Posted on 11/11/2015 11:22:02 AM PST by ConservingFreedom
Another day, another controversy. Medical marijuana activists are rightly upset over comments DEA head, Chuck Rosenberg, made to reporters last week.
During a Q&A, he talked about his stance on medical marijuana.
"What really bothers me is the notion that marijuana is also medicinal because it's not. We can have an intellectually honest debate about whether we should legalize something that is bad and dangerous, but don't call it medicine -- that is a joke."
Right, so you want to have an intellectual debate prefaced with medical marijuana is a joke. Want to clarify that bit a more?
"There are pieces of marijuana -- extracts or constituents or component parts -- that have great promise," he said. "But if you talk about smoking the leaf of marijuana -- which is what people are talking about when they talk about medicinal marijuana -- it has never been shown to be safe or effective as a medicine."
I'm with the activists who point to study after study showing it helps with chronic pain, muscle spasms and other ailments. In fact, here's an analysis of 79 studies from JAMA pointing to "moderate-quality evidence to support the use of cannabinoids for the treatment of chronic pain and spasticity."
Damn, here he is making a blanket statement and along comes science...
No. I get the frustrations of medical marijuana activists. They have turned to change.org demanding his resignation. As of today, the petition has gathered nearly 16,000 signatures.
Nothing wrong with voicing frustration at the DEA head, but it's empty. The DEA works like every other agency in the executive branch. It enforces the law. Well, sometimes...
23 states and DC have passed some form of marijuana legalization. Specific medicinal uses all the way to recreational. One problem, none of the state laws trump federal law.
And yes, the DEA is a federal agency. Chuck Rosenberg isn't a fan of marijuana. Even if he was on the side of legalizing it for everyone, he can't do anything. His job is to enforce the law as directed by the President.
Notice the raids have quieted down on dispensaries across the 23 states? Rosenberg may think it's a joke, but the latitude given to the states is telling. Politicians make bombastic statements, but state after state is flipping green.
The FDA is moving to give researchers more room to study the drug. The JAMA study above? 79 studies. That's it. In 2013, 16,000 people overdosed from opioid painkillers. How many died from overdosing on marijuana? Oh right... Zero.
Other studies have shown a decrease in painkiller overdose deaths when medical marijuana was accessible.
It isn't just pain where marijuana plays a significant role. Seizure disorders have been treated with various strains. Who knows what researchers could unlock in the future?
Is it time to open the doors and make it legal? For medicinal use? Definitely. Recreational? Soon, but it needs tight regulation to prevent a wild west of potent strains and no oversight. In Colorado and Washington, the results are still early, but you cannot call it a failure.
Is it a joke? Maybe to Chuck Rosenberg and others. Should he resign or be fired? Of course not.
To the people medical marijuana helps? They aren't laughing. And it's a shame they get targeted. But, the tide is turning. The American people are with them. State governments are increasingly with them. The Federal government? One day you'll wake up to a simple voice vote that finally ends the debate.
Congress is you.
All power is given to congress by you.
Bullshit.
All the power that Congress has was given to it by the States and codified in the US Constitution. Unless and until it is modified by amendment, those powers remain as they were originally understood and intended by those who wrote and ratified it. None of us have to power to alter that except by the process of amendment.
That's not at all what it implies...
There is one branch that has that power, because it is in effect the voice of the people.
That branch is the legislature who has oversight over everything and only uses a small percentage of it's powers.
That is one of my issues. Congress punts the ball entirely too much, but when they do, SCOTUS recognizes it and that is how you get idiot law from the nine...
I really feel for ya.....
But you could not be more confused. Or you are simply reaching for things that are not there.
I think we are done with this....don’t you?
First the Tenth, now the First. You're a regular Bill of Rights disposal.
When the people of a State through their representatives create a new law, the Supreme court recognizes that law as a legitimate request of the people. Therefore it supersedes the 10Th amendment language. While the law it’s self could be viewed as unconstitutional for other reasons mentioned in the Constitution, it does not violate the 10th.
10th amendment arguments, therefore, are not always successful. and they generally fail if the Congress has either participated in making the law, or ceded that responsibility to a government agency. The court recognizes that Congress did this, and that congress is a representative of the people, therefore the people approved it and it’s constitutional, assuming it passes all other constitutional tests whatever they are.
I strongly doubt that any court has said this is how it works - and in any case under the Constitution the states as states are given voice by their state legislatures and NOT the federal Congress.
I think the republic is done with you.
In other words, they would be useless...
No, they would have the explicitly enumerated powers, e.g., coin money, and raise and support armies.
You should read the Constitution some time.
One more reply
If the above words were true in practice (it's a distortion of federalism) then you would not have fed congressmen, but only State congressmen and State senators.
The federal government therefore would be overseen by the States. It would be something other than what it is today. It would have virtually no power of it's own as every minutia could be challenged by any one of the States.
That power exists today through the Congress and the other two branches.. It's how a representative Republic is designed.
You currently have that ability, in point of fact Colorado has the right to sue the fed. That case would be adjudicated in federal court but what would happen is that a judge would say at some point that the State lacks standing. It has to be a damaged individual to proceed.
All power resides in the people except for what they have ceded to the State and to the Fed Gov.
I don't think that premise can be changed unless you eliminate the Constitution and try something else. The State signed away some of it's own powers when it adopted the constitution. Those powers now reside with congress.
I have been giving out copies of the constitution for decades...How about you?
Yes, they would...they could meet for three days once per year. They would have nothing else to do.
Yes, they would...they could meet for three days once per year. They would have nothing else to do.
Which is how the Founders envisioned it. Now you're finally catching on.
Well, if that’s what they wanted, then there would have been little need to give congress the power to make law.
So now we have come full circle again...In a circular argument that has been made constantly in every generation for numerous reasons, usually for freedom issues that argue against one restriction or another.
Interesting exercises, and they probably need to be done from time to time.
The Constitution and all amendments are and must be ratified by the States. It cannot be done by a popular vote of the People, nor can it be done by their representatives in the US Congress. The national government was created by the States, and only they can modify it's enumerated powers.
Yes, they would...they could meet for three days once per year. They would have nothing else to do.
Which is how the Founders envisioned it. Now you're finally catching on.
Well, if that’s what they wanted, then there would have been little need to give congress the power to make law.
The Constitution gives Congress ONLY the power "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." The Constitution does NOT gives Congress the power to make any law outside those explicitly enumerated powers.
You really should read one of those copies of the Constitution you've been handing out.
Yeah I read it....Many times...read it just a day or so ago to help with a argument.
But comprehension is another matter.
That is the nut of the problem.
Good day to you..
But comprehension is another matter.
That is the nut of the problem.
Indeed. Good luck with gaining the comprehension you lack.
"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." - Thomas Jefferson
If we continue this, we will simply go back around in a circle to Article 1.
The legal understandings of Article 1 have been well documented and are entrenched on our body of law.
Many of these misunderstandings also stem from Article 1 because Congress is inherently political and perhaps lazy is applicable as they continuously cede article 1 powers to the executive and judicial branch’s.
There are, as a result, a number of interpretations used by the judiciary interpret the Constitution such as original intent, textualism, strict constructionalism, and various sub divisions of the above.
It’s not going to get any better, but I think it would be foolish to think, or believe that we can at this stage flip it around to a different interpretation of Article 1 in that Congress can only make laws that pertain to the exact wording of the writings pertaining to them in the constitution as originally written.
Especially in light of the fact that the 1st amendment, for example, assumes that Congress could if it desires, make laws regarding religion so in light of that fear, the 1st amendment was written to prevent it.
So the Constitution assumes it in that respect and others that congress has great power to write law on any subject.
That’s just is what it is...
So we can go round and round and round, and never come to a agreement, using the same document.
So, there ya go....and have a nice evening..
So what does that do to your interpretation?
Flipping it back around to that original Founder-intended interpretation is exactly what an American conservative must support (although not necessarily devote the majority of his effort toward, nor pin his hopes on).
If we abandon the fundamentals, then we are adrift. We will come to a point where any limits on the power of the federal government can only be enforced at gunpoint. Doing what's easy now will mean our children will have to do something much more difficult down the road.
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.