cannabisnews.com: Feds Could Face 'Rebellion' Over States' Rights


cannabisnews.com: Feds Could Face 'Rebellion' Over States' Rights





Feds Could Face 'Rebellion' Over States' Rights
Posted by CN Staff on August 14, 2003 at 23:16:16 PT
By Nathan C. Masters, Correspondent
Source: CNSNews.com
The escalating battle over whether marijuana can be legally distributed to people claiming "medicinal" benefits from smoking the drug threatens to become an all-out rebellion over states' rights, according to marijuana activists.County and city governments have sued the federal government over the issue. Some local law enforcement agencies have also refused to cooperate with the federal Drug Enforcement Agency. Drug Policy Alliance attorney Dan Abrahamson said the message being sent by state and local officials to the federal government is simple: "We don't want you here."
"To say that there is a rebellion against that, I think is true...the federal authority is limited, and it is derived from the Constitution," Abrahamson said.A case pending in U.S. district court, County of Santa Cruz v. Ashcroft, challenges the federal government's power to regulate the production and distribution of marijuana. The plaintiffs, including the city and county of Santa Cruz, argue that the Drug Enforcement Agency was wrong to raid and shut down in September 2002 a Santa Cruz hospice that dispensed marijuana to paralyzed or terminally ill patients. The suit maintains that the raid violated the state and local governments' constitutional rights to determine their own public health policy. California voters approved the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes with Proposition 215 in 1996, and medicinal marijuana is also legal under local ordinance in Santa Cruz.Abrahamson, who is representing the plaintiffs, explained that the DEA derives its authority from the Controlled Substances Act and the Interstate Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.That clause from Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution reads: "The Congress shall have the power... to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes."Abrahamson said the federal government's interstate commerce powers do not extend to circumstances such as the Santa Cruz co-op, which did not charge its patients for the marijuana. "The federal government can exercise police powers insofar as the Commerce Clause permits it," he explained. "And we're saying that when hospice patients grow their own medication for themselves and use that medication within the state and no money is exchanged and no commerce is taking place, the federal police powers don't extend that far to allow federal agents to raid such an organization."James Ostrowski, a Buffalo, N.Y., attorney and columnist for LewRockwell.com, told CNSNews.com that acting on a warped interpretation of the Commerce Clause, Congress has far exceeded the powers originally granted to it by the Constitution. The Commerce Clause, he said, was originally designed to prevent state governments from enacting prohibitive trade tariffs."It was basically designed to create more or less of a free market," Ostrowski said. "It was really more of a negative thing, to prevent the states from screwing around with commerce. It wasn't anything like, 'Let's let the federal government be some general government regulating commerce;' that wasn't the point. The point was to create a relatively free market among the states."In his opinion, Ostrowski said the Interstate Commerce Clause only grants Congress the power to regulate the sale of goods or services across state lines. If it really did grant Congress the power to regulate any sort of action that affects commerce, as courts have generally ruled since Franklin Roosevelt's "court packing scheme," then the idea of limited federal powers would be pointless."A broad interpretation swallows up basically all the prerogatives of the state and local governments," he said. "It's an excuse for totalitarianism."The September 2002 raid of the Wo/Men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana (WAMM) infuriated local leaders, who not only joined the group's lawsuit against the federal government, but also allowed WAMM leaders to distribute marijuana for medicinal purposes on Santa Cruz City Hall grounds.In a letter urging the county board of supervisors to join the lawsuit, Supervisor Mardi Wormhoudt wrote: "The DEA raid was an inhumane attack on very sick people. A strong case can also be made that it violated federal constitutional protections of individual citizens, as well as the state and local governments."The raid also prompted responses from angered state elected officials, including Governor Gray Davis and state Attorney General Bill Lockyer.Lockyer wrote an angry letter to U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft and then-DEA Administrator Asa Hutchinson describing the WAMM raid as a "disheartening addition to a growing list of provocative and intrusive incidents of harassment by the DEA in California."Lockyer's letter continued: "The decision to continue federal raids on medicinal marijuana providers when there is no evidence that the operation is actually engaged in illicit commercial distribution is wasteful, unwise and surprisingly insensitive when it comes to listening to Californians who have made clear their support for medicinal marijuana at the ballot box. While I am acutely aware that federal law conflicts with California's on this subject and needs to be reconciled, surely an administration with a proper sense of balance, proportion and respect for states' rights could and should reconsider the DEA's policy and redirect its resources."Local law enforcement leaders also responded negatively to the DEA raid. San Jose Police Chief William Lansdowne, for example, pulled five of his officers from the DEA-led task force that raided WAMM. Lansdowne explained his decision at the time by saying that he could not put his officers in the middle of a conflict between state and federal laws.After a similar raid on a marijuana co-operative in West Hollywood in October 2001, local law enforcement leaders joined with city officials to condemn the raid.Captain Lynda Castro of the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department (LASD), which patrols the city of West Hollywood, refused to help the DEA in the raid."This is going to hurt a significant population in this community," Castro told the Associated Press. "I respect them for doing it, for operating a significant service. To turn around and have them targeted is a hard pill to swallow."Castro, who no longer works for the LASD's West Hollywood office, could not be reached for contact. But watch commander Sgt. Bruce Thomas told CNSNews.com that the co-op "did everything legally...and we were fine with it."DEA Special Agent Ed Childress told CNSNews.com that "medical marijuana" or "medicinal marijuana" is an incorrect term because the medical community and a Supreme Court ruling have determined that marijuana has no medicinal value."There is no such thing as medical marijuana," Childress said.Childress added that it was not the DEA's position to dispute the constitutionality of the laws it enforces. "We're not a policy-making organization," Childress said. "The DEA does not form and make policy in the United States. That's up to our policymakers... and we enforce the laws that have been handed down by the policy-making body of the United States."If the lawsuit fails, the Drug Policy Alliance's Bill Piper said state and local governments would still be able to stymie DEA efforts."We might end up with a case, and San Francisco seems most likely because they seem to be moving forward, of actually having the city or state grow marijuana itself and distribute it, because there are stronger legal grounds because the states have certain sovereignties," Piper said.Childress declined to comment on what the DEA's response to such an action would be, saying only "the direction that we receive from the Department of Justice... is the direction we will take."U.S. District Court Judge Jeremy Fogel heard oral arguments July 7 in the Santa Cruz case. Abrahamson said his group expects Fogel's decision within the next month.A spokesman for the Justice Department said it is the department's policy not to comment on pending litigation.Ostrowski, the Buffalo, N.Y., lawyer/columnist, said he suspected California political officials were being insincere in their use of the states' rights argument to oppose federal drug policy."The politicians in California are a bunch of whores," he charged. "They're just going to use whatever rationale gets them to where they want to go at the particular time. I don't think they have any problem with the federal government doing stuff, but if they don't like it, they'll just say, 'It's states' rights,' but if they do like it, they won't have any problem with it."See Earlier Story: States' Rights Tested in Medical Marijuana Court Battles.Complete Title: Feds Could Face 'Rebellion' Over States' Rights, Marijuana Activists SaySource: CNSNews.comAuthor: Nathan C. Masters, CorrespondentPublished: Friday, August 15, 2003Copyright: 1998-2003 Cybercast News ServiceContact: shogenson cnsnews.comWebsite: http://www.cnsnews.com/Related Articles & Web Sites:WAMMhttp://www.wamm.org/Drug Policy Alliancehttp://www.drugpolicy.org/States' Rights Tested in Marijuana Court Battles http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread16850.shtmlBush Wants Marijuana Ruling Struck Downhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread16834.shtmlProponents Say DEA Raid on Pot Farm was Illegal http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread16774.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #8 posted by Rev Jonathan Adler on August 15, 2003 at 23:00:42 PT:
No such thing as Bad Law Enforcement.........
Ed Childress (God Bless Him) is really saying trust us, we know better than you and we will force you to bow down to us, even if our lack of vision, scientific knowlege and common sense are painfully absent from our weak arguments. Sort of like saying tobacco is legal even if it kills millions of ignorant people who smoke it, but marijuana is so dangerous that we will deprive you of your life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, if you attempt to do it legally.
How to make friends and influence people, wow. Still meeting
all religious requirements within the law. 
Hawaii Medical Marijuana Institute
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by afterburner on August 15, 2003 at 20:57:24 PT:
I Find the CA Recall Highly Suspicious
"The [DEA] raid [on WAMM] also prompted responses from angered state elected officials, including Governor Gray Davis and state Attorney General Bill Lockyer." I know that overall Governor Davis has been no great friend of cannabis supporters. I know he has presided over the state of California during the Enron ripoffs. I know that he has been responsible for increases in California prisons. But he did speak out against the DEA raid on WAMM, and when I hear Terminator Arnie say he's going to clean house, I wonder just who his targets are.ego transcendence follows ego destruction, "I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."
- Thomas Jefferson - 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by goneposthole on August 15, 2003 at 07:17:51 PT
veterans sound off
the link: http://www.vaiw.org/vet/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=9
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by goneposthole on August 15, 2003 at 07:16:15 PT
there IS such a thing as 'medical cannabis'
'DEA Special Agent Ed Childress told CNSNews.com that "medical marijuana" or "medicinal marijuana" is an incorrect term because the medical community and a Supreme Court ruling have determined that marijuana has no medicinal value.""There is no such thing as medical marijuana," Childress said.' 'There is no such thing as federal government' is getting closer to reality than illusion. Those cats have no money, just printing presses.  Some Veterans sound off about the Iraq 'war':I am a Vietnam Veteran (65-66) and I live in New York City -- 2 miles north of the World Trade Center. I saw them go down. I lost friends. Our city has received next to nothing for 1st responders; meanwhile Turkey is going to get 20-30 billion dollars. We have lost 150,000 jobs since September 11(remember that) and our jobless rate is close to 10%. Bush promised New York over 20 billion dollars and as of this date we've received a little over 5 billion. And off we waft to war. I'm tired of the lying, the broken promises and manipulation. If any more people die in this or any city, their blood will be on the heads of Bush, Chenny, et al. This is insanity!
--David H. Rigg, US Army, 1964-67
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by Virgil on August 15, 2003 at 06:16:50 PT
Giving the minority opinion its presentation
"There is no such thing as medical marijuana," Childress said.It sure was nice of the reporter to give the stonewallers a chance to repeat their fundamentals."The politicians in California are a bunch of whores," he charged. "They're just going to use whatever rationale gets them to where they want to go at the particular time. I don't think they have any problem with the federal government doing stuff, but if they don't like it, they'll just say, 'It's states' rights,' but if they do like it, they won't have any problem with it.If this isn't the pot calling the silverware black, I don't know what is. They are completely sincere and it is of utmost importance to limiting federal powers as the Constitution intended. It is not wishes that will work its way through the court. It will be the challenge to uphold the Constitution. If anyone is insincere it is this "whore" that works for the pimping service, the DEAth, that is screwing the taxpayer and their children. Let's show some more of that warped bias and maybe the public will see the ugliness the choir sings about.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by kaptinemo on August 15, 2003 at 05:05:24 PT:
I second BigDawg's observation
It was the DEA which categorized cannabis as a Schedule 1 drug, not any panel of doctors or legislators. And it is the DEA, not any health related organization, which has the final say-so on dispensing the legally grown (and completely inferior) cannabis provided by the University of Mississippi for research purposes. Just ask those physicians like Doctors Abrams and Russo how hard it is to get the Feds to break loose with any of their ditchweed if you want to prove how beneficial cannabis can be. If the study isn't done with the specific intent of proving deleterious effects, the DEA doesn't want to hear from you.Barely literate Fed agents...whose paychecks are dependent upon the maintenence of a lie...making medical decisions as to the welfare of American citizens. Last I heard, it was against the law to practice medicine without a license.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by The GCW on August 15, 2003 at 04:59:34 PT
WHAM BAMM
pummeled, pulverized, what ever... the government is taking some hits.Ed Childress speaks as though His soul is in His intestine... ("There is no such thing as medical marijuana,"...)"We're not a policy-making organization," Childress said... (But they are a policy obeying organization, or they are supposed to be...)-0-  -o-  -O-Matthew 5:19, (God Commanded: let there be light... & He also commanded: that the earth sprout vegation... and they were all good, ON THE 1st PAGE OF THE BIBLE, no less)Matthew 5:19, "Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least (24) in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by BigDawg on August 15, 2003 at 04:45:17 PT
Huh?
If, as this article states, the DEA doesn't make policy... then why do they have the authority to decide what schedule cannibis falls under?Sounds like policy making to me.
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment