cannabisnews.com: States' Rights Isn't Just for Reactionaries





States' Rights Isn't Just for Reactionaries
Posted by FoM on August 31, 2000 at 21:11:53 PT
By James P. Pinkerton
Source: Newsday (NY)
The Supreme Court decision Tuesday barring distribution of medical marijuana in California is a reminder to the political left that the federal government -specifically, the judiciary -is no automatic ally. The political right, of course, has long seen the feds as a foe. So now maybe both ends of the spectrum will see that the real enemy is a one- size-fits-all approach to national governance. "This is about more than just marijuana," Dennis Peron, a Bay Area-based medical marijuana activist, told the Los Angeles Times yesterday. 
"It's about the Supreme Court interfering with states' rights." Whoa. "States' rights?" That's a blast from the past. In 1948, South Carolina's Strom Thurmond ran for president as a States' Rights Democrat, denying that the federal government had any ground to interfere with de jure segregation in Dixie. With such precedents in mind, it's little wonder that when most Americans hear "states' rights," they hear code words for reaction. But that's not the whole story. One can insist on minimum national standards for, say, civil rights, and still see the value of the 50 states prototyping different methods of problem-solving. David Osborne, the godfather of the "reinventing government" movement, set the tone for a revival of state-by-state experimentation in his 1990 book, "Laboratories of Democracy: A New Breed of Governor Creates Models for National Growth." Osborne highlighted the economic-development efforts of such up-and-comers as then-Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton. It was Clinton himself who argued, during the 1992 campaign, that new ideas, from outside the Beltway, were needed to overcome the "braindead gridlock" of the capital. In the '90s, the states have enacted new approaches to issues all across the political spectrum, from term limits to gay and lesbian civil unions, from tax cuts to spending increases, from school choice to school uniforms, from gun control to "concealed carry" gun permits, from campaign finance reform to voting by mail or even Internet. And the diverse beat goes on. At a time when many Americans, especially along the Mexican border, are worried about too many immigrants, Iowa, worried about having too few people, is calling itself an "immigration enterprise zone." The landlocked Hawkeye State now wants to be the Ellis Island of the prairie. It may seem ironic that Clinton-the first product of the Swinging Sixties to sit in the Oval Office, the erstwhile try-new-things governor-now backs national drug czar Barry McCaffrey as he seeks to squelch California's new approach to the drug issue. Four years ago, Golden State voters enacted Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act, authorizing nonprofit groups to distribute marijuana to doctor-certified medical patients. Yet McCaffrey & Co. view such "cannabis clubs" as the thin edge of the wedge, as a tactic used by legalization advocates to bring marijuana into the mainstream. And at the federal Department of Justice's urging, the Supreme Court agreed, voting 7-1-including Clinton appointee Ruth Bader Ginsberg in the majority-to shut down medical marijuana distribution. Coincidentally, as the Supreme Court issued its ruling, Clinton was on his way to Colombia, where the federal government is about to spend an additional $1.3 billion on an increasingly quagmirish drug war. And when President I-Didn't-Inhale comes home, he'll be walking free-as the prisons bulge with 2 million inmates, the bulk of them there for drug-related offenses. No doubt most Americans support Clinton's drug efforts. But not all do. And that's where the question of states' rights comes in. Should California have the option of going in a different direction from the rest of the nation on drug policy? Is the national interest really served by imposing a toughest-common-denominator policy on the entire country? Today, Utah, with less than 2 million people, has more influence on national drug policy than California, with 30 million people. Why? Because Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch, a drug hawk, chairs the Judiciary Committee, through which every federal judge must be confirmed. But it doesn't have to be this way. It's possible to imagine a decentralized system in which the states would be free, or at least freer, to go their own way on all manner of social policy, to the left, to the right, or to wherever. Call it "states' rights," call it "federalism," or call it, simply, "diversity." By any name, it would smell sweet, because the real word for it is "freedom." James P. Pinkerton's E-mail Address is: pinkerto ix.netcom.comPublished: Thursday August 31, 2000 Source: Newsday (NY)Copyright: 2000, Newsday Inc.Contact: letters newsday.comFax: (516)843-2986Website: http://www.newsday.com/Related Articles & Web Site:Californians for Compassionate Usehttp://www.marijuana.org/Official Reefer Madnesshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread6894.shtmlFeds' Needless Pot War http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread6889.shtmlCannabisNews Medical Marijuana Archives:http://cannabisnews.com/news/list/medical.shtml 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #2 posted by kaptinemo on September 01, 2000 at 05:14:43 PT:
'Silent leges enim inter arma'
Free translation: Law stands mute under force of arms. In other words, he who has the guns gets to say what the law is.State's Rights. As the author pointed out, that's been used too often in the past for ignoble purposes. But the reason for *why* it was ignoble is gone; it's time to re-evaluate what used to be a given: that the government must always be heavily centralized. That's why we have the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Bill of Rights; to prevent any one section of government from gaining the upper hand over the others. Because it is arguable (just look at the WoSD!) that sometimes, too much Federalism is a very bad thing, too. The pendulum of government has swung too far into the realm of centralization, where totalitarianism resides. Its time to take a step back and ask whether we really want to pay that kind of price - ostenisibly, to 'save the chil-drun!' I don't think they'd thank us for saddling them with despotism.The recent dictatorial behavior of the Supreme Court in running roughshod over the democratically mandated law voted for by the citizens of the Great State of California is a perfect example of Federalism run amok. I repeat: the citizens of California *voted*. They exercised their sovereign franchise as citizens of this nation. And the government has done everything it can to *nullify* that franchise. Up to and including MURDER; what happened to Peter McWilliams was no *accident*, it was *planned*, with 'malice aforethought', to have a chilling effect upon all reformers. To make you 'think twice' before 'bucking the system'. Amazing, isn't it? Pundits bemoan the fact that very few registerd voters...vote. They decry the fact that for many, apathy is a verb, rather than an a noun. Yet when you *do* vote for something the government is against, the government does everything it can to derail the democratic process it so loudly trumpets.In doing so, it endangers the very foundation of representative government. It threatens to send us over the precipice into the same nether world populated by what we condescendingly refer to as 'banana repbulics'. AND IN TURN, DESTROYS ITS' OWN CLAIM TO LEGITIMACY. Do we really want to jump into that morass?
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #1 posted by FoM on August 31, 2000 at 21:41:44 PT
Breaking News!
Senator Pulls Back Medical Marijuana Bill After Court Ruling Thursday, August 31, 2000 ©2000 Associated Press URL: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2000/08/31/state2306EDT0314.DTL (08-31) 20:06 PDT SACRAMENTO (AP) -- A U.S. Supreme Court ruling barring distribution of marijuana for medical purposes in California has prompted a senator to drop a bill that would create an ID card for medical marijuana patients. Californians voted in 1996 to legalize marijuana use under a doctor's care. Federal officials have refused to recognize Proposition 215, however, saying state laws do not apply to federal drug offenses. The U.S. Supreme Court earlier this week granted an emergency Clinton administration request that it block the Oakland Cannibis Club from distributing marijuana. Though justices did not rule directly on Proposition 215's constitutionality, Sen. John Vasconcellos said Thursday that the decision ``seriously poisoned the political environment'' and doomed his bill in this election year. The Santa Clara Democrat's proposal would require the state Department of Health Services to give medical marijuana ID cards to qualified patients who requested them and establish procedures for the medical use of marijuana. Vasconcellos said he would try again next year. On the Net: Read Vasconcellos' bill, SB848, on the Senate's Web site a: http://www.sen.ca.gov/©2000 Associated Press  
[ Post Comment ]

Post Comment


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