cannabisnews.com: Pot and Federal Power





Pot and Federal Power
Posted by CN Staff on November 30, 2004 at 21:04:13 PT
Washington Post Editorial
Source: Washington Post 
The Federal government's crusade against users of "medical marijuana," even in states that allow sick people to have the drug, is obnoxious. But a case argued before the Supreme Court on Monday is only superficially about pot and illness. At a deeper level, it is the latest test of Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce, the constitutional authority that underlies the modern regulatory state. While it would be satisfying to see the court bat down the Justice Department's heavy-handed tactics, such a holding could be dangerous to civil rights enforcement, environmental protection and more.
Since the New Deal era, the Supreme Court has construed the Constitution's commerce clause broadly. Without such an understanding, Congress would have been unable to make federal laws requiring a minimum wage, protecting wetlands and prohibiting racial discrimination in private employment, to name a few examples. Recently the court began making clear that the authority is limited to issues that really have something to do with economics; so, for example, gun possession close to schools and sexual violence can't be regulated under the commerce clause. We sympathize with the notion of limits, without which Congress could make law on any subject it wished -- not what the framers of the Constitution envisioned. But limit the power too much, and Congress will be left without adequate tools to legislate in a modern country. The current case is an excellent illustration. Federal drug laws unquestionably regulate interstate commercial activity; that is, the market for illicit drugs. But the plaintiffs in this case, patients who say that no other drug alleviates their pain, argue that such laws also criminalize noneconomic activity -- the growing and use of marijuana within a single state for personal, medical, noncommercial purposes. The plaintiffs consequently convinced the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit to block any enforcement against them by the federal government. This reasoning may sound attractive, but don't be fooled. The court long ago held that a farmer who grew wheat for his own consumption could not escape farm laws passed under the commerce clause. To hold otherwise for drugs would be deeply destabilizing. Some endangered species protected by federal law, for example, exist only in a single state and can be threatened by noneconomic activities. The Supreme Court can't allow people to violate otherwise valid regulations because their specific violations are not economic in nature. We think Attorney General John D. Ashcroft ought to find better ways to spend his time and the nation's resources. But where Congress is regulating genuine commercial activity, such as the interstate market for marijuana, the court's deference to it should be nearly absolute. Source: Washington Post (DC)Published: Wednesday, December 1, 2004; Page A24 Copyright: 2004 Washington Post Contact: letterstoed washpost.comWebsite: http://www.washingtonpost.com Related Articles & Web Sites:Raich vs. Ashcroft http://www.angeljustice.org/Angel Raich v. Ashcroft Newshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/raich.htmMMJ Case Puts Supreme Court in Curious Spothttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19929.shtmlMedicinal Marijuana Gets Court Skepticismhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19928.shtmlThe Supremes Debate Medical Pothttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19926.shtml 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #11 posted by afterburner on December 03, 2004 at 05:18:18 PT
breeze, thanks
I wasn't angry when I first read your post #3, or in the mood to get so. I came back later after the Supreme Court comments fuelled a head of steam, and made my comment (using kap's electric carving knife). Thanks again for the support.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by breeze on December 03, 2004 at 00:20:57 PT
Comment # 9 - Afterburner
Thank You! The art of shredding lies is apparently an art form that you demonstrate with such intellectual beauty I could only hope to attain at a begginer's level and grow with!!!This man needs to be shown the error of his mentality- and people can only do this by writing him and correcting him.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by afterburner on December 02, 2004 at 07:36:43 PT
Gary Aldrich, Paid Shill
RE Comment #3 posted by breeze: [Comments added.]{Those who have had an addict living with them or near them - perhaps a loved one - know exactly what I am saying here. While 9 out of 10 drug users can smoke pot or snort cocaine and return to their normal life, one cannot. [If the 1 in 10 statistic is accurate, these folks need medical treatment, not cages.] That one becomes addicted and unlike alcohol, drugs can quickly damage brain cells and cause the addict a lifetime of mental and physical health problems that never go away. [Alcohol does not damage brain cells? What planet are you from, sir?]{Marijuana is also a sneaky drug. It’s considered a gateway drug because once the casual user smokes it and enjoys its “benefits” without a serious consequence, the user concludes that the same could be true for other, more serious drugs. [Leaving aside the fact the that gateway theory has been scientifically disproven, any escalation to more dangerous "drugs" is a function of prohibition and the resulting black market which encourages dealers to push the most addictive and, therefore, profitable "substances."] Thus the escalation begins and, for so many poor souls, their lives completely unravel. To feed their out-of-control drug habit, the addict often turns to a life of crime. [By confusing, deliberately(?), cannabis with dangerous addictive drugs, you paint cannabis smokers (it's always smokers, even though many medical patients use vaporizers or baked goods) as depraved criminal predators!] After they have begged, borrowed, and stolen money and valuables from their friends and families, their future becomes the life of a serious criminal, and prison cannot be far behind. [Prison for theft is a basic tenant of jurisprudence, but prison for possession of a useful medical herb is irrational.]}
--Medical Pot-Heads: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/garyaldrich/ga20041130.shtml
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by Dankhank on December 01, 2004 at 07:41:11 PT
Rebut
To Gary AldrichThe Federal Government is the plaintiff in this Supreme Court business. The Med Marijuana case is at the Supreme Court because the Federal Government is contesting the Ninth Circuit decision.Marijuana is not a deceptive drug, the lies from prohibitionists over decades have equated all illegal drugs and claimed murder, rape and mayhem by "reefer-addicts," as a danger.As people heard the lies, they saw most people using Cannabis were NOT killing , raping and pillaging. The logic went as follows in many minds: They lied about Cannabis ... probably lied about the other drugs, too.We have tried to control drug use with guns and cages for ninety years. Are we winning? Should we drive American prison population to three million? We're heading to that figure at a steady rate. Albert Einstein said that repeating a failed plan to infinity is insane. Are you insane? Do you have an insane portion of your brain that controls your kant when discussing your disdain for "harm-reduction?" Prison is the worst side effect of Cannabis use.This is a states-rights issue. Can't you understand this?
-------------------------------I'm getting tired of these insane idiots.
Firefox Friendly
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by kaptinemo on December 01, 2004 at 06:12:22 PT:
Afterburner has it pegged 
The problem here has always been one of loose interpretation of the Commerce Clause as opposed to a strict one. Too much leeway was granted the Feds in determining what the Clause actually meant.There is an interesting history concerning the New Deal and the Supreme Court: when FDR wanted to pass his clearly (by strict interpretation) unConstitutional legislation, the SC back then dug their heels in and found instance after instance of precedent to halt them. (It also is notable that the composition of the SC was Republican dominated.) FDR then threatened to increase the number of Supreme Court Justices to 15, thus ensuring that his hand-picked minions would be able to override the original Justices. The Supreme Court folded, FDR backed off from his threat, and the New Deal went through. And the slow slide of greater centralization of Federal power picked up several orders of magnitude of velocity. All this happened in a time of social and economic upheaval (my things don't change much, do they?) when the citizens were desperate for any relief, no matter that future generations might pay a terrible price in lost liberties as a result.For the curious, I offer brainfood:http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=FDR+nine+old+men(The Supremes back then were publicly chided by FDR's supporters standing outside the SC's steps, chanting in quavering voices "Ni-ine Oh-ohld Me-en! Ni-ine Oh-ohld Me-en!")FDR versus Nine Old Men: Schechter v. United States
http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5093/The Truth about FDR
http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=355&sortorder=articledate
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by afterburner on December 01, 2004 at 04:30:25 PT
Two Points That The Prohibitionists Ignore
1. Wickard was a *farmer*! He made his living growing food. His *personal* growing and use, therefore, *might* have some bearing on the Commerce Clause and interstate commerce. (Some may feel that this whole Wickard v. Filburn was an overstepping of federal authority, however.) {Lest anyone claim that the commerce power was a mechanism to interfere with local affairs, Hamilton specifically noted in Federalist No. 17 that the Commerce Clause would have no effect on "the administration of private justice . . . , the supervision of agriculture and of other concerns of a similar nature." {Hamilton’s and Madison’s interpretative guidance aside, as a textual matter "agriculture" cannot be read into "commerce." As Richard Epstein has observed, logic dictates that "commerce" means the same thing in relation to the several states, foreign nations, and Indians. The Clause would make no sense if we substituted the word "agriculture" for "commerce": Congress shall have the power "[t]o regulate agriculture with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." Obviously, Congress cannot regulate the crops grown in foreign countries or in Indian territory. It naturally follows that Congress cannot regulate the agriculture in the several states either. But Congress can regulate the interstate traffic in agricultural commodities or the importation of such commodities from foreign countries. This would be consistent with the Dr. Johnson’s definition of commerce as intercourse and Madison’s and Hamilton’s emphasis on goods crossing state borders.} --Commerce Abuse http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/19/thread19916.shtml2. "Moreover, the Ag Adjustment Act [which was the basis for Wickard v. Filburn applying to interstate commerce & the Commerce Clause] didn't apply to farmers growing small quantities for family use." --Medical Marijuana and The Supremes http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/19/thread19892.shtml{Filburn was an Ohio farmer who grew more wheat than he was allowed to under the Agricultural Adjustment Act, which was intended to limit production to keep prices up. That Act was clearly trying to regulate economic activity. The Court ruled that Congress could regulate Filburn's consuming his own wheat on his own farm because if all farmers acted likewise, Congress's scheme to regulate the price would be undermined. {Raich et al argue that Wickard v. Filburn is a bad analogy because Filburn was selling some of the wheat he raised, and much more of it was being consumed by his cows (from which he derived milk, and which he sold occasionally) than by his family. He also raised chickens, and sold eggs, i.e., he was using his wheat in running a commercial farm. Moreover, the Ag Adjustment Act didn't apply to farmers growing small quantities for family use. The principle of "aggregation" established in Wickard has been challenged in two cases that Raich et al cite in their brief: Lopez (1995) and Morrison (2000).} --Medical Marijuana and The Supremes http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/19/thread19892.shtmlAngel Raich is not a farmer! She does not make her living growing and selling crops and chops.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by kaptinemo on December 01, 2004 at 03:56:14 PT:
The Post is a belwether
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=bellwetherbell·weth·er  ( P ) Pronunciation Key (blwthr)
n. 
One that serves as a leader or as a leading indicator of future trendsConsider: the Washington DC area is home to the vast majority of Federal civil servants, no small number of which are busily engaged with ant-like fervor in the War on (Some) Drugs. As I had once heard the District of Columbia described, it's 71K square miles surrounded by reality. It's an almost hermetically sealed political environment that takes very little notice of the rest of the country. This fosters an equally hermetically sealed view of actions that affect the entire nation...often to it's detriment. In other words, an 'echo chamber'.This kind of thinking shows up in the local news media - which the Post represents. For the Post to publish such an editorial is tantamount to the Feds speaking.In other words, I am not optimistic about the Sue-premes ruling in favor of Raich/Monson. The kind of thinking illustrated by the Post's editorial is EXACTLY THE SAME KIND OF THINKING THE FOUNDERS HAD WARNED AGAINST ADOPTING. It was why checks and balances were inserted into the Constitution, why powers were seperated amongst the three Branches of government, and why it's so dangerous to monkey with them at all.Breeze asks how all this got started. The answer is the very beginning of the Federal DrugWar itself, in 1914 with the Harrison Narcotics Act and the stretching and contorting of the Commerce Clause to justify it. Which broke all the previous sanctions against the centralization of Federal power that we have (ahem) 'enjoyed' since those years. Those legislators knew bloody well what would happen but they went ahead and engaged in weakening those very same strictures against that centralization by voting the HNA into law. It can be safely stated that the slow and steady erosion of State's Rights began, not in the Civil Rights Era, but much, much earlier with the HNA...and as usual, with the same old hoary phrase of "It's for your own good!" appended to it.God shield me from do-gooders intent upon 'saving' me from myself, and willing to kill me to do it. The kind the Post is speaking for here.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by lombar on December 01, 2004 at 02:14:17 PT
Will the judges have compassion?
You notice how cannabis is compared to alcohol when they talk about impaired driving yet not when it comes to adult responsible use or legalisation and regulation? How it is contrasted with the negative effects of alcohol yet the euphoric pleasure is a negative side effect. Now why should we deny a suffering person a non-toxic euphoria? Maybe it takes their minds of feeling pain as well as any analgesic or anti-inflamatory effects. If someone you love is suffering you give them whatever it takes to ease that...how well can a person sleep knowing their loved one is in agony? If a few puffs of cannabis eases pain and/or suffering where other drugs have failed, what exactly is the rationale for denying that? Will the judges honestly believe that I would not buy pot 'on the street' if it helped someone I love? 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by breeze on December 01, 2004 at 01:04:18 PT
In the mood to be angry?
Read the article at the link FOM posted, then send him a comment at the bottom of the page. He compares people who use medical marijuana, and marijuana in general to cocaine addicts.Medical Pot-Heads: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/garyaldrich/ga20041130.shtml
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by breeze on November 30, 2004 at 23:57:12 PT
So this means I cannot grow my own food?
"This reasoning may sound attractive, but don't be fooled. The court long ago held that a farmer who grew wheat for his own consumption could not escape farm laws passed under the commerce clause. "So, this obviously means that several hundred people break laws each year by harvesting vegetables and fruits grown in their back yard?When did the country I was born in turn into the nazi state it is now? When did everyone just lose their mind? I want to know, because this is all news to me. I have been breaking commerce laws for a few years now, hence the words "long ago."Each spring, several department stores sell seeds to commit this "crime"- you can purchase seeds for every known vegetable able to grow and multiply in our local climate, and plants that are already beggining to grow are sold openly at hardware stores. So, who can I report this too? I will be damned if I am not able to grow my own fruits and vegetables due to the law that says doing so violates the commerce clause, and several of the offenders are growing food for their own consumption. Who can I report this too?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by FoM on November 30, 2004 at 21:16:21 PT
Two Related Articles from Townhall.com
Medical Pot-Heads: 
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/garyaldrich/ga20041130.shtmlJesusland for Thee, But Not for Me: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/jonahgoldberg/jg20041201.shtml
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment