cannabisnews.com: States Should End The Drug War States Should End The Drug War Posted by CN Staff on December 09, 2004 at 12:56:31 PT By Sheldon Richman Source: Baltimore Chronicle “Medicine by regulation is better than medicine by referendum.” US Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer said that during last week’s arguments over the much-watched medical-marijuana case. Breyer, in other words, prefers that any change in the government’s prohibition of marijuana use be accomplished by an appeal to the federal drug-enforcement authorities rather than by a public vote in the states, such as occurred in California. But he is really saying that medical oppression by an elite is better than medical oppression by the mob. Are those our only choices? Why must we have medical oppression at all? Why not medicine by free individual choice? That this is not even on the table shows how far our society has moved from its individualist foundations.The case Ashcroft v. Raich has two dimensions, procedural and substantive, and it is important to consider them separately. People who approve of “medical marijuana” — that is, empowering doctors to prescribe pot to certain sick people — tend to favor letting the states partially nullify the federal drug ban. And people who disapprove of medical marijuana tend to favor having the federal government veto such state nullification. But a mix and match is coherent and even sensible. That is, one can oppose the federal government’s effort to stop states from enacting medical-marijuana laws while also opposing those laws. I shall explain.The Founders of the United States understood the threat to liberty from concentrated political power, so they tried to divide power not only among the three branches of the national government, but also between the national and state governments. Back then, people saw their respective states as sovereign and never would have assented to a scheme in which the states became mere administrative subdivisions of the national government. As a result, the Congress was delegated a few defined powers (to use James Madison’s term) and the states retained other powers by default. (See the Tenth Amendment.)Unfortunately, the eminently sensible division of powers, called federalism but mislabeled “states’ rights,” acquired a bad name, primarily because of the violations of blacks’ rights after the War between the States. (Before the war, the slave states were not consistent advocates of states’ rights; they self-righteously objected when northern states passed personal-liberty laws that in effect nullified the federal fugitive-slave act.)Since the New Deal, federalism has essentially been abolished by the Supreme Court’s permissive attitude toward Congress and the Constitution’s “commerce clause.” Until recently, Congress could get away with passing any law as long as it claimed authority under that clause. That has begun to change. In recent years the Court has found two cases in which Congress’s resort to the commerce clause was just too transparent to tolerate.Now it has to contend with Raich and state medical marijuana. Here’s the rub: most people who say they like federalism want no part of anything that looks like a loosening of the marijuana laws. And those who embrace medical marijuana dislike states’ rights in most other cases. It’s a topsy-turvy world! The indications at last week’s Court session were that federalism will take a hit.Here’s what ought to happen: The Court should endorse federalism and stop the Bush administration from interfering with the states on medical marijuana. It should also recognize that the federal government has no constitutional authority to regulate drugs. It is worth recalling that the Constitution had to be amended before the federal government could prohibit alcohol in the 1920s. Why then has it been able to ban drugs without an amendment?Once the feds are disarmed in the war on drug makers and consumers, the states should repeal their own laws against production, sale, and possession. All prescription laws should also be repealed. Then we will have real individual freedom and self-responsibility. Self-medication is as inalienable a right as self-education. Medical marijuana does not advance liberty. It only empowers doctors. The idea that government should decide whether marijuana is medicine or not and whether doctors should be permitted to give it to sick people ought to be offensive to any self-responsible American. Sidebar: It is worth recalling that the Constitution had to be amended before the federal government could prohibit alcohol in the 1920s. Why then has it been able to ban drugs without an amendment? Since the New Deal, federalism has essentially been abolished by the Supreme Court’s permissive attitude toward Congress and the Constitution’s “commerce clause.” That has begun to change. Sheldon Richman is senior fellow at The Future of Freedom Foundation in Fairfax, Va., author of Tethered Citizens: Time to Repeal the Welfare State, and editor of The Freeman magazine. Source: Baltimore Chronicle (MD)Author: Sheldon Richman Published: December 9, 2004Copyright: 2004 The Baltimore Chronicle and the SentinelContact: editor baltimorechronicle.comWebsite: http://www.baltimorechronicle.com/Related Articles & Web Site:Angel Raich v. Ashcroft Newshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/raich.htmMedical Marijuana: The Real Stakeshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread20006.shtmlThe Medical Marijuana Mysteryhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread20005.shtmlFumbling Federalism (Part Deux) http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread20004.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #12 posted by potpal on December 10, 2004 at 11:25:37 PT this and that Saw a infommercial for a book titled Natural Remedies They Won't Tell You About (something like that) this am. Guy went on to state that any thing (per FDA) that is 'considered' a disease 'must' be treated with a 'drug' and not a natural remedy. He went on...that is why they make things out to be diseases (like obesity). Rather than say 'eat less and excerise' they're hot after a drug to cure this 'disease'. And most FDA big wigs go on to comfortable, lucrative jobs in the pharm industry, the pharm industry is the largest industry in the US. The other day it was reported that 44% of Americans are on prescription drugs...And it occurred to me that the reasoning behind legal tobacco and alcohol is to fuel the med/pharm industries. Sick people equal big bucks. Cannabis on the other hand would eat into those profits and threaten these industries not to mention the many others that see cannabis as a threat which I'm sure there is no need to mention which ones here...Not sure this was the right place to air these thoughts but what the hay...Have a nice weekend all. And thanks for being there and being on the same wavelength.Aloha. [ Post Comment ] Comment #11 posted by b4daylight on December 09, 2004 at 21:18:00 PT It is a curve ball So where is right to a speedy trial?this was passed in California in 96 right?Where is there a right to ban something for 35 years and then only start only doing bias research on it for the next 25 years. When you ban doctors can not freely examine it. There are no signs In the Netherlands that we are doing the right thing. Nor what the US government says are happening in the Netherlands for 30 plus years now. [ Post Comment ] Comment #10 posted by ekim on December 09, 2004 at 18:48:38 PT e i e i oooo an on that farm he had some dam Mayan the same is true of the Mississippi U farm. if it is proven that yes the crop grown and processed and dispensed in tins of 300 to more than 7 humans here in the USA for over 20 years does help what then? many gov't studies have been positive for value of said plant Cannabis.not only the med issue but the fact that we are not encouraged to compete in the world market Romanian and china are the two top growers nowCanada since 96 --still we are not allowed to sow and growno matter where the growing takes place the machinery needed to do the job will have to be developed with as much energy efficiency that can be built into the process -- that's what were good at. if the country is schizoid its because the collective reasoning hears a alarm and that alarm has been sounding for my gen that i know of -- and still working to turn off that most annoying sound humans screaming.tonight it was reported that Grand Rapids MI narcs just got what they called a safe house that had 600 lbs of Cannabis -- to which the officer said its worth over 6oo thousand ---------------- gee today it was reported that Michigan will be in the red 3oo and 70 Million [------------why does Gov Jenny not hear the sounds of humans ---why cant we make the jobs that are needed to provide for our children and fellow humans. http://www.leap.cc/events [ Post Comment ] Comment #9 posted by mayan on December 09, 2004 at 17:48:24 PT Death By Regulation “Medicine by regulation is better than medicine by referendum.” US Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer said that during last week’s arguments over the much-watched medical-marijuana case.How many people has "medicine by referendum" killed? How many people has "medicine by regulation" killed? How about "medicine between a patient and their doctor"??? [ Post Comment ] Comment #8 posted by Hope on December 09, 2004 at 17:16:28 PT Goneposthole Very interesting link, Goneposthole.Thank you. [ Post Comment ] Comment #7 posted by goneposthole on December 09, 2004 at 16:12:47 PT shameless exploitation More war on anything, really. That what it really boils down to in the long run.Make darn sure George Bush is crowned again, and on with the show.More money spent on fighting wars and fighting to leave no child left behind (We're really going to brainwash them, but we'll gain if we feign that they won't get left behind) is bringing about the desired results... maybe. Fear and repression works the best... maybe sometimes, but not all of the time.Just more of the day-in-day-out ordinary shameless exploitation.George Bush is on Xanax, so don't worry. more here [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by Hope on December 09, 2004 at 16:07:44 PT Willful ignorance? Willfully ignoring my spell check? [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by Hope on December 09, 2004 at 16:05:45 PT Kap Maybe WILLFULL ignorance? [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by global_warming on December 09, 2004 at 15:26:13 PT Real individual freedom "Here’s what ought to happen: The Court should endorse federalism and stop the Bush administration from interfering with the states on medical marijuana. It should also recognize that the federal government has no constitutional authority to regulate drugs. It is worth recalling that the Constitution had to be amended before the federal government could prohibit alcohol in the 1920s. Why then has it been able to ban drugs without an amendment?...Once the feds are disarmed in the war on drug makers and consumers, the states should repeal their own laws against production, sale, and possession. All prescription laws should also be repealed. Then we will have real individual freedom and self-responsibility. Self-medication is as inalienable a right as self-education. Medical marijuana does not advance liberty. It only empowers doctors. The idea that government should decide whether marijuana is medicine or not and whether doctors should be permitted to give it to sick people ought to be offensive to any self-responsible American. "This makes a lot of good sense. Can the Justices embrace this vision?I hope. [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by kaptinemo on December 09, 2004 at 14:11:44 PT: True ignorance? Or false ignorance? As in feigned ignorance? As in pretend ignorance?The more one considers the Federal position on illicit drugs, the more one is forced to consider two rationales for the Supreme's seemingly clearly demonstrated hostility and intransigence: true ignorance of the situation...or false, pretend ignorance.If the former, their continued dragging of heels and illogical pronouncements about putting the matter in the hands of demonstrably partisan and hostile bureaucracies would make me think the Supremes were senile or incompetent. To illustrate in their statements such an astounding depth of ignorance of the current situation is grounds to consider impeachment. The facts are self-evident; it can be proven without necessity for actual documentation from the offending agencies, simply through sheer volume of circumstantial evidence, that their entire thrust has been to prevent objective research of cannabis's efficacy in treating a myriad of conditions. The anecdotal information gathered over *centuries* supports this. To conclude otherwise...well, the rest homes are full of people suffering from an equal lack of awareness.But pretend ignorance? Feigned ignorance? Politically motivated ignorance? Impeachment wouldn't be punishment enough for using that as an excuse to aid and abet the suffering this policy has promoted. [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by Hope on December 09, 2004 at 13:41:28 PT The apparent ignorance of some of the Justices is most appalling. I can only hope and pray that they will educate themselves before they make a decision. And by "educate"...I don't mean relying on what the Feds hand feed them, either. [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by BigDawg on December 09, 2004 at 13:20:03 PT Of course they do Of course they want them to appeal to the DEA... it didn't work the last 6 times it was tried. They simply ignored and denied. [ Post Comment ] Post Comment