.
The WOD is not separable from the nanny state. It is New Deal/Great Society liberalism at it's core and those who support it are enablers of same, IMO.
Uh-oh! Might help somebody. Can't have that!
If you don't eliminate the nanny state first, drug legalization will feed right into it, making it that miuch harder later. But you know this.
No, I "don't know this". You have failed to grasp a key point that should have been clear by now.
I said absolutely nothing about "legalizing drugs".
The Constitution grants narrow and defined powers to the Federal government and broad and unspecified power to the States, subject to certain restrictions in the Constitution.
The WOD is a Federal program that exists due to the expansive liberal interpretation of the General Welfare and Commerce Clause. Can we at least agree on that?
Our disussion was about the constitutionality of the WOD, which is a Federal nanny state government program in the New Deal/Great Society tradition.
If you had given it more thought, you would know that ending the WOD does not equal legalizing drugs. It means turning the problem over to the States where it belongs.
I do know one thing. You are willing to support a living breathng approach to the Constitution and trash the Tenth Amendment just because you think it might "feed into the nanny state" if conservative constitutional principles were followed.
Some would argue that the WOD is just the opposite of a Federal nanny government program. A nanny is a nursemaid who looks after a child, takes care of the child because the child can't take care of itself. The nanny would never hurt the child. This is the WOD? The WOD is like a strict parent who enforces the house rules, not a nanny
The nanny state is the welfare program. Food stamps. Federal housing. Children and Family Services (DCFS). Women's Infant and Children (WIC) programs. Drug treatment programs (including methadone clinics). Medicaid.
If we got rid of this nanny state as I've described it, I would feel more comfortable in turning the drug issue over to the states. I don't want my federal tax dollars supporting some addict in California, get it? Let the citizens of California support the addict.
If we turn the drug issue over to the states before ridding ourselves of the Federal nanny state, this might happen, agree?
These programs are cynical feel-good uses of other people's money to promote an agenda and buy votes.
If we turn the drug issue over to the States before ridding ourselves of the Federal nanny state, this [increased taxes to pay for addicts] might happen, agree?
Any federal funding for treatment is just as unconstitutional. It's pure speculation as to what the cost would be. Remember, a large part of the WOD already goes to treat illegal drug users. Then there is the cost of Federal salaries, prisoner costs, police funding, courts, lawyers, etc.
I think it is more likely money would be saved overall, but that is just my guess and it depends on how effective we are in holding politician's to their Oath of Office.
What is not speculation is that the WOD tramples the Tenth Amendment and is based on a liberal approach to the Constitution.
IMO, it is mistaking your priorities to worry about a possible tax increase when the Constitution is being violated.
The assault on the Constitution that continues to take place should be the first concern of all conservatives.
It is not like the paine relief criwd have quite alterior motives.
Your weak effort at sarcasm aside, it makes sense to gain knowledge...perhaps there might be some medical benefit to be gained.
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.