Rhode Island legalizes medical marijuana; House overrides governor's veto

Rhode Island on Tuesday became the 11th state to legalize medical marijuana and the first since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June that patients who use the drug can still be prosecuted under federal law.

The House overrode a veto by Gov. Don Carcieri, 59-13, allowing people with illnesses such as cancer and AIDS to grow up to 12 marijuana plants or buy 2.5 ounces of marijuana to relieve their symptoms. Those who do are required to register with the state and get an identification card.

Federal law prohibits any use of marijuana, but Maine, Vermont, Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington allow it to be grown and used for medicinal purposes.

"""How is the war on marijuana unconstitutional but the war on heroin and cocaine constitutional?"""

Easy, you can prove that hard drugs like heroin and cocaine are not only physically addictive but have an intoxication level that goes beyond a person ability to control themselves.

You set a standard for what drugs, by there content and effects on the human body, are deemed safe enough for personal consumption.

The government does stuff like this with food. There are always going to be a level of contaminants in certain food and liquids. The government will only flag those items if the level is beyond what is deemed reasonably safe.

The water that comes out of your faucet has a level of contaminants, it will only be shut down if the levels become dangerous to the public.

If that intrastate activity (it may or may not be "commerce") has a substantial effect on the interstate commerce that Congress is constitutionally regulating, the Necessary and Proper Clause gives Congress the power to write legislation to control that intrastate activity.

In a jurisprudential context, I guess I agree. Reluctantly - because the whole "substantial effect" rule was conjured up by an activist Supreme Court and appears nowhere in the Constitution. Where I (and others) disagree is the fact that both Congress and the Supreme Court have taken "substantial effect" to mean "any effect" - no matter how insubstantial it may actually be.

Imagine a private pilot in a state who says that his flying is a personal issue, that he's not a commercial pilot, and his flying is confined to his state only. Should he be able to fly in his state wherever and whenever he wants?

To answer your question, yes he should. Like I said above, "substantial effect" should not be confused with "any effect." Moreover, there is a difference between federal, interstate air routes, and intrastate air routes - just as there is a difference between Interstate 95 and the 3-house side street where I grew up. Unless you believe the federal government owns and controls every cubic inch of air and land space, which I do not.

There is one licensed grower. The DEA decides who will get a small amount of what they grow. Most applications for researchers to obtain marijuana are denied. The allegation are 1) that the product grown there is substandard, and 2) that the DEA tries very hard to only allow researchers who will produce the "right" results product to use in studies. Also, marijuana contains several different cannabinoids other than THC which are thought to have medicinal properties and some researchers wish to grow marijuana bred to have higher concentrations of certain cannabinoids to see if they are better at treating certain ailments.

I don't know that much about marijuana's medicinal properties. I do tend to believe that the DEA only wants studies performed that reach conclusions that support their policies and that the DEA would stack the deck to reach that end. Even those commissioned by the government to study drug polices have accused the government of this. If there really is nothing to medical marijuana, it seems that instead of making it almost impossible to study that it would be a good idea for the DEA to really open up the field to research on marijuana's medical efficacy. Even if despite attempts to prevent any of the marijuana from getting out and being used for non-medical purposes, some amount did in fact get diverted, granting a few licenses to grow a few plants and allowing many more researchers a small amount of product to use in their studies isn't going to have any appreciable effect on the U.S. marijuana markets where the government estimates that between 12,000 and 25,000 metric tons are available in a year even after they have seized all they are going to seize. It is silly of the government to be so restrictive in medical marijuana studies. It makes it look like they are trying to hide something. Besides, if the government is right and there really is nothing to medical marijuana, the research is going to end up pointing to that conclusion. They should be allowing all sorts of research on marijuana, even with human participants who volunteer to act as test subjects in medical marijuana trials.

"Flying is restricted only when and where it's dangerous to others. Pot smoking, by your analogy, should also be restricted only when dangerous to others."

Dangerous? You're the one saying dangerous, not me.

I've repeated said that my analogy dealt with intrastate activities that had a substantial effect on Congress' interstate regulatory activities. My point is that Congress is unable to do its constitutional job if these identified intrastate activities are allowed. Pure and simple.

Are you suggesting that the states or individuals be allowed to undermine and subvert Congress' constitutional interstate regulatory efforts in this manner? Is this what the Founding Fathers intended?

Why give Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce if this power can so easily be subverted by the states or individuals within the states? Doesn't make sense, does it?

"Folks from all over these United States should read that extract you posted as an example of the sort of nickel-plated sophistry that has corrupted and perverted American public life since FDR's day."

Seems to me that Congress has given you the target you've been looking for on a silver platter. All you have to do is disprove those findings and you're golden. Congress wouldn't have a leg to stand on. It's so easy!

But, since you refuse to disprove those findings (my guess is because you can't) and choose to merely mock them as "nickel-plated sophistry", the laws will remain.

I say that the original intent may indeed have been a desire to address the immediate issue at hand. But the meaning of the hammer is that it may be used as a tool to pound things. Using it to remove a rusty muffler may not have been the original intent of the claw hammer (did mufflers even exist at the time?), but it is certainly within the scope and meaning of the definition.
See the difference? Yet?

You maintain that any purpose to tool is put to can be considered a possible intent of the tool. This means there is no such thing as misuse or abuse of the tool. People who know how to use tools know better.

"I honestly still don't see how pot smoking has any "substantial effect on federal regulatory efforts"."

No, you refuse to see. I quoted from the Controlled Substances Act so you could see.

"And you didn't actually answer my question -- are you really saying that a person smoking a joint in their living room is the same as a person flying a plane endangering the lives of others???"

"Endangering the lives of others" is your straw man. I said nothing about that at all. Please, again, stop putting words in my mouth.

Last time. Pay attention. Millions of people possessing pot have a substantial effect on Congress' efforts to regulate the interstate commerce of marijuana. Congress explained that in their Findings section in the Controlled Substances Act, though an objective blind person could see the reasoning.

"I'm asking you, personally -- do you agree that such an interpretation is Constitutional, and not just a power grab by an ever-increasingly controlling government?"

If Congress decides to constitutionally regulate commerce, I believe they should have the power to enforce those regulations. Otherwise, why give them the power to begin with? So to answer your question, yes, such an interpretation is constitutional.

That said, I believe that, in general, Congress has taken on way more than than they should when it comes to regulating day-to-day activities. They overreached with VAWA and the Gun Free Schools Act and were slapped down by the USSC for that.

Personally, I'm disappointed that the public didn't slap them down, and that's the crux of the problem here. The people need to put the brakes on Congress, not the courts. The people are letting Congress run roughshod over them. We're allowing this to go on, then complain that the representatives WE elected are out of control.

So what do we do about it? No, we don't throw them out in the next election. Silly person. We look for activist judges (over which we have NO control) to interpret the U.S. Constitution OUR way. Who says we can't learn from the liberals!

Congress never had a leg to stand on. The very term "controlled substances" is the first example of nickel-plated sophistry. What does that even mean? What makes these substances "controlled"? The Constitution does not allow Congress to seize control over anything just by declaring it "controlled." This is a constitutional republic, not an absolute monarchy.

The second example is interfering in state affairs by relying on the Wickard (1942) ruling - where an activist court pulled the "substantial effect" rule out of a hat, confusing "substantial" with "any," and Voila! Congress can do whatever it wants, neener-neener!

Finally, you defer to their "findings," which basically amount to the shocking discovery that interstate commerce...get this...originates in the states! The nickel-plated sophistry in this case is the term "incidents of the traffic." Someone makes something, and that something MIGHT cross state lines, so Congress can ban the "making" and "having," and not just the "crossing." As the Curch Lady would say, "How conveeeeeeenient."

To the uneducated, all of this may have the appearance of logic and Constitutionality, but those of us who can see beyond the smokescreen realize what this is: an unconstitutional - not to mention immoral - power grab.

But, since you refuse to disprove those findings (my guess is because you can't) and choose to merely mock them as "nickel-plated sophistry", the laws will remain.

And why is the burden of proof on us freedom-lovers, rather than on Congress to give us a few good reasons why freedom should be curtailed? These laws will remain NOT because we can't disprove the lies and irrelevancies underlying their findings (we can, and we have), but because the FedGov has bigger guns than we do.

"You set a standard for what drugs, by there content and effects on the human body,"

The federal government did that. You just don't like the standard.

My question was directed at the constitutional issue, not the health and safety issue. We allow chemotherapy drugs which are very dangerous and can kill the patient, for example. Many legal drugs are more dangerous than heroin and cocaine.

But how is it constitutional to say the federal government may regulate drug "A" but may not regulate drug "B"? Either the federal government has the power to regulate drugs or they don't.

Not if it has a substantial effect on the interstate commerce that Congress is constitutionally regulating.

Growing a plant that will never leave the property has no effect on interstate commerce. There is no interstate and no commerce in this situation.

Just as the private airplane may be prohibited from commercial air corridors by the federal government because it has an effect on interstate airline commerce, so too may your plant be prohibited by the federal government.

I already destroyed your strawman, yet you keep repeating it. If you must use airplanes as an anology, the proper analogy is a man with a plane in his field that never leaves the ground. This has the same effect on interstate commerce that a pot plant in a back yard has on interstate commerce : no effect whatsoever, because neither the pot nor the plane ever leave the property.

Go ahead, repeat the strawman a couple of more times.

"""But how is it constitutional to say the federal government may regulate drug "A" but may not regulate drug "B"? Either the federal government has the power to regulate drugs or they don't."""

Who ever said it would be regulated.
All drugs are regulated to some degree.

"""The federal government did that. You just don't like the standard."""

What is the standard set at then?
Is the level of pots effect on the human body higher then the effect of alcohol on the human body?

Is the risk to the public higher with pot or alcohol?

The standard if any you are referring to doesn't reflect reality, just that people don't like the idea of someone getting high. Being drunk is OK as long as it doesn't endanger someone else though.

"Where I (and others) disagree is the fact that both Congress and the Supreme Court have taken "substantial effect" to mean "any effect" - no matter how insubstantial it may actually be."

In two recent cases, VAWA and the Gun Free Schools Act, the Supreme Court ruled that there was no substantial effect and voided those federal laws.

Yes, Congress continues to try to find constitutional reasons to write laws and control our lives. But we can't count on the Supreme Court to always rein them in. We need to make our voices known to Congress.

"Unless you believe the federal government owns and controls every cubic inch of air and land space, which I do not."

I don't believe that. But in the airspace the federal government (the FAA) does regulate, do you agree they should be able to prohibit a small private plane flying intrastate from entering it? Don't you agree that thousands of these private planes flying in and out of regulated commercial air corridors would have a substantial effect on interstate commerce?

Come on.

"You maintain that any purpose to tool is put to can be considered a possible intent of the tool."

Hey, you're the one arguing for original "intent", not me.

I am looking at the original "meaning" of the definition of the tool. I'm saying that the original "meaning" is much broader than the original "intent". We can look at the history of the tool to determine the meaning, rather than doing a survey of the people the day the tool was invented.

If the meaning of "to regulate" in the Commerce Clause was limited to its original intent (removing trade barriers between the states), then it would have been written that way.

But we can't count on the Supreme Court to always rein them in. We need to make our voices known to Congress.

At least we agree on this. I'd only add that making our voices known to other voters that help elect Congress is a necessary component of getting Congress' attention. (BTW, it was the Rhode Island legislature - not their state supreme court, or even a California-style ballot initiative - that passed medical marijuana.)

Don't you agree that thousands of these private planes flying in and out of regulated commercial air corridors would have a substantial effect on interstate commerce?

I would agree if shown exactly how. That's the problem with the "substantial effect" rule - regulation proponents merely postulate AN effect and feel no need to explain how it's substantial enough to bring in Congress.

"The very term "controlled substances" is the first example of nickel-plated sophistry. What does that even mean?"

It means "regulated substances". I figured that out right away.

"where an activist court pulled the "substantial effect" rule out of a hat, confusing "substantial" with "any"

No, substantial means "substantial", not "any". The Court reminded Congress of that fact when they struck down VAWA and the Gun Free Schools Act. Remember?

"Someone makes something, and that something MIGHT cross state lines, so Congress can ban the "making" and "having," and not just the "crossing."

Uh, yeah. The alternative is that the individual could only be arrested as he's crosssing state lines -- on either side he's a free man. As the Church Lady would say, "How conveeeeeeenient!

"but because the FedGov has bigger guns than we do."

Baloney. We have the power of the vote. As Bill Cosby once told his son, "I brought you into this world and I can take you out".

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.