cannabisnews.com: The Federal Jihad Against Marijuana





The Federal Jihad Against Marijuana
Posted by FoM on August 09, 2000 at 12:02:40 PT
Weekly News Issue
Source: Civil Liberties
I'll be damned if I understand the federal government's antipathy toward marijuana -- especially its unrelenting hostility toward strictly medical use of the popular herb. There must be some reason why federal drug cops are flipping the bird to voters and threatening doctors with the end of their careers if they so much as whisper a kind word about dear old Mary Jane. 
Voters in seven states and the District of Columbia have marked ballots for the stuff, medical journals embrace its (limited) use, and pundits point out the difficulty of banning a weed that will grow in a dustbunny under the couch if you drop a seed. Dope is no alien menace to the White House, either; if there's a staffer in the Clinton administration who hasn't toked up at some point in life, it's only because he was such an enormous dork that nobody would pass him a joint. Still, federal narcs wage holy jihad against the inoffensive plant. The weird war on marijuana has been prominently on display in California. That's fitting since, in 1996, residents of the West-Coast trendsetter state overwhelmingly voted for Prop. 215, which was intended: To ensure that seriously ill Californians have the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes where that medical use is deemed appropriate and has been recommended by a physician who has determined that the person's health would benefit from the use of marijuana in the treatment of cancer, anorexia, AIDS, chronic pain, spasticity, glaucoma, arthritis, migraine, or any other illness for which marijuana provides relief. To make sure that people know their options, the law specifically exempted doctors from any legal drawing-and-quartering should they take the proposition seriously and recommend marijuana as a treatment. Like it or hate it, there's no question that Californians knew what they were voting for, and 55% of them gave the measure a big thumbs-up. That leaves Justice Department lawyers making wonderfully imperial arguments in defense of threats to strip doctors of their prescription rights if they suggest to AIDS patients that the occasional toke might help them live a bit longer. "Imperial" arguments? Try this on for size: Says Department of Justice mouthpiece Joseph W. Lobue, "It doesn't matter what California says." Lobue and company's position is that federal law rules supreme, no matter what restrictions the provincials may like to loosen. That's quite a view from Mt. Olympus, eh? Even for the most committed anti-drug crusader, that's a dubious position, since the U.S. Constitution gives the feds jurisdiction only in matters affecting interstate commerce. It's unclear that marijuana grown in Mendocino County and peddled in San Francisco ever crosses the Nevada border in transit. The Supreme Court has been getting tougher on enforcing that federal separation of powers too, even on headline-grabbing matters of social policy. If, in this day and age, the Supremes are willing to knock down a ban on guns near schools on federalism grounds, why should D.C.'s dislike of dope overrule state-level preferences? For a baby-boomer White House, this seem like a no-brainer issue on which to back off and let the smoke clear - or get thicker, as the case may be. In fact, the courts do appear to be viewing federal anti-drug mania with dubious eyes. The muzzle order against physicians has been in limbo since 1997 when a federal judge issue a restraining order against its enforcement on free speech grounds. The current battle is over a government appeal of that decision. Just recently, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals went further and ordered U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer to reconsider his ban on the distribution of marijuana in Oakland. Judge Breyer did just that, taking into account what was essentially a necessity defense on behalf of medical marijuana users. Presto, change-o, he morphed his old ban into permission to distribute marijuana to patients in need of its benefits. It was a remarkably sensible decision for a federal official. Probably fearing just such courtroom rationality, federal drug czar Barry McCaffrey and his sobriety gnomes have apparently masterminded efforts to prevent medical marijuana measures from reaching voters ever since the first wins in California and Arizona (Arizonans actually gave their ballot-box approval twice). The threats against physicians grew from that master plan. More disturbingly, though, so did White House-coordinated national efforts to defeat medical marijuana initiatives. As reported by Salon, among those efforts are the recently revealed programs for inserting anti-drug propaganda into the storylines of TV shows and movies, and the pages of magazines. Media companies have actually been paid to slant their messages to the American public, largely to prevent sick people from keeping a bag or two of dope in the medicine cabinet. What's so important about the marijuana issue that the White House feels compelled to overrule voters, muzzle doctors and propagandize the public? Let me know if you have an answer. Whatever the reason, though, the federal drug warriors really need to relax. And I have the perfect suggestion: A couple of bong hits should do wonders to ease the frustrations of their holy war against dope. Direct Link To Above Article:http://civilliberty.about.com/newsissues/civilliberty/library/weekly/aa080700a.htmWeb Posted: August 7, 2000Copyright © 2000 About.com, Inc.CannabisNews Medical Marijuana Archives:http://cannabisnews.com/news/list/medical.shtmlCannabisNews Cannabis Archives:http://cannabisnews.com/news/list/cannabis.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #7 posted by Hempman on August 13, 2000 at 06:40:50 PT:
Much to our amazement
Not really. I have ceased being amazed by the odd war on marijuana users. After debating with people like Senator Joe Biden (he was brain damaged long before his annurism, I think), and other members of the anti-marijuana cabal, it has been my experience that examining facts and thinking clearly are not skills that the pot-nazis can put on thier resumes.The Drug Czar publishes regular party line updates, and facts be damned, the non-medical, unscientific garbage is spewed all over free Americans every time they open thier mouths.A new tactic I encountered durring a radio broadcast debate I did with one of the fascists from CASA demonstrated a tactic I never encountered before. Total, obnoxious rudeness. They'd spout a long sentence filled with lies, soomething we've all encountered before. Like, "Marijuana is not medicine, no medicine is smoked, there are hundreds of chemicals in cannabis that we know nothing about, blah, blah, long string of lies."The moment I began to debunk each of the lies, in the order given no less, the toady started shouting over me, refusing to let me finish a single sentence. When the moderator told them to give me time to resopond, sure, they gave me time for a singe sentence about a single claim in ther litany of lies then started the obnoxious jump on my speaking. I repeatedly asked what studies they were quoting, but each time they would simply restate the lie, with absolutely no reference. The only references that were used were horribly misquoted, or given far more credibility than they were worth.They attempted to say that the AMA had made statements that they were against medical marijuana. I pointed out that they have repeatedly suported medical marijuana, giving dates and resource quotes. I also pointed out the most recent AMA statement that they were neither supporting nor against medical marijuana. I asked where they got the idea that the AMA was against medical marijuana. Before I got the whole sentence out of my mouth, she started yelling about how she was sorry for anyone who tried to use marijuana as medicine.It got so bad that the moderator "accidentally" disconnected them so that I would have time to completely answer the statements the pot-nazi had made.I was amazed, but now I am not.
Delaware Cannabis Society
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #6 posted by arcturus on August 09, 2000 at 17:00:56 PT
quick note
Thought I'd pop this in here. I just finished reading William Burrough's "Junky." Although written in the 50's, it is a perfect commentary on the state of the drug war today. He covers it all, from the distinction between mj and hard drugs to creating "police state" legislation for the sake of the children. A recommended good read!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #5 posted by Tim Stone on August 09, 2000 at 15:35:19 PT
Hate to rain on the parade, but..
Quote:"Even for the most committed anti-drug crusader, that's a dubious position, since the U.S. Constitutiongives the feds jurisdiction only in matters affecting interstate commerce. It's unclear that marijuanagrown in Mendocino County and peddled in San Francisco ever crosses the Nevada border in transit."**********The reporter here has simply not done his/her basic homework, especially on the interstate commerce issue.The original federal legal justification for drug laws, as every school boy and girl knows[ ); ] was existing tax law. That wore thin with the Judiciary around '70, with a few celebrated cases. The tax scam no longer legally operable at the federal level, the fall-back constitutional justification for drug laws has been the Interstate Commerce Act of whenever, as amended, yada-yada.I am not a lawyer, but my best understanding is: Imagine playing Solitare with a deck of cards totally controlled by the Gov't, where the Gov't can change the rules to your disadvantage even as you play. You ain't gonna win. With the Fed tax law justification for prohibition being struck down by the courts, the Feds inaugurated the Constitutional Interstate-Commerce clause as justification. And the essence of the Commerce clause, as worked out by court case, respecting drug law, is that _any_ illegal drug law falls under the approproate interstate-commerce statutes, even if it happened within one state, because the Feds do not need to establish that a particular case actually crossed interstate lines. They only need to establish, as a matter of now well-encoded law, that _all_ such criminal acts _might_ in some way affect interstate commerce. Inotherwords, it doesn't matter whether weed is grown, shipped and used within a given state. As far as the courts have upheld the Commerce clause, some of the weed grown in a particular state may be transported to another state. And since it's a hopeless task for the Feds to discriminate home-grown from trans-state, the Fed courts have accepted the argument that if _any_ home grown _could_ be shipped to another state - which is to say, all cannabis, anywhere in the fifty states - then _all_ cannabis everywhere is potentially exportable and therefore subject to the existing Commerce clause justification for the drug laws.To be terse, if it can be legally shown that even one case of cannabis has perturbed interstate commerce - not hard to do in a prohibition environment - then ALL cases of cannabis anywhere in the nation become magically subject to the Interstate Commerce Clause. You as adults take a toke and pass the doobie to your adult friend in the privacy of your home: never mind. As far as the courts have interpreted the law, you have violated the Interstate Commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution and are subject to criminal rebuke. So saith the courts, not me. :)Perhaps there's a lawyer reading this who could flesh out my layman explanation. Tim Stone
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #4 posted by observer on August 09, 2000 at 14:51:55 PT
Reading Material
Like all the Cold Warriors who never read Das Kapital, many count it as a badge of ideological purity that they never have read anything produced by a reformer, for fear of contamination'. And they never will.Speaking of the devil (and contamination) ... I just got a copy of Peggy Mann's 1985 classic (?) "Marijuana Alert." Chock full o'lies from cover to cover, of course, yet it is is still useful when frothing drug warriors start to quote Dr Voth, or talk about "Dr Heath's" cannibis-damaged monkeys. You can look up the lies in this book and track the prevaricator over time. This book contains every Reefer-Madness myth, and then some! This gem even has a number of pages devoted to one of our favorite drug warriors: Joyce ("Comrade") Nalepka. (Apparently, she became a concerned little mother when she took her 9-year old to a Kiss concert in the 70's, and -- horrors! -- people were taking marijuana!)
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #3 posted by kaptinemo on August 09, 2000 at 13:39:32 PT:
This ought to be copied
and nailed on the front door of the DEA, FBI, ONDCP, and every other Fed DrugWar den of anti-Constitutional iniquity. Pity that so many of those people will refuse to read it. You would all but have to Superglue it to their foreheads, and they *still* wouldn't read it. Like all the Cold Warriors who never read Das Kapital, many count it as a badge of ideological purity that they never have read anything produced by a reformer, for fear of 'contamination'. And they never will. (I gave up trying long ago; like Thomas Jefferson said, they have 'divorced the use of reason'; trying to argue with such has all the 'usefulness of administering medicine to the dead.') The push for change will have to come from the courts a la the Breyer decision, or by medical groups lobbying Congress, or by the California Solution...referendums. Enough of those, and the Feds will cave. They're feeling the wind speed of a storm that's been building force since 1937, and their house of cards is shaking. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #2 posted by Kanabys on August 09, 2000 at 13:21:27 PT
A little pestimistic
Well, the way I see it, even if they did read this GREAT article, they would just claim the author is on DOPE!!! 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #1 posted by Ethan Russo, MD on August 09, 2000 at 12:17:49 PT:
More Required Reading for Legislators
Great piece. If only we could get legislators to read this kind of material, and attempt to understand how they are perverting the system with bad law and its disastrous results.
[ Post Comment ]

Post Comment


Name: Optional Password: 
E-Mail: 
Subject: 
Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]
Link URL: 
Link Title: