cannabisnews.com: How Marijuana and Wine Can Improve Our Balance 










  How Marijuana and Wine Can Improve Our Balance 

Posted by CN Staff on October 08, 2004 at 09:49:58 PT
By Jacob Sullum 
Source: Reason Magazine  

Two years ago a drug raid in Butte County, California, led to a three-hour standoff. It was not the sort of standoff you usually read about in the papers or see depicted on TV, pitting police against desperate criminals. It was a standoff between local and federal law enforcement officials, with implications that extend far beyond those of the typical drug bust. Deputies from the Butte County Sheriff's Department and agents from the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration arrived at Diane Monson's home in Oroville with a common purpose: investigating marijuana cultivation. 
But once Monson explained that she was using marijuana at her doctor's recommendation to treat the pain and muscle spasms caused by a degenerative spine disease, the deputies concluded her six plants were legal under California's Compassionate Use Act. The DEA agents, by contrast, viewed the cannabis as contraband under federal law, so they still wanted to chop down the plants and take them away. Ultimately, that's what they did, despite the intervention of Butte County District Attorney Mike Ramsey, who called U.S. Attorney John Vincent and asked the feds to back off. In a case the U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear next month, it will decide who should have won that argument. Its decision will hinge on how broadly it reads Congress' authority to "regulate Commerce...among the several states," the constitutional basis for the Controlled Substances Act and the main pretext for expanding the federal government since the New Deal. Last December the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit noted that Monson's marijuana cultivation bore little resemblance to interstate commerce: It wasn't commercial, and it wasn't interstate. Concluding that the Controlled Substances Act "is likely unconstitutional" as applied to people who use cannabis for medical purposes in compliance with state law, the 9th Circuit said a federal judge had erred in refusing to protect Monson and another patient, Angel McClary Raich, against future federal raids. Appealing that decision, the Justice Department is pushing a view of the Commerce Clause that leaves virtually nothing beyond the federal government's reach. Although growing a few marijuana plants for your own medical use may not be interstate commerce, the government argues, it's still a federal concern because it's part of a class of activities that together have a "substantial effect" on interstate commerce. Another controversy the Supreme Court will consider this year suggests how distant that reading is from what the Framers had in mind. This dispute involves not patients desperate for relief from their symptoms but oenophiles eager to enjoy the offerings of boutique wineries. They are frustrated not by federal law but by state bans on direct shipment of alcoholic beverages from out-of-state sources. While the marijuana case is a good example of what the Commerce Clause does not cover, the wine case is a good example of what it was meant to prevent. As Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has noted, at the time the Constitution was adopted commerce was understood to mean the buying and selling of goods (as opposed to their manufacture). And as scholars such as Boston University's Randy Barnett have pointed out, regulate generally meant "make regular." Those meanings make sense in light of the Commerce Clause's main purpose: creating a nationwide free trade zone. The bans on interstate wine shipments clearly are inconsistent with that goal. Defenders of the bans, which mainly benefit the wholesalers through whom out-of-state wine sales legally must flow, point to the 21st Amendment, which repealed Prohibition while giving states special authority to regulate alcohol distribution. But the Supreme Court has said that amendment cannot be used as an excuse for economic protectionism, the apparent goal of laws that discriminate against out-of-state businesses. Last year the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit ruled that Michigan had failed to justify its wine shipment ban based on the "core concerns" of the 21st Amendment. This year the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit reached the opposite conclusion about New York's ban, creating a conflict the Supreme Court will now resolve. Together with the medical marijuana case, the wine controversy offers an opportunity to reaffirm the balance between state and federal power at the center of our constitutional design. Although it receives less attention than the explicit protections in the Bill of Rights, this balance can accomplish at least as much for liberty by pitting potential tyrants against each other. Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason and the author of Saying Yes: In Defense of Drug Use (Tarcher/Putnam).Copyright 2004 by Creators Syndicate Inc.Complete Title: Commercial Potential: How Marijuana and Wine Can Improve Our Balance Source: Reason Magazine (US)Author: Jacob SullumPublished: October 8, 2004Copyright: 2004 The Reason FoundationContact: letters reason.comWebsite: http://www.reason.com/ Related Articles & Web Sites:Raich vs. Ashcroft http://www.angeljustice.org/Medical Marijuana Information Linkshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/medical.htmHigh Court To Hear Oakland Pot Casehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19097.shtmlTop Court Will Take Oakland Pot Case http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19096.shtmlSupreme Court Justices To Decide MMJ Disputehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19094.shtml

Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help





Comment #9 posted by paulpeterson on October 10, 2004 at 22:13:47 PT
Alvin Cool
Just to set this point straight, in the 5/2001 Supreme Court decision, I think it was Justice Thomas that specifically made a "footnote" to the extent that their decision DOES NOT ADDRESS THE COMMERCE CLAUSE ISSUE (where no pot is bought or sold, etc.) In other words, the commerce clause issue was NOT INVOLVED in that case, so they had to SKIRT THE ISSUE. In fact, the very notation of that issue is WHY THIS ISSUE IS MADE IN THIS CASE.It is just too bad that it has taken three years for a case to go back up there. I personally filed suit in 9/02 in Federal District Court in Chicago with this EXACT ISSUE involved in one count. After the judge stated in "dicta" that "obviously Peterson will lose on that issue" I did a motion to dismiss stating that "obviously", I would be better off awaiting for this California case to be decided first, since he would cause me to lose on that issue. The 9th Circuit ruled one week after my dismissal and the rest is, as they say, history.And, of course, for once, I am, indeed, glad to be living close to Chicago, what with this Daley guy finally listening to what I have been feeding him for three years.Finally, finely, our armies are massing at the gates of another walled city under seige. I've already got 5 towns to decriminalize ($50 fines on parking tickets for 20 grams or less). Another suburban town is going on line soon (the chief there wants an informal "evaluation" to help avoid "repeat offenders", etc.).The Illinois governor always listens to what Daley says, also. That means good news for the entire state, eventually. Why don't you put that in your pipe and smoke it, John Ashcroft? End of transmission, over and out. Paul.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by dongenero on October 08, 2004 at 14:07:36 PT
take note folks
If you contact your representatives you should box them in on those two issues that give them the easy out in a letter.At least we have to make them work at it.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by siege on October 08, 2004 at 13:53:10 PT
M.D.
And this guy is a M.D. Doctor a Hart surgeon to boot.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by dongenero on October 08, 2004 at 13:35:54 PT
senate response
Siege,
That seems to be the patented response I received from both House and Senate as well.
Mine weren't quite such assholes as the give the full caps DANGEROUS crap.
They were more open in suggesting that more research will be happening and keeping the door open blah blah blah.They always cite the NIH findings. Nothing like cherry picking your sources. My next letters will blow that out off the bat with the myriad of studies that support the efficacy of cannabis.The other thing they will always counter with is Marinol.....ah, but then why is it schedule 1....Ummmmm Hmmmm.They keep stringing it out. Trying to hold off the inevitable. Spinning and preaching the party line. I'm voting to clean house this November.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by siege on October 08, 2004 at 13:25:34 PT
              off tpoci senate
           UNITED STATES SENATESept. 30,2004Dear Sir.Thank you for contacting me regarding the legaliztion of marijuana for medicinal purpoes.
It is an honor to repesent you as Majority Leader of the United States Senate and a privilege to respond to your concerns.Asa physician I have great sympathy for patients suffering from pain and other medical conditions. Although I understand many belive marijuana is the most effective drug in combating their medical aliments, I would caution against this assumption due to the lack of scientific data available to prove marijuana's medical benefits.Based on current evidence, I believe that marijuana is a DANGEROUS drug and that there are legal medicines offering the same relief from pain and other medical symptoms. The National Institutes of Health,while pointing to the lack of scietific data regarding the medical benefits of marijuana, has determined chronic useof marijuana is associated with respiratory damage, hormonal and immune impairment and addiction.Again thank you for taking the time to contact me I appreciate hearing your thoughts on this important issue. I hope that you will continue to share your thoughts and concerns with me throught my tenure in the Unite States Senate.sincerely, William H Frist, M.D.
Majority Leader
United States Senate P.S. Please visitm http://frist.senate.gov
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by FoM on October 08, 2004 at 12:17:30 PT
AlvinCool
Entertaining oh that is so true! I am so into this tonight. I have never enjoyed anything related to politics like these debates between Kerry and Bush. I hope others are enjoying it too.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by AlvinCool on October 08, 2004 at 12:05:53 PT
Implied or not
It could happen in the town hall format. If not I wouldn't be suprised to have one of the audience "submit" their own question and be flagged down. Rules state they can only ask approved questions, but stuff happens. It should be entertaining
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by FoM on October 08, 2004 at 11:23:49 PT
AlvinCool
I dream of a question like that too. I'm not getting my hopes up though. I just hope it is as good as the first debate. Did you see Jib Jab today? They've been showing it on MSNBC and it is really funny I think.http://jibjab.com/
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by AlvinCool on October 08, 2004 at 11:17:16 PT
Can't wait
I am really looking forward to the Supreme Court directly addressing this issue that they skirted last time.Also everyone should be interested to see if a question concerning cannabis is used in the debates. Like who thinks it should be a states issue, or explain why it's considered to be the worst of all drugs.
[ Post Comment ]




  Post Comment