Posted on 08/06/2012 12:20:12 PM PDT by grundle
Full title: The biggest current obstacles to medical marijuana are President Obama and the progressives on the Supreme Court
I’m a libertarian, and I think that both medical and recreational marijuana should be legal. That being said, I myself have never smoked marijuana, or tobacco, or been drunk, or used any illegal drug. I do, however, think that it’s completely ridiculous to put non-violent people in jail for using mind altering substances. And I especially detest the idea of the government preventing people from using a medical treatment which has been proven in scientific studies to be beneficial for patients who are suffering from AIDS, cancer, multiple sclerosis, glaucoma, and other medical conditions. I voted for Ron Paul for President in 2008, and I will be voting for Gary Johnson in 2012. The ridiculous “war on drugs” has caused the U.S. incarceration rate to skyrocket in recent decades – to the highest rate of any country in the entire world. Ending the “war on drugs” is my #1 most important political issue.
During the Great Depression, while millions of Americans were hungry, the progressives who controlled the federal government passed laws that were deliberately designed to increase the price of food. For example, they passed a law that limited how much wheat farmers could grow, with the deliberate intent of raising its price. The people who supported this policy referred to themselves as “progressives,” and they had control of the House, the Senate, the Presidency, and the Supreme Court.
A farmer named Roscoe Filburn had grown more wheat than he was legally allowed to grow. However, he never sold the wheat, and it never crossed state lines.
However, even though he never sold the wheat, and even though it never crossed state lines, the progressive majority on the Supreme Court still claimed that his growing of this extra wheat constituted “interstate commerce.”
Of course this ruling is absurd. He did not sell the wheat. The wheat never crossed state lines. Nevertheless, it was ruled as being “interstate commerce.”
This 1942 ruling, called Wickard v. Filburn, massively expanded the power of the federal government. What it meant was that pretty much anything could be considered “interstate commerce,” and that there were no longer any real limits on federal power. Progressives cheered this ruling – conservatives and libertarians were very critical of it.
Flash forward. In 1996, California legalized medical marijuana. This was completely in line with the 10th amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states:
“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.”
Because of the 10th amendment, when the federal government had wanted to outlaw alcohol in the early 20th century, it had to pass the 18th amendment, which gave the federal government the power to outlaw alcohol. Without the 18th amendment, the 10th amendment would have prevented the federal government from outlawing alcohol. The 18th amendment was ratified in 1919, and was later repealed by the 21st amendment in 1933. During the time that alcohol was illegal, it was controlled by organized crime, and was associated with murder, bribing of public officials, and contaminated “bathtub gin” that caused its drinkers to go blind, and sometimes even killed them. In many ways, it was extremely similar to today’s “war on drugs.”
As I said above, in 1996, California legalized medical marijuana, and the 10th amendment supported its right to do so.
A few years later, in California, a woman named Angel Raich was using medical marijuana, which her doctor had deemed necessary in order to save her from suffering from excruciating and life-threatening pain. According to California law, Raich’s medical marijuana was completely legal.
In addition, the medical marijuana that Raich was using was home grown – it had never crossed state lines, and no money had changed hands. So, according to the 10th amendment, it should not have been subject to federal control.
However, even though Raich’s medical marijuana never crossed state lines, and was never sold for money, the United States Supreme court still ruled that Raich’s medical marijuana constituted “interstate commerce.” This ruling, which took place in 2005, is called Gonzales v. Raich. The precedent cited for this ruling is the 1942 case Wickard v. Filburn. Other than the fact that one case was about wheat and the other was about medical marijuana, the two cases are identical.
Thus, the 2005 ruling against medical marijuana is based on policies which were enacted and supported by progressives during the New Deal.
And if we look at how the different Supreme Court justices sided in the 2005 ruling, this becomes even more clear. In the 2005 ruling, every progressive justice on the Supreme court – every one of them, without exception – voted against medical marijuana. They did this – not because they have anything against medical marijuana per se – but instead, because they did not want to overturn Wickard v. Filburn.
So who were the dissenters in the 2005 medical marijuana ruling? The dissenters – those who supported states’ rights on the issue of medical marijuana – were justices O’Connor, Rehnquist, and Thomas.
Imagine that – all the progressives on the court ruled against medical marijuana, while three conservative justices voted in favor of it. Of course it wasn’t the medical marijuana per se that they were ruling on – instead, it was the states’ right to make their own decision on medical marijuana that they were truly ruling on.
Flash forward a few more years. Barack Obama is running for President of the United States. In May 2008, Obama campaign spokesperson Ben LaBolt said that Obama would end DEA raids on medical marijuana in states where it’s legal. I cheered Obama for this. I said to myself that if Obama kept this promise, he would be my favorite president so far during my lifetime. (I was born in 1971).
Also in 2008, Obama said that he supported the
“basic concept of using medical marijuana for the same purposes and with the same controls as other drugs”
and that he was
“not going to be using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws.”
Again, this was fantastic news, and I looked forward to this taking place.
In November 2008, Barack Obama was elected President. He was inaugurated in January 2009.
However, in February 2010, DEA agents raided a medical marijuana grower in Highlands Ranch in Colorado, a state where medical marijuana is legal.
Also in February 2010, DEA agents raided a medical marijuana dispensary in Culver City in California, a state where medical marijuana is legal.
In July 2010, the DEA raided at least four medical marijuana growers in San Diego, California.
Also in July 2010, the DEA raided a medical marijuana facility in Covelo, California.
Then in September 2010, the DEA conducted raids on at least five medical marijuana dispensaries in Las Vegas, Nevada, where medical marijuana is legal.
In 2011, the DEA conducted raids on medical marijuana in Seattle, Washington, West Hollywood, California, and Helena, Montana, all places where it is legal.
In April 2012, the DEA carried out several raids on medical marijuana in Oakland, California.
In February 2012, Rolling Stone magazine wrote that Obama’s war against medical marijuana went
“far beyond anything undertaken by George W. Bush.”
In April 2012, Mother Jones magazine wrote:
“The president campaigned on the promise that he’d stop federal raids on medical marijuana operations that were in compliance with state laws, a vow that Attorney General Eric Holder repeated after the election. But then the Obama administration raided more than 100 dispensaries in its first three years and is now poised to outpace the Bush administration’s crackdown record.”
In May 2012, the Washington Post wrote:
“Obama has become more hostile to medical marijuana patients than any president in U.S. history.”
In May 2012, U.S. Congressperson Nancy Pelosi (D-California) said she had
“strong concerns”
about Obama’s forced closure of five medical marijuana facilities in Pelosi’s congressional district.
In April 2012, commenting on Obama’s crackdown on medical marijuana, U.S. Congressman Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts) said:
“I’m very disappointed… They look more like the Bush administration than the Clinton administration.”
In July 2012, federal prosecutors filed civil forfeiture actions against Harborside Health Center, a medical marijuana dispensary in Oakland, CA, which claims to be the world’s largest, and which claims to serve more than 100,000 medical marijuana patients.
In May 2012, ABC News reported that during Obama’s youth, he often smoked large quantities of recreational marijuana. I’m not upset that Obama did that – but I am upset by his hypocrisy. His marijuana wasn’t even medical – it was recreational. And yet now, he is taking large scale, widespread action to prevent people with AIDS, cancer, multiple sclerosis, glaucoma, and other illnesses, who have prescriptions from their doctors, from using their prescription medicine. This makes me so angry.
In April 2012, federal agents raided Oaksterdam University, an educational institution in Oakland, CA, which teaches people about medical marijuana.
In April 2012, federal agents raided a medical marijuana facility which had been serving 1,500 patients near Lake Elsinore, CA.
In June 2012, the Obama administration filed asset-forfeiture lawsuits against two landlords who rented their buildings to medical marijuana stores in Santa Fe Springs, CA. The Obama administration also sent warning letters which threatened similar legal action to dozens of other, nearby landlords.
During the first seven months of 2012, the DEA shut down 40 medical marijuana dispensaries in Colorado, all of which had been operating in compliance with state and local law.
http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/topics/medical/faqs.aspx?FAQTypeSub=1010&FaqQ=
This is regarding commercial licenses. (I was very suprised to find INSULIN as a disqualifyer). Pot is SPECIFICALLY a “NO” and it would not be a big extension to make it to passeger cars. Keep in mind to just HAVE a CDL means you have to abide by ALL the rules at all times.
__________________
2.
Can CMV drivers be qualified while being prescribed Provigil (Modafinil)?
Provigil (Modafinil) is a medication used to treat excessive sleepiness caused by certain sleep disorders. These sleep disorders are narcolepsy, obstructive sleep apnea/hypopnea syndrome and shift work sleep disorders. Provigil has several concerning side effects such as chest pain, dizziness, difficulty breathing, heart palpitations, irregular and/or fast heartbeat, increased blood pressure, tremors or shaking movements, anxiety, nervousness, rapidly changing mood, problems with memory, blurred vision or other vision changes to name a few. Many drugs interact with Provigil which include over-the-counter medications, prescription medications, nutritional supplements, herbal products, alcohol containing beverages and caffeine. The use of Provigil needs careful supervision. Provigil may affect concentration, function or may hide signs that an individual is tired. It is recommended that until an individual knows how Provigil affects him/her, they may not drive, use machinery or do any activity that requires mental alertness.
Drivers being prescribed Provigil should not be qualified until they have been monitored closely for at least 6 weeks while taking Provigil. The treating physician and the Medical Examiner should agree that the Provigil is effective in preventing daytime somnolence and document that no untoward side effects are present. Commercial motor vehicle drivers taking Provigil should be re-certified annually.
4.
What medical conditions disqualify a commercial bus or truck driver?
The truck driver must be medically qualified to not only drive the vehicle safely, but also to do pre and post trip safety inspections, secure the load and make sure it has not shifted. Bus drivers have different demands.
By regulation, Specific Medically Disqualifying Conditions Found Under 49 CFR 391.41 are Hearing Loss, Vision Loss, Epilepsy and Insulin Use.
Drivers who require a Diabetes or Vision exemption to safely drive a CMV in addition to those pre-printed on the certification form are disqualified until they receive such an exemption.
81.
Can a CMV driver be disqualified for using a legally prescribed drug?
Although the driver has a legal prescription, he/she may be disqualified if the medication could adversely affect the driver’s ability to drive a CMV safely.
88.
Can a driver be qualified if taking prescribed medical marijuana?
No. Drivers taking medical marijuana cannot be certified.
All states have a reporting requirement. Some are mandatory some are discretionary. There is precident for pulling a license.
You also have to consider how legislators can EASILY make license forfeiture automatic under impairment rules. Insurance companies can have specific exclusions (as with other criminal acts) which makes a pot head a de facto unlicense driver in a mandatory insurance state.
The other option is to adjust the impairment rules to the point where ANY trace of use will be presumed a violation. You also adjust the testing rules to allow for a test time longer than two house as with DWI/DUI.
Either way, the trend to to say pot means no license, period. (see Ghandi and “you win” , so laugh it up)
__________
Pills are slow-onset, so it's difficult to adjust the dose to the minimum required at the time (aka titration); they're hard for nausea patients to keep down; and Marinol contains only one of marijuana's active ingredients. Marinol may be best for some, but certainly not for all.
Pot ‘dispensaries’ are populated by aging hippies and youngsters who are dopers
Irrelevant to the medical usefulness of marijuana.
OK.
All states have a reporting requirement. Some are mandatory some are discretionary. There is precident for pulling a license.
You also have to consider how legislators can EASILY make license forfeiture automatic under impairment rules. Insurance companies can have specific exclusions (as with other criminal acts) which makes a pot head a de facto unlicense driver in a mandatory insurance state.
The other option is to adjust the impairment rules to the point where ANY trace of use will be presumed a violation. You also adjust the testing rules to allow for a test time longer than two house as with DWI/DUI.
Nobody said it's impossible to medical pot grounds for losing a license, so I don't know what point you're trying to make.
Either way, the trend to to say pot means no license, period.
What "trend"?
I have three acquaintances who use medical marijuana:
1. Had a blood cancer. Treatment made him nauseous. Now in remission for two years. Hasn’t had any treatment in 18 months. Still gets his marijuana.
2. Had back problems. Debilitating. Most pain meds ineffective. Plays in a flag-football league and shares his stash with his teammates.
3. She has MS. Her symptoms have not improved, but she really enjoys her medicine while soaking in her hot tub.
Other stories abound about friendly doctors prescribing it to their friends for phantom pain management, anorexia, and various other questionable ailments.
While I am sure there are some who use medical marijuana because it is the only effective treatment for what ails them, I am also sure that there are few if any checks to see if ongoing “treatment” is necessary.
While I am sure there are some who use medical marijuana because it is the only effective treatment for what ails them, I am also sure that there are few if any checks to see if ongoing “treatment” is necessary.
So what's the answer? Throw the baby out with the bathwater by denying medical marijuana to all, even those for whom it is the only effective treatment for what ails them?
Nope. Just as I cannot get Vicodin or Oxy for forever, there should be some guidelines implement by the states for follow up. Seems that in many states there is no limit on how long one can receive this prescription, nor are there standards for efficacy.
Nope.
Good to hear - that would be immoral.
Just as I cannot get Vicodin or Oxy for forever, there should be some guidelines implement by the states for follow up. Seems that in many states there is no limit on how long one can receive this prescription, nor are there standards for efficacy.
Me, I don't have a problem with leaving medical decisions up to doctors and their patients - even if that system is "abused" by people getting recreationally euphoric without hangovers or vomiting.
suppositiories are fast acting
“Good point. Also, I’ve been prescribed medicines - including an anti-inflammatory - whose labels warn ‘do not drive after taking’ but I haven’t had my license suspended.”
I am on nerve-pain medicines. Among the many possible side affects, to varying degrees, can be: light headedness, dizziness, blurred vision, sleepiness (for example) - though no law in my state requires that I register these prescriptions with the DMV and have my driving privileges suspended “for medical reasons”.
Just like some other major medicines that warn of “drowsiness”, I know I must be careful and proactive about watching the side affects of my medicines, just as any consumer of alcoholic beverages must be when it comes to how many and what type of alcoholic beverages they’ve had before they hit the road. Why should medical marijuana be any different of an issue - it shouldn’t.
Marinol contains only one of marijuana's active ingredients, so it's useful only for patients who need only that active ingredient.
it is ALREADY grounds to revoke a license and where actual impairment is at issue physicians are OBLIGATED to report the impairment. it is the law NOW.
So if a physician considers the use an impairment then that person MUST be reported. period.
anyone who is perscribed pot is INELIGIBLE to hold or maintain a cdl. it is the law.
use pot you can’t drive commercially (or even off duty),
use pot and a your regular non pothead doctor may have the affirmative duty to report your use of pot as an impairment to safety.
read.
smoking dope causes ill effects in the lungs (regardless of the ereason why) ingesting food or tea still takes as long as most pills. Just suck it up and admit that you like smoking dope and be done with it
And yet, many states have enacted medical mj policies. Do you support their 10th Amendment authority to do so... yes or no?
that wasn/t even part of the discussion
The article mentions the 10th Amendment several times, as well as the Wickard Commerce Clause. It’s an on-topic question. What is your answer?
I am not a ‘purist’ as some are. Federal drug laws have been on the books and upheld by various courts for the better part of a century. One of the libertarian persuasion may well want to have all laws over turned since the federal government should do nothing other than provide a military for defense at home. I am not that extreme. The ones who want to rant and rave over all of the tenth amendment violations can go ahead and have at it.
Using a vaporizer avoids the harms of smoking. And many medicines have harmful side effects - but we don't for that sole reason ban them or declare them medically useless.
Just suck it up and admit that you like smoking dope and be done with it
I don't smoke dope. Your resort to argument ad hominem is duly noted.
FYI, Jim Robinson appears to be an "extreme" "purist" "who wants to rant and rave" - when asked, "Do you want to legalize only HALF the dope in this country?" he replied, "Only in the half of the states that would." He then went on to quote the text of the Tenth Amendment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.