Body and Soul of Federalism

  Body and Soul of Federalism

Posted by CN Staff on January 15, 2005 at 22:15:33 PT
By David Marion 
Source: Washington Times  

The Supreme Court is wrestling again this term with several cases that draw a line between the national and state spheres. These "federalism" cases, usually involving the commerce clause or the 10th Amendment and the principle of state sovereign immunity, have caused some of the last decade's most contentious exchanges on the Rehnquist court.   At one level, federalism can be visualized in division-of-labor terms. The national government is empowered, for example, to regulate interstate commerce, while the states have long been recognized as enjoying the authority to protect the health, morals, safety and welfare of the people.
Such a division of labor can be defended on efficiency grounds, that is, as a structural arrangement assigning responsibilities to governments based on their ability to carry out tasks effectively and/or to maximize the satisfaction of citizen preferences. The late Justice Hugo Black defended this "balancing-of-interests" principle with considerable vigor.   Pursuit of material comfort and general equality, and the interconnection of both with globalism, combine to create considerable pressure for assigning more tasks to the national government. If the object is to facilitate economic growth and pervasive equality, national superintendence of the economy and lifestyle decisions seems rational.   The federal government's authority to regulate interstate commerce has for several decades been interpreted as the power to protect the national economy and, according to Justices Stephen Breyer and John Paul Stevens, anything connected to it, including education and sexual assaults.   In short, if Americans abstract from traditional "quality of life" considerations, or just diminish the weight they give them, they become vulnerable to appeals based on the utility of national oversight of an increasing range of activities.   Restrictions on the interstate delivery of wines to private parties by some states, an issue taken up by the Supreme Court in early December, could easily be attacked as barriers to beneficial economic activity. Texas officials had to confront a similar argument recently in a case involving Dow Chemical's challenge to the state's labeling requirements.   A single labeling requirement certainly makes it easier for companies to market their products more profitably for themselves and more cheaply for consumers than 51 requirements. To say this argument resonates with people in hot pursuit of comfortable preservation is an understatement -- and this exposes the dangers to the federal system today.   Whether the issue is state regulation of imported wines or of lifestyle decisions, practices that heighten the status of the states within the constitutional system are coming under increasing attack in the name of efficiency and/or equality.   Significantly, the importance of preserving the states as independent political entities charged with overseeing many of the people's day-to-day affairs was fully appreciated by leading Founders like James Madison. In fact, a person does not have to be a proponent of state sovereignty or a defender of the excesses associated with the old "states rights" movement to believe good things can happen when important powers are reserved to the states.   A persuasive "quality of life" argument can be made for reserving a major role for the states in our constitutional system. Leaving important responsibilities with the states provides the American people with many opportunities to become "big fish in little ponds." Civic engagement fosters traits (e.g., collaboration, self-restraint, compassion, political literacy, etc.) essential to a decent as well as competent democratic order. In addition to promoting good civic virtues, decentralized decision-making improves the likelihood governmental decisions will address the real (not just perceived) needs of the people.   In short, federalism is good for the soul as well as the body. This is not to say local or state officials, or the people themselves, may not make bad choices. Nor is it to say the Constitution should not set any outer boundaries to state action. It does mean, however, that the benefits of giving states and localities the chance to make important choices very likely will outweigh the costs of the Founders' decision to divide power among as well as within governments.   To be sure, it can be difficult to assign tasks to local, state and federal agencies. The court faces such a difficulty in Ashcroft vs. Raich, a case involving a clash between the Controlled Substances Act and California's Compassionate Use Act that permits seriously ill Californians to use marijuana for medical purposes on the advice of their physicians.   While the supremacy clause and a broad reading of the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce might counsel a ruling that the federal law trumps California's measure, prudence or "political wisdom" suggests entrusting to the people of the states fairly wide discretion to establish reasonable rules for health, morality and lifestyle issues.   Variations in rules on these matters, as with physician-assisted suicide, might have some "costs," but they are not unbearable. And the benefits for our democratic nation can be considerable.   It is not far-fetched to argue that preserving the bona fides of the federal system is critically important to ensuring a high quality democratic order in the United States.   While judicial officials are not empowered to make policy, they clearly are positioned to point the country in a healthy direction when competing appeals to the Constitution are not easily resolved by bright-line principles. This kind of judicial "statesmanship" is needed in cases involving the federal system to preserve the American republic as a model of civilized democracy for the rest of the world.     David Marion is Director of the Wilson Center for Leadership in the Public Interest and Elliott Professor of Political Science at Hampden-Sydney College.  Source: Washington Times (DC)Author: David MarionPublished: January 16, 2005Copyright: 2005 News World Communications, Inc. Website: letters washingtontimes.comRelated Articles & Web Site:Angel Raich v. Ashcroft News'I Really Consider Cannabis My Miracle' Expectations - San Francisco Bay Guardian and The Constitution

Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help


Comment #30 posted by global_warming on January 17, 2005 at 14:43:21 PT

OT:Monsanto sues American farmers
"Monsanto Co.'s "seed police" snared soy farmer Homan McFarling in 1999, and the company is demanding he pay it hundreds of thousands of dollars for alleged technology piracy."What is the price for all this technology?Maybe the corn is bigger and tastes better, but the question of genetically modified foods linger on.When these legal whizzes got together in our court system, and decided that it was perfectly legal to "patent" life forms, this was the greatest crime ever perpetuated on this human race.If one followed the money trail, the guilty would be exposed for the rot and corruption that still drips on their smiling faces, for they cannot hide their guilt, they cannot hide their glut.I hope you young ones are listening, for it is your world that is being hijacked, it will be you that will become a slave in this maniacal world, where every inch of food will be measured and accounted for, every inch of your existence will be recorded and there will no place to hide for some privacy.There will be no escape, once you have paid them everything you have, then they lock you in a
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #29 posted by freedom23 on January 17, 2005 at 14:29:02 PT

Comment #23 - Editorial by Tom Oleson
Oleson sounds like a whack job. He's against medical marijuana but says there's "no science that would convince anyone ... that secondhand [tobacco] smoke is seriously bad for anybody". I guess the RNC are supporting right wing trolls in Winnipeg. you want to complain you could send email to:Rudy Redekop - President - rudy.redekop freepress.mb.caMurdoch Davis - Publisher - murdoch.davis freepress.mb.caGood catch afterburner.
"Bullsh*t: Penn & Teller" vs the War on Drugs
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #28 posted by FoM on January 17, 2005 at 14:04:56 PT

afterburner an Ostrich
We don't see what we don't want to see and that way it isn't our problem. We bury our head. If we didn't boy would we be ashamed.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #27 posted by afterburner on January 17, 2005 at 14:00:13 PT

Charity Begins at Home
So much money is being collected and sent to tsunami victims around the world, and God bless. Yet, we let our own children starve! What the h*ll is the matter with people?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #26 posted by siege on January 17, 2005 at 13:38:36 PT

It's the RED HEN story all over again: all there doing is taking our heritage!they teach them to give every thing to each other this could be good if it started at home first. ((30,000 kids in U.S.A. age 1-15 don't have some thing to eat at home and go hungry 
for days on end. The gov't. wants them to think they are to get it from them to be happy)):-
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #25 posted by Hope on January 17, 2005 at 10:31:38 PT

That DeWeese article reminded me of a Sunday School lesson I once taught. It was in the book from the Southern Baptist Convention.I don't recall the exact title of the lesson, but at some point I and it asked the students, "Have you ever been made to feel like a criminal?"That's the truth. It was interesting when the students in my small class each commented on the question. One girl said that "Yes.", she had been made to feel like criminal at one point in her short life. One of her siblings piped up, "You should!"I'd like to find that old Sunday School book and review it to see what the point of it was.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #24 posted by siege on January 17, 2005 at 07:42:53 PT

With stethoscopes and nature's remedies
 Now licensed in California, naturopaths hope to win some respect.
"Triglycerides, cholesterol, my blood sugar, he helped me get all those in line without any drugs," said Taraviras, 40, a private investigator in Seattle. YOUR CHURCH TEACHING PAGAN EARTH WORSHIP IN SUNDAY SCHOOL?These programs are designed for a very specific purpose to change the attitudes, values and beliefs of your children in order to prepare them to be proper environmental citizens in the “sustainable” global village. Such behavior-modification programs are the very root of the destruction of America's public education system.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #23 posted by afterburner on January 17, 2005 at 00:36:16 PT

Please Take Action, Friends
CN BC: Column: She's My Kind of Canadian{Note: from MAP: We rarely comment on news clippings, but make an exception in this case. We have known Mr. Kubby, a MAP supporter, from the earliest days of our organization. The amazing fiction about Steve Kubby, below, calls for letters to the editor, please. The clueless 'columnist' states "Marijuana's medical value is similar to Aspirin's" when in fact for many, while it may not cure their medical condition, it may prevent it from taking their life - keep them from going blind - or otherwise provide benefits like legal medicines which also may not cure anything. This is the case, well supported by medical experts, for Mr. Kubby's rare form of adrenal cancer. Cannabis has for many years prevented the cancer from killing him. Twice he came near death during just a few days stay in jail without his medicine. Please see the Kubby website for more details 
Bookmark: (Kubby, Steve) }BTW, She's [Krisztina Gal] My Kind of Canadian too, but that is no reason to malign Steve Kubby with prejudiced epithets and untrue medical assessments, "Dr." Tom Oleson, not!I hope Krisztina Gal and Steve Kubby both get fair and humane treatment by Canadian Immigration in a country (Canada) not afraid to call itself *liberal*!"As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality." 
George Washington (1732 - 1799) "Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant, and a fearful master." 
George Washington (1732 - 1799) --Quotation Search - Quote Search - The Quotations Page Washington! Perhaps you've heard of him?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #22 posted by laduncon on January 16, 2005 at 23:43:38 PT:

The Unwinnable War on Dangerous Drugs
Came across this article in the Financial Times today.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #21 posted by siege on January 16, 2005 at 19:57:49 PT

drug warriors, had their CB1 receptors blocked 
 Mice lacking the CB1 receptors don't like any changes. If they are moved to another part of the cage they act upset and when they are put back to the original spot in the cage they relax, but if then put into another part of the cage they get upset again. Comment: I wonder if people, especially drug warriors, had their CB1 receptors blocked then they would resist change and the ones of us that have unblocked CB1 receptors enjoy the benefits of cannabinoids are a lot more relaxed and not paranoid about or over change. Interesting thought. It turns out that that thought is absolutely correct. Many people' brains are not capable of a good connection to the CB1 CB2 receptors.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #20 posted by The GCW on January 16, 2005 at 18:14:24 PT

Don't even mention, "republican"
US CO: Suthers on drugs   Pubdate: Jan. 13, 2005
Source: Boulder Weekly (CO)Viewed at: 
Suthers on drugs- - - - - - - - - - - - 
by Ari Armstrong
(letters Most everybody loves John Suthers. Nobody questions his motives; indeed, he's taking a pay cut to serve in state political office. The Denver Post predicted his confirmation as attorney general would meet with "little resistance," even though he is a Republican replacing Democrat Ken Salazar, who is headed to the Senate. There is one tiny little problem with Suthers becoming Colorado's top legal official: He promotes existing legislation that dramatically increases crime. Even though the main job of the attorney general is to fight crime, the policies Suthers endorses cause horrendous crime. Even if he works every hour of every day for the rest of his life, the crimes Suthers stops will be as an anthill compared with the mountain of crime that his politics creates. Of course I am talking about drug prohibition. Economist Jeffrey Miron reviews in his new book, Drug War Crimes: The Consequences of Prohibition, "eliminating drug prohibition would reduce homicide in the United States by 25-75 percent." The theory is pretty simple: Prohibition creates a large underground market in which conflicts are resolved by violence rather than by the courts. People who don't use drugs pay through higher taxes, national interference in medicine, increased suffering of loved ones who do use drugs, expenses associated with the violence and illegality and a higher risk of getting caught in the crossfire. Last year, Suthers and I debated drug policy on KBDI. We discussed The New Prohibition, a book to which Miron and I contributed. Suthers made it clear that he is a hardcore prohibitionist. Suthers also testified against a 2002 bill in the Colorado legislature that limited asset forfeiture. Most forfeitures of property involve some allegation of a drug crime. The bill, which passed under the guidance of Republican Shawn Mitchell (now a State Senator from Broomfield), required a criminal conviction in most cases prior to forfeiture. Mitchell debated much of Suthers' testimony but tweaked the bill based on the complaint that an alleged criminal might die prior to conviction. Christie Donner of the Colorado Criminal Justice Reform Coalition (, whom I joined to support Mitchell's bill, expressed the concern that local agencies might simply bring in the feds for the purpose of evading the Colorado law by pursuing federal forfeiture. As Attorney General, Suthers should verify that Colorado agencies do not bypass the requirements of Colorado law. Last year, the Drug Enforcement Agency raided the home of Dana May, an Aurora man who grows marijuana in accordance with state law for medical purposes. The raid occurred under Suthers' watch as U.S. attorney, even though the raid was apparently initiated by local police and the DEA. On May 27, around 20 armed agents stormed the sick patient's home and stole his medicine and growing supplies. Thankfully, May successfully sued to have his growing supplies (but not his medicine) returned. In a letter printed in the Dec. 17 Rocky Mountain News, May claimed, "When asked about my case, Suthers said medical marijuana is nothing more than a smoke screen, an excuse for lifelong pot smokers to get high." Peter Blake, a columnist for that paper, followed up by reporting Suthers will "'absolutely uphold the state law' permitting medical marijuana, even though he may not like it. At least that's what he said... through spokesman Jeff Dorschner." Still, it seems clear that Suthers will resist any break with strict prohibition, and he will follow popular reforms only grudgingly. This is troubling, especially given the office of attorney general is one that can influence policy and launch its holder to higher office. Suthers could not unilaterally repeal prohibition even if he wanted to, so the harms of prohibition cannot be pinned on him alone. Nevertheless, the policies he promotes massively increase crime, violate individual rights and cause a host of related problems. As an enforcer and propagator of unjust laws, Suthers bears some of the responsibility for them. Miron's book is a concise review of the history and economics of prohibition, published by the Independent Institute of California (not to be confused with the similarly named think tank in Golden). Miron concludes, "Prohibition increases violent and nonviolent crime, fosters corruption... reduces the health and welfare of drug users... destroys civil liberties, distorts criminal justice incentives... transfers billions of dollars each year to domestic criminals and enriches foreign revolutionaries who foment terrorism... [and] denies medicine to seriously ill patients and prevents doctors from alleviating the pain of the suffering." Meanwhile, Miron finds, "prohibition reduces drug use only modestly," a goal that can be met more effectively through other means and without the harms of prohibition. When I debated Suthers, I got the feeling he was stuck in the echo-chamber logic of the drug warriors who mistake solidarity for sound argumentation and good evidence. But if Suthers is going to be Colorado's top lawyer, he owes it to the people of the state to learn about the effects of the laws he promotes. Miron's book would be a good place to start. To adapt a refrain that should be familiar to Suthers, ignorance of the consequences of the law is no excuse. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #19 posted by siege on January 16, 2005 at 18:06:54 PT

E_J Statins for Blindness
Y O U R T I M E / H E A L T H / P A G I N G D R . G U P T A Now comes word that statins may help reduce damage from the most common cause of irreversible blindness among older adults in the U.S.--adult macular degeneration, or AMD. About 85% to 90% of patients with AMD have the dry form, in which lesions appear on the macula, the region of the...,10987,1101040426-612386,00.html
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #18 posted by Dankhank on January 16, 2005 at 17:41:52 PT

Night Sight
I read recently that Cannabis improved night vision.Is Macular Degeneration related to Cataracts?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #17 posted by E_Johnson on January 16, 2005 at 17:41:24 PT

Okay here's a theory I'm throwing out
Your CB receptors start wearing out and that's what causes many of the illnesses of old age like cancer and macular degeneration and neurodegeneration and high blood pressure and loss of lean body mass.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #16 posted by E_Johnson on January 16, 2005 at 17:37:34 PT

Do statins cause blindness? >:-0
Macular degeneration is caused by too much VEGF.Little blood vessels start growing inside the eye.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #15 posted by Dankhank on January 16, 2005 at 17:29:56 PT

EJ, great connection, I missed it ...I must search more for Cannabinoids and VEGFThanks ...
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #14 posted by E_Johnson on January 16, 2005 at 17:16:46 PT

siege did you read this part?
VEGF is blocked by cannabinoids, that's one of the ways cannabinoids kill cancer cells. This is verrrry interesting.******************************************************One mechanism by which cholesterol-lowering drugs may cause cancer has been identified. Published in Nature Medicine, Dr. Michael Simons of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston shows that statin drugs mimic a substance known as vascular endothelial growth factors (VEGF). The biochemical VEGF promotes the growth of new blood vessels, a process known as angiogenesis. While angiogenesis may help the growth of arteries, the benefit is quickly negated by the potential for growth of cancer. The British Journal of Cancer reports that VEGF plays an important role in the spread of colorectal cancer. Further, for those who already have tumors, VEGF and compounds that mimic VEGF significantly diminishes that person's survival time.[4] [5]
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #13 posted by siege on January 16, 2005 at 15:34:54 PT

Shane Ellison M. Sc.
December 17, 2005
NewsWithViews.comThe use of cholesterol-lowering drugs for the prevention of heart disease may increase your chances of suffering from the pandemic killer known as cancer. Few doctors are aware of this real and present danger.Well-designed studies have shown the link between cholesterol-lowering drug use and cancer. In a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), Thomas B. Newman MD, MPH and co-workers show that all cholesterol-lowering drugs, both the early drugs known as fibrates (glofibrate, gemfibrozil) and the newer drugs known as statins (Lipitor, Pravachol, Zocor), cause cancer in rodents at the equivalent doses used by man.[1]
1, Newman, Thomas B. et al. Carcinogenicity of Lipid-Lowering Drugs. JAMA. January 3, 1996-Vol 275, No. 1. Evidence from the cholesterol-lowering drug trial known as CARE (Cholesterol And Recurrent Events) showed that Pravachol™ (a cholesterol-lowering drug made by Bristol-Myer Squib) reduced the chance of suffering from a heart attack by an absolute reduction rate of 1.1%. This miniscule benefit was accompanied by a 1500% increase in breast cancer among women taking Pravachol. An increase in cancer rates among Pravachol users was also shown in the drug trial known as PROSPER.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by global_warming on January 16, 2005 at 15:32:09 PT

re:Body and Soul of Federalism
By David Marion If you notice how the writer uses the phrase "Body and Soul" in his title, this might suggest the importance of this moment, and the importance of the current Supreme Courts decision, regarding this important matter.Body and soul is like Heaven and Earth, it is the reflecting pool, the pool of water, it is about us the observer, and like a still pool that is shattered by some dunce that jumps in, and creates, all those ripples, all of those ripples catch and reflect the light of God.We are the birth of God, we are the children that catch and reflect the spirit of this universe.We need to come together and stop all this madness, we need to stop killing each other, we need to understand, we need to end this war on drugs, we need to end this war on each other.We are all together, we are all connected by our understanding and faith, that the world is our proof of belonging, to the greater universe, and that we are all seeking the same truths, we are all bound in the greatest pact, that unfolds before our weary eyes, and as this universe is being born, we can be mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters, in the awakening
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by siege on January 16, 2005 at 13:03:31 PT

 part of CSA
Federal laws and regulations governing controlled substances are intended to ensure the availability and therapeutic benefit of these important drugs while minimizing their nonmedical use. The intent of Congress in developing federal drug control laws was not to regulate medical practice or to inhibit appropriate practice by limiting the medical indications for which these drugs could be used.18 According to one expert,19 federal regulations, primarily those implementing the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (CSA), were not designed or intended to influence the appropriate use of these agents in medical practice. The Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), the federal agency responsible for enforcing the CSA, also states that the regulations were not intended to impose limitations on a physician to administer or dispense the controlled substances "to persons with intractable pain in which no relief or cure is possible or none has been found after reasonable efforts."20 State laws, however, may be more restrictive and often impose limits against practices that are actually considered fully within medical professional standards. In one state, prescribing controlled substances for other than FDA-approved indications is prohibited.18. Shapiro RS. Legal bases for the control of analgesic drugs. J Pain Symptom Management . 1994;9:153-159.
19. Angarola RT, Wray SD. Legal impediments to cancer pain treatment. In: Hill CS, Fields WS, eds.Advances in Pain Research and Therapy. New York, NY. Raven Press; 1989;11.
20. Physicians' Manual. Drug Enforcement Administration, U.S. Department of Justice; July 1985.==================================================================The CSAThe Controlled Substances Act is an anti-drug abuse, law enforcement statute administered by the Attorney General and enforced by the Drug Enforcement Administration ("DEA") which is part of the Department of Justice. 21 U.S.C.A. §801 et seq. (Technically speaking, the CSA encompasses the Federal Mail Order Drug Paraphernalia Control Act discussed below, but for purposes of this memo the two are discussed as distinct statutory schemes.) As its name suggests, the CSA controls the authorized distribution of scheduled drugs, not the distribution of devices. Accordingly, by its terms, the CSA does not purport to regulate access to syringes.Even if one were to ignore the plain language of the CSA and construe the definition of controlled substances to encompass syringes (and there are several reasons why a court would not permit this to occur), {{{the CSA, like the FDCA, does not regulate the practice of medicine, which is left to the states.}}} (The sole exception to this general rule is the CSA's prohibition of the prescription of opioids to maintain an opiate addiction, 21 U.S.C. § 823(g)). Thus, even this implausible reading of the CSA would not authorize DEA officials to second guess the propriety of a physician's prescription of a syringe to an IDU or the pharmacist's filling of that prescription. Put differently, while the DEA can sanction physicians who act contrary to the "public interest", or outside "the usual course of medical practice", or in the absence of a "legitimate medical purpose", see e.g., 21 U.S.C. § 823, historically these standards have been established at the state not the federal level. Thus, the propriety of a physician's prescription practice is an inquiry left traditionally and almost without exception to the states and their medical licensing boards. It is not clear that the DEA has ever sanctioned a physician for prescribing a controlled substance absent a prior finding at the state level that the physician acted improperly or in bad faith. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by afterburner on January 16, 2005 at 11:29:41 PT

US Constitution Put People 1st States 2nd Feds 3rd
Freedom For The Stallion (with guitar chords) Written by Allen Toussaint (the man who arranged the horn section on the Band's Rock of Ages - great songwriter too!)
Recorded by Bob Dylan June 1985 
Tabbed by Eyolf Østrem*****[My favorite version is the one by Edward Bear: 1974 Freedom For the Stallion (Capitol) ]*****Freedom For The Stallion by 
Allen Toussaint 
"Freedom for the stallion
Freedom for the mare and the colt
Freedom for the baby child
Who's not grown old enough to vote.
Lord have mercy, what you gonna do
About the people that are prayin' to you?
Men makin' laws to destroy other men
Made money God, it's a doggone sin.
Oh Lord, you got to help us find a way."Big ships sailin'
Slaves all chained and bound
Headin' for another land
That some cat says he's up and found.
Lord have mercy, what you gonna do
About the people that are prayin' to you?
They got men makin' laws to destroy other men
Made money God, it's a doggone sin.
Oh Lord."Freedom for the stallion
Freedom for the mare and the colt
Freedom for the baby child
That not grown old enough to vote.
Lord have mercy, what you gonna do
About the people that are prayin' to you?
Well, when i look into my mind
It's the truth that i find.
Oh Lord, you gotta help us find a way."Freedom for the stallion
Freedom for the mare and the colt
Freedom for the baby child
Who's not grown old enough to vote.
Lord have mercy what you gonna do
About the people that are prayin' to you?
When i look into my mind
It's the truth that i find.
Oh Lord, you gotta help us find a way." 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by FoM on January 16, 2005 at 09:42:26 PT

I have a terrible time when confusing facts are told to me about issues and political stands on important issues. I really like John Kerry but I like him more for his intelligence and his politeness then anything else. I believe in common sense and there just isn't any in our system no matter what party. They can't answer questions that settle right with me. That's why I don't care about politics but care about causes. The government isn't the answer for everything in my opinion. I appreciate those that do care about politics but I am no way one of them. Just legalize Cannabis and I'll be happy. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by goneposthole on January 16, 2005 at 09:28:50 PT

commerce schmommerce
The Republicans are the soot in the sooted -up system of government. Their neocon buddies are the carbon monoxide replacing the air in your 'dwelling'.Do you feel nauseous?Get headaches from time to time?Have a lingering malaise?Never seem to be up to doing anything?Never seem to get 'much better' over an extended period of time?Severe sinus pain?Tightness in the neck and shoulder areas?Joints become achy, loss of strength.Kind of depressed, you wonder what is wrong?These are symptoms of carbon monoxide poisoning; it's a colorless, odorless deadly noxious gas. Check your furnace. You'll probably find the neocons in there, so look out.It is well worth your time and effort.The neocon blues will go away. You'll feel better.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by FoM on January 16, 2005 at 08:52:17 PT

I'll be calling my sister one day this week and will share your sisters web site. I don't talk to her but a couple times a year and I was planning on a call and if anyone can help it would be her. For a small community this church grew to be very big over a very short time. They have a school for children ( kindergarden thru high school ) who don't want to go to public school and it has a fine reputation. They do a lot of mission work themselves. I think it's around 1500 members. Yes I did read the email from your sister and thank you. One suggestion I do have. Paypal has had problems but accepting a credit card would make it easier for people to contribute if it's possible. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by runruff on January 16, 2005 at 08:27:03 PT:

Compassion is always welcome.
Dear FoM,As we speak my sister is in the Madras reigion of India. Her base of operations is only thirty miles from the west coast of the Indian shore. Our orginization is helping the victums of the tsunami with shelter, cloths, medicine and food. It is always a stuggle to get enough resources to do much as we want to do. If I was not under federal indictment for federal charges of felonous farming I would be there with her but I can't leave the country right now. Please share this with anyone and everyone you can. 100% of all donations plus everything we can possibly give ourselves goes to the cause. My sister is the most loving, caring, person I've ever known. 
She is well deserving of all the help she can get.Did you recieve the e-mail I forwarded to you from her?Namaste 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by afterburner on January 16, 2005 at 07:40:16 PT

A Crazy Quilt, E_J
I scanned through a version of the CSA itself [Erowid Psychoactive Vaults Law United States Controlled Substance Act (CSA) 2001 (US Code Title 21, Chapter 13) ] and some of the Congressional testimony. It's been amended so many times that the law is full of redundant and repetitive verbiage, focusing mostly on punishment, offenses, and lists of controlled substances. The authority is in the hands of the US Attorney General, presumably a lawyer, but I doubt if he has a medical degree. This is the same problem with implementation of many of the state medical cannabis/marijuana laws, including California's, as Dr. Tod Mikuriya has pointed out. I doubt if very many, if any, of the Congresspeople and Senators who voted in this monstrosity have a medical degree. So far, I have not been able to find your *protect the State prohibition or drug control laws* link to the CSA. Harry Anslinger did use this tactic to get states' support for federal prohibition including the Marihuana Tax Act, but that one was declared unconstitutional and replaced by the CSA. One outstanding feature of the CSA is the circle of CSA used as a justification for international treaties, which are then used as further justification for amendments to the CSA leading to more treaties.U.S. Drug Control Timeline (Partial/Edited)
by Fire Erowid{1932 -- Uniform State Narcotic Act
Encouraged states to pass uniform state laws matching the federal Narcotic Drug Import and Export Act. Suggested prohibiting cannabis use at the state level. By 1937 every state had passed laws prohibiting cannabis use.{1933 -- 21st Amendment Repeals Prohibition
Removed the federal ban on production and sales of alcohol and gave control of alcohol laws to the states.{1937 -- Marihuana Tax Act
Made it federally illegal to buy, sell, barter, or give away cannabis without paying a transfer tax. This is the first federal law regulating the possession and sale of cannabis. Declared unconstitutional in 1969 in U.S. vs Timothy Leary.{1938 -- Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
Revised and expanded the Pure Food and Drug Act to require more extensive labelling and safety testing of food products. Introduced safety standards and required that new drugs be shown to be safe before marketing.{1951 -- Boggs Act
Imposed mandatory minimum sentences for those convicted of violating the Narcotic Drug Import and Export Act or the Marihuana Tax Act. These minimums were mostly repealed in 1970.{1956 -- Narcotics Control Act
Also known as the Daniels Act. Further increased penalties and mandatory minimums for violations of existing drug laws.{1965 -- Drug Abuse Control Amendment
Regulated, for the first time, the sale and possession of stimulants, depressants, and hallucinogens. Restricted research into psychoactives such as LSD by requiring FDA approval.{1965–1968 -- Bureau of Drug Abuse Control
Formed under the Dept. of Health, Education, and Welfare. Responsible for enforcing the Drug Abuse Control Amendment.{1968–1973 -- Bureau of Narcotics & Dangerous Drugs
Created by executive order, under the Dept. of Justice, by merging the Federal Bureau of Narcotics and the Bureau of Drug Abuse Control.{1970 -- Controlled Substance Act
Replaced the Drug Abuse Control Amendment. Organized federally regulated drugs (including opiates, coca, cannabis, stimulants, depressants, and hallucinogens) into five schedules with varying restrictions and penalties.{1973 -- Drug Enforcement Administration
Created by executive order under the Dept. of Justice. Combined the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs and several other law enforcement organizations.}You may be on to something, E_J. I'll keep searching when I get a chance.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by paulpeterson on January 16, 2005 at 06:37:54 PT

"Conservative" Republicans championed "states rights" for about 70 years. Then Bush got in. Remember he chimed in for "states rights" about medical marijuana, then got elected and abandoned the turf for the Republicans.However, I don't see the Supremes being able to just jettison their traditions and case law precedents as easily as Bush's willy-nilly change of whims.The last straw, in my opinion, was the judicial "appointment" of Bush by the Supremes in the first place-they deferred to STATES RIGHTS about voting issues. Although their "party" bosses have changed the menu, I don't expect them to all order from the new take out menu.Also, please recall that a few weeks ago, the Supremes actually sided with an entheogen church that wanted to use DMT for Christmas-refusing to stop that practice while the government's appeal is pending before the Supremes. That means another win (judges never reverse their "preliminary" orders).
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by E_Johnson on January 16, 2005 at 00:54:24 PT

Has anyone read the CSA?
I heard a lawyer argue in a court case that the CSA specifically claims its purpose is to aid in the enforcement of STATE DRUG LAWS.Is this true? Is there an argument here that is escaping the world of organized journalism?If this is true, then don't the justices have a purely technical reason for siding with us?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by Taylor121 on January 15, 2005 at 22:42:18 PT

Give the States the Power!
What happened to conservatives, who at one time or another, advocated the rights of the states? Some still exist, and this is where we have to lobby hard on the Federal level if we want marijuana to be de-federalized.
[ Post Comment ]

  Post Comment