cannabisnews.com: Supreme Court's Reefer Madness Supreme Court's Reefer Madness Posted by FoM on May 15, 2001 at 07:50:25 PT By Joel Miller Source: WorldNetDaily In the rush to cure all the ills to which humans are heir, liberty is too often an innocent bystander -- and an accidental casualty. --Barry Goldwater, 1964 The Supreme Court handed in their black robes for brown shirts yesterday, as that formerly august body decided 8-0 against medical marijuana, ruling that federal law trumps state initiatives to legalize the substance for treatment of illnesses such as AIDS, cancer, multiple sclerosis and glaucoma. "It is clear from the text of the Controlled Substance Act that Congress has made a determination that marijuana has no medical benefits worthy of an exception," Clarence Thomas wrote for the unanimous majority. Had Justice Stephen Breyer not recused himself because his brother, U.S. District Court Judge Charles Breyer, presided over the initial case, it probably would have been a 9-0 ruling. Charles Breyer sided with government lawyers against medical marijuana when he heard the case. "The Supreme Court's ruling against medical marijuana was no surprise, and it shouldn't be held against the court," wrote Andrew Sullivan in his May 14 Daily Dish column at AndrewSullivan.com. "The ruling clearly defers to a congressional statute, which clearly outlaws medical use of marijuana." The ruling may be no surprise, but Sullivan is still wrong about at least one thing: Of course it should be held against the court. Apparently, Clarence Thomas and Co. forgot a slightly more important statute than the Controlled Substance Act -- the Constitution of the United States! Remember that one? I think it's still mentioned in high-school civics classes. Grab a copy if you have one handy and open that grand, national operating manual to Article 1, Section 8. This section lays out in very clear terms the enumerated powers of Congress -- what our representatives are permitted to do. (Pay attention, Clarence.) There are not many items listed, and you'll probably notice the striking absence of anything about regulating marijuana -- or any drugs for that matter. It's not in there. Establishing postal roads, declaring war, coining money -- that much is enumerated, but not a word about dope. The reason why this is important can be found by thumbing back a few pages to the Preamble. It states that "We the people … do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States." In other words, the federal government's power is delegated to it by the people; as far as the Constitution is concerned, we set up the central state. Those enumerated powers in Article 1, Section 8, limit the government precisely because they are enumerated -- that's all the power we the people delegated. And just to make sure the Congress would mind its manners, the founders -- most of whom trusted the state as much as a pack of wild dogs -- reiterated what they meant in Amendments 9 and 10 to the Constitution. Amendment 9: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Amendment 10 (the one Bob Dole claimed he kept a copy of in his suit pocket but obviously never read while in Congress): "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." In short, the Supreme Court got it exactly backwards. The right to control substances for any purpose, medical or otherwise, is nowhere given to the feds in the Constitution -- which means it's up to the states to decide, not Congress. The Controlled Substance Act can't trump state initiatives to legalize pot because the states trump the feds wherever a governing role is not clearly given to the boys of the Potomac, and none is. Instead of siding with government lawyers, the Supreme Court should have simply ruled that no federal law has been broken because there's no legitimate federal law. So I say Sullivan is wrong. We should blame the court. We must blame the court. The Supreme Court did much more than rule against medical marijuana yesterday. It validated and empowered the bastard state -- the illegitimate, ham-fisted authority that is slowly choking the life of our constitutional republic. Tarring and feathering the noble justices in effigy might be a nice place to start in response to this outrage -- it's a very founding fathers sort of thing to do, in fact. But where we need to focus is where Sullivan is dead-on right, in saying this ruling is "a pretty obvious case of conservative hypocrisy on states' rights." States rights, said Barry Goldwater, "is a check on the steady accumulation of massive power in the hands of national bureaucrats. In these days of 'instant crisis,' both real and manufactured, it may be the only effective check." Not effective enough apparently. These days, when jackboots replace wingtips on the bench, states rights get the heel, and statist absolutism kicks genuine federalism out the door into the cold dark night. "Let us never forget that it was our sovereign states that joined in a compact of defined and limited national powers to forward the general welfare, and to preserve and enhance the freedom of every single American," said Goldwater. "We must not now abandon this wise blueprint of freedom and balanced authority." Goldwater said that back in 1964. I only hope we're not too late. Joel Miller is the commentary editor of WorldNetDaily. His publishing company, MenschWerks,recently published "God Gave Wine" by Kenneth L. Gentry Jr. Due to time constraints, he cannot get back to every reader's e-mail, but he does enjoy receiving feedback, both pro and con -- swears that's what keeps the joy in it. Source: WorldNetDaily (US Web)Author: Joel MillerPublished: May 15, 2001Copyright: 2001, WorldNetDaily.com, Inc.Contact: letters worldnetdaily.comWebsite: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/Related Articles & Web Site:Oakland Cannabis Buyer's Cooperativehttp://www.rxcbc.org/Let Them Eat Chemo - Salon.comhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9722.shtmlJustices Bar Medical Defense for Distribution http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9721.shtmlCourt Rules Against Medical Marijuana http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9716.shtmlA Nauseating Ruling - Salon.comhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9715.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #12 posted by Erik on May 28, 2001 at 07:14:22 PT: Four and Twenty There are many more than 8 people that can get MJ from the Feds. But as i hear it the MJ you get from the government is crap compared to the quality of the street. The whole point of having a Congress is having elected officials speaking in our best interest. But when they switch to speaking in their best interest I would think that it is time to take back our government. [ Post Comment ] Comment #11 posted by freedom fighter on May 15, 2001 at 18:43:32 PT I had to smile... All that headlines...Thanks Frances,Your headline make sense...Reefer Gladness....It shall happen in about two years or so..You said it frances.. thanks.. [ Post Comment ] Comment #10 posted by zion on May 15, 2001 at 15:15:20 PT Catch-22 and bureaucratic stalling Isn't the inconsistency the result of a catch-22/bureaucratic manuevering? My understanding of the Controlled Substances Act is that Congress explicitly scheduled marijuana as Schedule I with the proviso that at the current time there were no recognized medical uses. It also provided the mechnaisms to have federal supervised clinical studies to explore the medical efficacy of cannabis. Problem is, the feds made it a political game and stopped approving all medical studies that didn't look promising to reinforce the Schedule I classification. The 8 people currently receiving MJ from the feds are grandfathered under CSA.What's even worse is where the medical authority resides for Scheduling under CSA. It doesn't rest with the medical community, it's under administrative control with the DEA (the "enforcement" agency created by the executive branch to comply withthe CSA Congressional Law). If I'm not mistaken, the scheduling was challenged a few years ago and DEA's own administrative judge recommended re-scheduling marijuana, but the agency bureaucracy rejected that recommendation.So, many members of the medical community are in favor or re-scheduling, the DEA's own administrative judge recommends re-scheduling, the government's own Institute of Medicine study recognizes the medical use of marijuana, and where does the roadblock exist? In Congress and the other federal bureaucracies who have made politics out of this issue.And they wonder why the citizens have taken to referendum at the state level....-z [ Post Comment ] Comment #9 posted by Ethan Russo, MD on May 15, 2001 at 13:45:49 PT: No Time for the Truth There was not time in 30 minutes to confront the Supreme Court with all the pertinent information. Additionally, do you think that they'd care? There have been numerous federal suits, notably the rescheduling petition by Jon Gettman, that have discussed this obvious inconsistency in US policy, but that is passed off in the same manner that Congress utilized in saying that cannabis is Schedule I because we say so, and we'll ignore all evidence to the contrary. There will be a major article and publicity regarding the legal patients to inaugurate 2002, which I hope will be the year that the prohibition deal goes down to an ignominious and blazing death. [ Post Comment ] Comment #8 posted by Robbie on May 15, 2001 at 13:35:16 PT Dr. Russo I was wondering if you might know why the fact of the eight people receiving cannabis from the Federal government, why this was not brought up at the SC hearing? How can they get away with saying "the federal government will not recognize medical necessity when it comes to the sale or distribution of marijuana" yet at the same time the federal government does the same thing. How was that rectified to support the unanimous decision against medical efficacy? [ Post Comment ] Comment #7 posted by Ethan Russo, MD on May 15, 2001 at 12:36:53 PT: AOCP A personal letter would be far better. I got 2 thank you notes for my copies of Journal of Cannabis Therapeutics. [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by aocp on May 15, 2001 at 12:30:28 PT Is there any way... ... to contact the sc justices individually (email or snailmail) to ask them (repeatedly, if necessary) why they did not interpret the Constitution in the manner prescribed above? No legal jargon. Just a forthright, honest answer would do. I know i'm dreaming, but wouldn't it be cool? :) [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by kaptinemo on May 15, 2001 at 12:23:13 PT: I'm afraid I'm at a loss, too... I had a feeling that Frances would show up to gloat, but she's completely off, this time. (But given her past postings, I guess we should expect that.)"Reefer Gladness"? If I am reading Mr. Miller's article correctly, he is scathingly lambasting the Supreme Court. I can't detect a single amount of frivolity in it to indicate 'gladness'.Frances, dear Frances, perhaps you should get some professional help for your seemingly confused state of mind. [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by kaptinemo on May 15, 2001 at 12:11:40 PT: An argument too true for some... Kudos to Mr. Miller; he must have been a carpenter in an earlier life. He's pounded the proverbial nail dead-square-center.The problem is, of course, the enormous political inertia - and 'vested (law enforcement, pharmaceutical corporations, conniving bureaucrats, spineless pols who built their 'reutations' on being 'tough on drugs' etc.) interests' - in maintaining the presently unConstitutionally accreted powers of the Federal government prevents many pols from even questioning the unwarranted nature of it. In my own home State of Maryland, when the issue of MMJ came up in the state legislature, several of the pols begged off with a pained, disingenuous whine that they 'can't see themselves going up against the Federal Government!'. Completely forgetting that in the final analysis, we - you and I - are the governemnt. We just haven't been sufficiently pissed off enough to forcibly remind the pols of this fact. But we've just been given our chance. What we do with it is up to us. [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by Morgan on May 15, 2001 at 10:35:12 PT ?????????? I think she's been at the cooking sherry again ... tsk tsk... maybe we should just let her sleep it off.******************************************************** [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by dddd on May 15, 2001 at 10:24:12 PT Come again??? Wonderful FrancesPerhaps years of Marijuana use has clouded my understanding.I reluctantly admit that I have no idea what it is that you are sayingin your comment.It's probably really obvious,and I will end up feelingstupid,,but could you please clarify what you mean?Thank YouSincerely.......dddd [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by Frances on May 15, 2001 at 10:00:37 PT: Reefer Gladness Gentle Tokers:You say the Supreme Court is indulging in Reefer Madness - I say that WorldnetDaily & Joel Miller are indulging in REEFER GLADNESS! [ Post Comment ] Post Comment Name: Optional Password: E-Mail: Subject: Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message] Link URL: Link Title: