cannabisnews.com: State's Prop. Doesn't Trump Federal Regulation State's Prop. Doesn't Trump Federal Regulation Posted by CN Staff on September 10, 2002 at 09:55:11 PT By Larry N. Gerston Source: San Jose Mercury News Federal agents acted appropriately when they raided a marijuana farm in Santa Cruz and arrested its owners. Under federal law, they had no choice but to apprehend those who were violating the rules as established by Congress and the courts. To do otherwise would be to undermine a complex political arrangement that has been in place in the United States for more than 200 years.The ``medical'' marijuana issue is not about helping the ill or even protecting property rights, valuable concepts though they are. It is about federalism. Since the earliest days of the republic, Congress has staked out areas where its actions would prevail over all Americans. Its power is hardly omniscient or without limitations. In fact, the framers of the Constitution painstakingly established various policy areas that would be set aside for the federal government to manage, with the remainder left to the states.Wise as they were, the framers didn't cover everything. How could they anticipate nuclear energy, telecommunications, missiles or even something like marijuana? They couldn't. But the Constitution and early tradition provided that federal courts would sort out uncertainties, especially as they pertained to clashes between the states and the federal government. If that didn't work, the Constitution included a method for incorporating change through amendments.All of this may sound stuffy and terribly removed from some nice people attempting to help others in great pain, but it's exactly the point.There is nothing new about individual states challenging federal law. Over the years they have refused to allow federally authorized trucks with nuclear materials to travel within their boundaries, denied citizens the right to a desegregated public education, and, yes, passed Proposition 215, California's medical marijuana initiative, in 1996.In each instance, the state has claimed sovereignty. In each instance, the courts and sometimes Congress have deemed otherwise. Even though the California Supreme Court has upheld Proposition 215, the United States Supreme Court has deemed otherwise in a series of decisions, including an 8-0 verdict earlier this year.Does that leave people without a voice? Of course not. The right to protest is critical to the workings of American government. With protest, elected officials are made aware of grievances and injustices, sometimes leading them to change the laws under which we operate. After all, elected officials are put in office -- and potentially removed -- by voters in their states. But protest or willful violation of the laws does not mean that every law will be bent to the individual who objects.We have laws and rules to prevent anarchy, pure and simple. If everyone did as he or she pleased, society as we know it would cease to exist, and this would quickly become the land of the most powerful or strongest. Those concerns were central to the framers in 1787 and have been a cornerstone of our way of government ever since.Larry N. Gerston is professor of political science at San Jose State University and a political analyst at NBC3. His latest book is ``Public Policy Making in a Democratic Society: A Guide to Civic Engagement'' (M.E. Sharpe Publishers, 2002). Complete Title: State's Medical Marijuana Proposition Doesn't Trump Federal Drug RegulationsSource: San Jose Mercury News (CA)Author: Larry N. GerstonPublished: September 10, 2002Copyright: 2002 San Jose Mercury NewsContact: letters sjmercury.comWebsite: http://www.sjmercury.com/ Related Articles & Web Site:WAMMhttp://www.wamm.org/Enforcement or Harassment?http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread14047.shtmlAgents Seize Couple, Plantshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread14037.shtmlThe DEA in Chains: Bound by a Patient in a Chairhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread14036.shtmlDEA Raid Sparks Medical Marijuana Protests http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread14023.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #28 posted by freedom fighter on September 11, 2002 at 17:55:22 PT Law is nothing unless backed by loving warm opinion from the public be it a federal or any state's law.73% of Americans are for medicial cannabis. 61% of Americans thinks it is time to stop arresting pot smokers.So, Mr. Gerston, don't you think it is time to change the law be it federal or state wise? Unless you, sir, want to see Anarchy!ff [ Post Comment ] Comment #27 posted by John Markes on September 11, 2002 at 10:58:14 PT I sent in a letter to the editor... I sent in the following as a letter to the editor in response to this article...---------------------Larry Gerston seems to be better at politics than in reading the constitution and laws of this country.The Commerce Clause is where the federal government gets its authority in interstate commerce, and is, in most cases, limited to that.The federal government "assumes" jurisdiction in intrastate commerce of federally illegal substances when you can't differentiate it with interstate commerce under federal law. But when no commerce of any kind takes place, the federal gevernment is barred from jurisdiction by the constitution. Like raising your own tomatoes, when nothing is sold, and you can prove it, as WAMM can, the federal government has no jurisdiction.Larry, you make yourself look more like a political hack. Try reading your source material next time.John Markes [ Post Comment ] Comment #26 posted by observer on September 11, 2002 at 09:07:38 PT re: framers The Antediluvians were all very sober (Benjamin Franklin)The Antediluvians were all very sober For they had no Wine, and they brew'd no October; All wicked, bad Livers, on Mischief still thinking, For there can't be good Living where there is not good Drinking. Derry down'Twas honest old Noah first planted the Vine, And mended his Morals by drinking its Wine; He justly the drinking of Water decry'd; For he knew that all Mankind, by drinking it, dy'd. Derry downFrom this Piece of History plainly we find That Water's good neither for Body or Mind; That Virtue and Safety in Wine-bibbing's found While all that drink Water deserve to be drown'd. Derry downSo For Safety and Honesty put the Glass round. [ Post Comment ] Comment #25 posted by observer on September 11, 2002 at 08:51:31 PT Forgetting the Lessons of Prohibition I Wise as they were, the framers didn't cover everything. How could they anticipate ... something like marijuana?Oh, brother. Make the most of the Indian Hemp Seed and sow it everywhere. -- George WashingtonWas the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now. Thus in France the emetic was once forbidden as a medicine, and the potato as an article of food. Government is just as fallible, too, when it fixes systems in physics. Galileo was sent to the Inquisition for affirming that the earth was a sphere; the government had declared it to be as flat as a trencher, and Galileo was obliged to abjure his error -- Thomas Jefferson, "Notes on the State of Virginia," 1787A little rebellion now and then...is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government. -- Thomas Jefferson Larry N. Gerston forgets that this is exactly the way that Prohibition I was repealed. The states, one-by-one, repealed prohibition. Sure, there were pedantic prohibition apologists screaming for federal prohibition power then, too. (The government, they told us then also, was just not enforcing Prohibition enough.) But most states repealed prohibition anyway. And we know the rest of that story: when the Feds could no longer enforce prohibition nationally against the wishes of the states, it was repealed. [ Post Comment ] Comment #24 posted by John Markes on September 11, 2002 at 05:21:35 PT King or President? The federal government "assumes" jurisdiction in intrastate commerce when you can't differentiate it with interstate commerce. When no commerce of any kind takes place, the federal gevernment is barred from jurisdiction by the constitution. They are using the tactics of direct terrorism to try to frighten people enough so they won't realize it...I thought George Bush would be at least a decent president, but when he started to act more like King George instead of President Bush, I lost all respect for him and his administration. [ Post Comment ] Comment #23 posted by VitaminT on September 10, 2002 at 23:56:33 PT More fuel for the fire! Did you know California has the world's 4th largest economy? Maybe they should succeed(sic). :)This adds weight to the idea that we need to use the upcoming election to send a message to the Republicans. And I'm not being partisan, so hear me out!The Republicans control the house by a very slim margin, the election could go either way but they expect to retain control. Now, Republican Ashcrofts DEA has gone to California, beat up some old ladies and thrown their canes in the ditch!The Administration has handed us a club and begged us to start swinging - oblige them! Demand that every incumbent in the state either declare that they will Sponsor H.R. 2592 or or explain WHY they will not! I think this message will carry much weight with California Republicans who see the Santa Cruz raid for what it was. Passage of 2592 would prevent the same in the future.As overtoke's statement above reveals California is a very powerful state. While secession is not desirable or necessary, if that power can be turned against the capricious Ashcroft, we can halt his Santa Cruz style Terrorist raids. If power shifts in the house it would snip Bush down low where it hurts!It's not far-fetched that such a strategy could work, think about this: Katherine Harris' crimes not with-standing, Bush won the final tally by fewer than 400 votes, now how many likely Florida Democrat voters supported Nader only because of his stance on Marijuana? If Gore had thrown even a small bone in our direction he might be president and the whole Bush selection process might never have occured.In the end, the message we need to send to both Major parties IMO: Push us to the margins at your peril! We've got to make them see that we can deprive them of something - I see an opening in California it's up to us to seize it!Added benefits: Prevent Tom Delay from becoming Majority leader. Rip another hole in the Drug War hot-air balloon. [ Post Comment ] Comment #22 posted by knox42897 on September 10, 2002 at 21:22:59 PT: longer prison sentence The legislature of California shall be instructed to add the following to the California criminal code:It shall be a criminal offense for any law enforcement officer, whether local, state, or federal, to willfully obstruct or interfere with activities explicitly permitted by California state law. A prison sentence of at least ninety days shall be mandatory for anyone convicted of such an offense. This sentence shall be served in a California state prison. I think you should give them manditory minimums by the number of plants you destroy. Nintey days for each plant! [ Post Comment ] Comment #21 posted by overtoke on September 10, 2002 at 19:43:06 PT: States Rights When will the state of california start protecting its citizens?California should simply stop paying federal taxes.Did you know California has the world's 4th largest economy? Maybe they should succeed. :) [ Post Comment ] Comment #20 posted by VitaminT on September 10, 2002 at 17:46:32 PT BGreen Thanks for digging that one out that made for a very interesting read.It would seem that Feds don't have a leg to stand on in the Santa Cruz case so I suppose that is why they won't file charges - just abscond w/ the goods.Maybe 'we' have 10th Ammendment grounds for a civil case against the "Justice" Department? [ Post Comment ] Comment #19 posted by mayan on September 10, 2002 at 17:16:54 PT Land of the Greed... We have laws and rules to prevent anarchy, pure and simple. If everyone did as he or she pleased, society as we know it would cease to exist, and this would quickly become the land of the most powerful or strongest. Those concerns were central to the framers in 1787 and have been a cornerstone of our way of government ever since.The U.S. Government has become a government of the corporations,by the corporations & for the corporations. The founders are puking in their graves right now! Would they have denied a terminally ill person the medicine of their choice? I think not!!! Only someone as intellectually bankrupt as Larry N.Gerston could fail to realize that. It seems that U.S. Government terrorists have hijacked this country & shredded it's Constitution with the skills of an Arthur Andersen accountant. The 10th Amendment has been declared null & void. God bless Amerika! [ Post Comment ] Comment #18 posted by BGreen on September 10, 2002 at 15:34:52 PT VitaminT re: comment #3 I asked PAUL PETERSON the same question:http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread13120.shtml#31and here's what he wrote:http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread13120.shtml#35 [ Post Comment ] Comment #17 posted by firedog on September 10, 2002 at 15:14:30 PT I propose a new ballot initiative... ... roughly along these lines: The legislature of California shall be instructed to add the following to the California criminal code:It shall be a criminal offense for any law enforcement officer, whether local, state, or federal, to willfully obstruct or interfere with activities explicitly permitted by California state law. A prison sentence of at least ninety days shall be mandatory for anyone convicted of such an offense. This sentence shall be served in a California state prison. [ Post Comment ] Comment #16 posted by TecHnoCult on September 10, 2002 at 14:40:51 PT Good Question VitaminT The 10th Amendment states:"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. "What legal powers are delegated to Congress that would allow them to stomp on an intrastate health issue? This specifically says the powers must be delegated in the Constitution. Please, anyone with a legislative inclination explain how they can get away with this!THC [ Post Comment ] Comment #15 posted by fearfull on September 10, 2002 at 13:57:37 PT Yes Prime, it certainly would have however there is not one law enforcement official in the whole of the United States to think independently enough to do something of that magnitude. They have been too indoctrinated to be able of anything but maintaning the status quo. [ Post Comment ] Comment #14 posted by Prime on September 10, 2002 at 12:57:14 PT If I was Santa Cruz County Sheriff... I would have arrested the 12 DEA agents for criminal trespassing, breaking and entering, burglary, and felony grand larceny. Then locked the agents away for the night, giving the plants back to the co-op. I would then have arrested the Federal Magistrate for inciting criminal activity.That would set some wheels in motion. [ Post Comment ] Comment #13 posted by st1r_dude on September 10, 2002 at 12:27:41 PT just in case we need to be reminded: mo·ron n. 1. A stupid person; a dolt. 2. Someone who thinks cannabis should remain illegal, and that users of such should be incarcerated - despite pages and pages of documents supporting its many legitimate uses.I've always liked the word "DOLT" - i think i'll start using it, and give "moron" a break...hee hee - moron defined by dictionary.com - [ Post Comment ] Comment #12 posted by st1r_dude on September 10, 2002 at 12:04:44 PT yet another marooooon yes folks, we have another idiot journalist here disguised as someone whose supposed to be "knowledgeable":"If everyone did as he or she pleased, society as we know it would cease to exist, and this would quickly become the land of the most powerful or strongest"excuse me, but this place is ALREADY controlled by the rich and powerful - DUH ! As much as this "professor" thinks he understands governing processes, he conveniently leaves out the powerful/monied lobbyists and their huge influx of capital (money) into members of congress coffers. it's these type of groups that are running our country for the betterment of big business...IMHO, the founding fathers of freedom and liberty would completely freak-out if they saw what our politicians are getting away with...this journalist, he's a moron, flat and simple. [ Post Comment ] Comment #11 posted by Windminstrel on September 10, 2002 at 11:40:45 PT More idiocy from the "Screw the States" crowd FDR's rewriting of the commerce">http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-216.html">commerce clause is among the worst things that's happened to our country. It's the justification for the WoD, the welfare state, and every other bit of misguided liberal looniness since. Feh. [ Post Comment ] Comment #10 posted by kaptinemo on September 10, 2002 at 11:08:58 PT: Ah...Mr. Gerston? Can you answer a question, please? It's one that no anti has ever had the stones, figurative or literal, to tackle. Perhaps you, in your ivory tower intellectual moral high ground, can provide me with a reply.That question is: When is it immoral to follow a law?The answer is obvious...but to the bureaucratic mindset, mired in rules and regulations, the human element is always lost...until said humans get on their hind legs, paw the ground with claws unsheathed, and say in a cold, deadly, deliberate voice, "No more".The police in Hitler's Germany were willing supporters of the SS; they even fingered their neighbors that they grew up with for extermination in the camps. People who played with each other when young looked at each other from opposite sides of the wire...until the victims were 'relocated' into the upper atmosphere courtesy of the crematoriums. The German police, just like the SS, were 'only following orders'. And you, Mr. Gerston, applaud the single-minded adherence to duty represented by such actions.I hope you are someday on the wrong end of those Fed gun barrels, Mr. Gerston. I am sure your scholarly and erudite apologia for Fed tyranny might win you a few laughs...but like those helpless victims of the actions you applaud, it won't gain you anything but the same result.A jackboot on your neck...and laughter when you speak of your rights. [ Post Comment ] Comment #9 posted by trainwreck on September 10, 2002 at 11:08:26 PT oops, I meant Thoreau, who was quite thorough in his criticism of this type of thinking... [ Post Comment ] Comment #8 posted by trainwreck on September 10, 2002 at 11:05:41 PT The Professor needs to revisit his high school... ...reading list:"Law never made men a whit more just; and, by means of their respect for it, even the well-disposed are daily made the agents of injustice."Henry David Thorough [ Post Comment ] Comment #7 posted by Jose Melendez on September 10, 2002 at 10:51:12 PT Got Peace? fromhttp://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v02/n1699/a09.html?397 CANCER PATIENT ALLOWED TO USE MARIJUANA, BUT CAN'T GET IT LEGALLY An Eilat resident who received permission from the Health Ministry to use marijuana for medicinal purposes is nevertheless unable to obtain the drug without breaking the law. The man, who suffers from cancer, is one of eight terminal patients who received an unusual ministry permit to grow, possess and use marijuana to ease their pain. But the drug is not legally available in Israel, and the ministry refused to supply them itself. Furthermore, the permit to grow the drug applies only to the patient himself rather than to his wife - and the bedridden terminal patient is physically incapable of doing so. The Eilat patient's wife even tried asking the police to give her husband some of the marijuana they had confiscated during drug raids, but they also refused. Having thus exhausted all her ideas for obtaining the drug legally, the wife yesterday asked Eilat's regional radio station for help in publicizing her plight. Major General Yoav Sieglowitz, the commander of the Eilat Police, said that though he was sorry for the couple, he could not legally help them. "The permit was given to the bedridden husband, not to her," he explained - and therefore, it would be a criminal offense for police to give her marijuana from their stock of confiscated drugs. Health Ministry spokesman Ido Hadari said there is currently no way to supply the drug legally. However, Hadari added, the ministry is working on ways to import it from the Netherlands, where it is available legally. Got Peace? [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by john wayne on September 10, 2002 at 10:47:48 PT ducking truth in first sentence > Federal agents acted appropriately when they raided a marijuana farm in Santa Cruz and arrested its owners.That was a medical marijuana farm, Curly, I mean Larry. [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by Sam Adams on September 10, 2002 at 10:47:36 PT Exactly, Nick, more lying Not only did the framers grow their own cannabis, but the use of opium and cannabis has been documented for thousands of years! The framers knew damn well about these plant-based intoxicants!Cannabis is an herbal remedy that any individual can grow without any outside help or interference. The right to grow plants is granted to all "Christian" individuals by the 2000-year-old Bible for crying out loud! [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by prop203 on September 10, 2002 at 10:39:02 PT Save the kids? >>>>>>>>>>>Federal agents acted appropriately when they raided a marijuana farm in Santa Cruz and arrested its owners. Under federal law, they had no choice but to apprehend those who were violating the rules as established by Congress and the courts. To do otherwise would be to undermine a complex political arrangement that has been in place in the United States for more than 200 years.>>>>>>>>>>>Point is taking. Although I will ask u this. Should not the DEA be more responsible with its time? Are u telling me it is better to go bust a bunch of sick people rather then put those same resources into more serious things like herion and cocain.The DEA should prioritize. When all the herion is off the streets then u move on to cocain then Xtasy then LSD.. Pot should be the last thing on the list. U know they alwase refer to saving the kids. If they are so serious about this I ask u how many kids is Pot going to kill compared to herion and cocain? It seems they really dont care, If they did they would use thier time to save the kids instead of picking on sick people.Prop203P.S. Dont use the gateway theroy because its just that a theroy. However it is a FACT that people die from herion and cocain. A factual mission is fundementaly more sound then a theroical one. [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by VitaminT on September 10, 2002 at 10:20:08 PT Some PoliSci genius please explain to me why the 10th Ammendment does not apply? [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by Ethan Russo MD on September 10, 2002 at 10:17:46 PT: What's More To expand on what Nick has said, the very same arguments should be used to say that cannabis prohibition should require a constitutional amendment, just as was necessary for alcohol. The dreaded Interstate Commerce clause should not apply to California-grown cannabis distributed locally, as is evident in the Corral case. Additionally, it must be continually repeated that the Supreme Court merely ruled against the medical necessity defense, and did not strike down 215 in its entirety. That battle has yet to be fought, and it surely will be. [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by Nicholas Thimmesch on September 10, 2002 at 10:12:12 PT: Gerston's missive.... Mr. Gerston writes: "Since the earliest days of the republic, Congress has staked out areas where its actions would prevail over all Americans. Its power is hardly omniscient or without limitations. In fact, the framers of the Constitution painstakingly established various policy areas that would be set aside for the federal government to manage, with the remainder left to the states.Wise as they were, the framers didn't cover everything. How could they anticipate nuclear energy, telecommunications, missiles or even something like marijuana?"Besides the obvious fact that "the framers" were growers of hemp, "something like marijuana" should not be mentioned along with nukes, telecommunications and missiles if he's trying to make a contemporary point. Idiot. [ Post Comment ] Post Comment