Medical marijuana: The real stakes

TownHall.com ^ | 12-10-04 | Jeff Jacoby

[robertpaulsen]

"Which you now say is irrelevant."

The original intent of the Commerce Clause is irrelevant. It is irrelevant because it is not the sole intent of the Commerce Clause. The Commerce Clause was written to do a multitude of things.

Even Madison said the Commerce Clause may be used for the good of the country by taxing imports, thus encouraging local manufactures.

Now, what the heck does all that have to do with my question? There's no connection.

Now, if you find one, get back to me with a direct, to the point, succinct question, and I'll answer it. Until then, I'm gone.

[supercat]

If your intrastate activity is not substantially affecting some commerce that Congress is currently regulating, you're golden. This would leave out things like your own local radio station, private airport, railroad, things like that.

Right, but what commerce-related activity is there that could not somehow affect, or be construed as potentially affecting, interstate commerce? Name one commercial activity I could partake in and "be golden"?

[supercat]

Then, I'd like to see how "medical" marijuana stacks up against the 10 to 20 existing FDA-approved drugs that have been on the market for the last 10 to 20 years.

Well, it's certainly got most of them beat on price, at least if one can avoid paying a black-market premium.

If someone can get adequate relief from a product that costs them $10/month to grow, whereas using prescription medications sufficient for such relief costs $300/month, will you personally pay that person $290/month in exchange for not using the $10/month remedy? If not, what gives you the right to impose $290/month of extra expenses on that person?

[inquest]

The original intent of the Commerce Clause is irrelevant. It is irrelevant because it is not the sole intent of the Commerce Clause.

That makes no sense whatsoever. The original intent is the intent of those who wrote it and ratified it. That is synonymous with "sole intent". Only those who write and ratify a document can impart to it intent of any description.

[Beckwith]

Maybe you don't care. I do.

It's nice to know you are a caring person.

[Beckwith]

One other thing. People are calling for the legalization of one drug, marijuana, and expecting big results. Imagine if, during Prohibition, only wine was made legal. Would you expect big results by legalizing just wine?

You might consider another thread. As you progress along with your arguments, they get weaker and weaker and weaker.

[robertpaulsen]

"could not somehow affect, or be construed as potentially affecting, interstate commerce?"

For the third and last time. If Congress is not regulating that interstate activity, then what difference does it make if your activity affects it? Who cares?

The ONLY time Congress is interested in what commerce you're doing is if it screws up what they're attempting to regulate.

Since they're regulating the airwaves, your little startup radio station is going to mess with other stations and screw things up.

You want to sell homemade radios, go for it.

[supercat]

For the third and last time. If Congress is not regulating that interstate activity, then what difference does it make if your activity affects it? Who cares?

If I want to do anything in any area that Congress isn't currently regulating or restricting, I can do so, even if it involves an area where Congress has explicit authority.

But the question isn't what Congress isn't currently regulating. The question is what commerce-related activities exist which Congress could not at any time decide to regulate by declaring that they might affect interstate commerce.

If no such activities exist, then the limitation of Congress' power to commerce "among the several states, etc." is analagous to saying "Congress may only restrict the ownership of firearms which are comprised of atoms." In owner words, the words "among the several states, etc." mean nothing.

Of course, if such activities do exist (that Congress could not take control over by declaring that they might affect interstate commerce), perhaps you might be able to name one?

[robertpaulsen]

"Well, it's certainly got most of them beat on price, at least if one can avoid paying a black-market premium."

Medical marijuana will never be approved in a smoked form, so get that idea out of your head. If anything, it will be available in a form and at a price comparable to other pain relieving drugs.

[Beckwith]

If they were growing it for hemp, what's your point? If they were growing it to smoke it and get high, I'd like to see some proof.

The extent of cannabis smoking during the Colonial era is still subject to debate. President George Washington wrote a letter that contained an oblique reference to what may have been hashish. "The artificial preparation of hemp, from Silesia, is really a curiosity." 38 Washington made specific written references to Indian hemp, or cannabis indica, and hoped to "have disseminated the seed to others. " 39 His August 7, 1765 diary entry, "began to separate the male from the female () plants," describes a harvesting technique favored to enhance the potency of smoking cannabis, among other reasons. 40 Hemp farmer Thomas Jefferson and paper maker Ben Franklin were ambassadors to France during the initial surge of the hashish vogue. Their celebrity status and progressive revolutionary image afforded them ample opportunities to try new experiences. Jefferson smuggled Chinese hemp seeds to America and is credited with the phrase in the Declaration of Independence, "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Did the Founding Fathers of the United States of America smoke cannabis? Some researchers think so. Dr. Burke, president of the American Historical Reference Society and a consultant for the Smithsonian Institute, counted seven early presidents as cannabis smokers: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, Andrew Jackson, Zachary Taylor and Franklin Pierce. 41 "Early letters from our founding fathers refer to the pleasures of hemp smoking," said Burke. Pierce, Taylor and Jackson, all military men, smoked it with their troops. Cannabis was twice as popular among American soldiers in the Mexican War as in Vietnam: Pierce wrote to his family that it was "about the only good thing" about that war.

Central and Western African natives were farming and harvesting cannabis sativa in North America as slaves. If they did smoke on the plantations, that would be kept secret. 42 By the time of the Louisiana purchase in 1803, New Orleans had a mixed Spanish, French, Creole, Cajun, Mexican and Black population. The city teemed with adventurers and sailors, wise to the ways of cannabis. It was mixed with tobacco or smoked alone, used to season food 43, to treat insomnia and impotence, and so on.

Cannabis was mentioned as a medicinal agent in a formal American medical text as early as 1843.

Reference: http://www.umsl.edu/~rkeel/180/highsociety.html UIniversity of Missouri - St. Louis

Numbers are footnotes.

And if you do a search on George Washington or Colonial America and marijuana you will find many more references.

By the way, who authorized you to make a statement such as "Otherwise, go away." You seem to lose control as you lose your argument(s).

[robertpaulsen]

"That is synonymous with "sole intent"."

Madison found another constitutional use for the Commerce Clause, now didn't he?

So much for your sole intent. So much for your original intent. They were made irrelevant by Madison.

[supercat]

Medical marijuana will never be approved in a smoked form, so get that idea out of your head. If anything, it will be available in a form and at a price comparable to other pain relieving drugs.

Even if it was not explicitly approved as a drug, if someone was allowed to grow the plant for their own consumption and found it provided adequate relief of symptoms for $10/month, why should they not be allowed to use the $290/month could save for whatever other purpose they see fit?

[robertpaulsen]

"Of course, if such activities do exist (that Congress could not take control over by declaring that they might affect interstate commerce), perhaps you might be able to name one?"

Oh, my wittle scared helpwess supercat. The big meanie government is going to take over everything.

I got news for you. If Congress wishes to regulate something, they can. It is up to the people, not the courts, to control Congress.

Every two years, all the people who write the laws are up for re-election. If you don't like what they're regulating, vote them out.

[robertpaulsen]

They can certainly do that. But I have a suggestion.

I would suggest they take that $290/month and put it in a savings account. One day they're going to need it to pay for a lawyer to get their sorry ass out of jail for growing marijuana.

[supercat]

I got news for you. If Congress wishes to regulate something, they can. It is up to the people, not the courts, to control Congress.

I return to my original question: what purpose do the words "...among the several states, etc." serve? If there does not exist any form of commerce which is outside of Congress' authority to control, then why doesn't 1.8.3 simply say "to regulate commerce"?

As for it being up to the people, that's right, but their power should be felt not only at the jury box, but elsewhere as well. People should know that when congresscritters legislate beyond its authority, they should speak out against them for that reason; they should likewise refuse, when sitting as jurors, to convict people for violating statutes Congress has no authority to enact.

Over the years, courts have been too effective at convincing people that the Constitution is some strange and bizarre mystic logic that only the enlightened few can understand. Nonsense. The Constitution was written as an owners' manual, to allow citizens to know when they should assist the government in acting against criminals, and when they should assist fellow citizens in resisting a lawless government.

[William Terrell]

Tell me why, do you think, the founding fathers didn't put the following in Article 1 Section 8:

The Congress shall have Power To. . .regulate, or prohibit from Individual Use, any Substance, Item or Activity duly considered to be detrimental to the People of the United States.

[tacticalogic]

But you're saying that Congress cannot regulate commerce among the several states for the positive purposes of the General Government, is that correct? Can you tell me why not?

Because according to Madison's writings, that is outside the scope of the commerce power that was given to the federal government.

[Beckwith]

I responded to your challenge, If they were growing it for hemp, what's your point? If they were growing it to smoke it and get high, I'd like to see some proof., in post 310:

You seemed to ignore the response. Do you only argue the fine points with which you are comfortable?

[robertpaulsen]

"... then why doesn't 1.8.3 simply say "to regulate commerce"?"

Because that would imply that Congress may regulate all commerce all the time, even commerce within a state.

I said before, Congress may only regultate intrastate commerce when it has a "substantial effect" on their interstate regulatory efforts.

Please pay attention.

[robertpaulsen]

"Tell me why, do you think, the founding fathers didn't put the following in Article 1 Section 8: The Congress shall have Power To. . .regulate, or prohibit from Individual Use, any Substance, Item or Activity duly considered to be detrimental to the People of the United States."

They did. Let's break down your sentence.

"To. . .regulate, or prohibit". Hmmmm. "Regulate" includes "prohibit, so that's redundant.

"any Substance, Item or Activity". Well, that's "commerce".

"to the People". That would be "among".

"of the United States". That's "the several states".

So now, what do we have? "The Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce among the several states"

There you go.