Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Medical marijuana: The real stakes
TownHall.com ^ | 12-10-04 | Jeff Jacoby

Posted on 12/17/2004 9:12:14 AM PST by inquest

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 401-442 next last
To: Ancesthntr
Wickard, on the surface, IS laughable. One farmer, a couple of bushels of wheat, for his own personal use, is going to bring down the entire United States Agricultural Adjustment Act?

Of course it's not that simple, as you well know.

51 posted on 12/17/2004 11:30:37 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: VaBarrister
I'm going to make a flat-out statement here.

More damage has been done to our society by Budweiser (or Coors) and Phillip Morris (or American Tobacco) than marijuana has caused in 6,000 years.
52 posted on 12/17/2004 11:34:07 AM PST by Beckwith (John, you said I was going to be the First Lady, as of now, you're on the couch . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
>>Moot point. The product is neither controlled or prescribed by a doctor.<<

My point is that it could be, like any other 'approved' drug, some of which are much more dangerous than marijuana.

"If it works, is controlled and prescribed by a doctor,"

I fail to see how this statement is moot. If that's the case then what's the point of ever postulating any premise?

It isn't the way it is so why bother?

53 posted on 12/17/2004 11:34:08 AM PST by evad (DUmmie FUnnies and Pookie Toons-the start of a nice day)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: evad
which is that a controlled drug should be available if it works.

A better idea would be if substances were available, period.

54 posted on 12/17/2004 11:34:28 AM PST by Protagoras (Christmas is not a secular holiday)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Beckwith
<> Not to mention the benefit to the snack and pizza industry.
55 posted on 12/17/2004 11:35:06 AM PST by VaBarrister
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Beckwith
"It is just important to know where all this crap starts and what starts it."

Why is it important? That's not the current reasoning.

None of those arguments were used by Congress in passing the Controlled Substances Act of 1970.

56 posted on 12/17/2004 11:36:50 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
The federal government and state governments (with the exception of Montana, and that is dubious) do not have the enumerated power of drug legalization. Using the amendment process to remove a power that the federal government usurped in the first place borders on the absurd.
57 posted on 12/17/2004 11:38:38 AM PST by Durus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: inquest
"I don't see how. All you have to do is examine the activity in question, and inquire whether regulation of that activity is within the constitutional purview of the federal government. Anything else just unnecessarily muddies the issue."

What activity are you examining? Are you looking at whether the federal government outlaw marijuana altogether, or whether a person can grow a small amount of marijuana and use it within his state or have someone grow it for him for use within his state? The federal laws make no mention of medical marijuana. Possession or manufacturing of marijuana is illegal under federal law regardless of the purpose for the possession or manufacturing? Something else that has to be considered under current interpretation of the commerce clause accepted by the Supreme Court is whether the activity has an effect on interstate commerce. This calls into question how narrowly tailored the state laws are that define the conduct in question.

Again, this is all relevant, but certainly not the whole ball of wax. There is a lot to look at here. But make no mistake about it, this is a states rights issue. We're looking at federalism and just how far the feds can encroach in areas traditionally left up to the states. When this country was founded the sovereign colonies were agreeing to join together under a central authority that had very limited powers. The federal government was there to see that things ran smoothly between the states, but the these states were supposed to keep a great measure of their sovereignty. Otherwise they never would have signed on. A lot of us believe that the Supreme Court has made some important errors in interpreting the Constitution that have taken a severely eroded the sovereignty of the individual states, and that's not a good thing. The Constitution was full of little checks and balances built in by design to keep the federal government and any of its individual branches from ever having too much power. We were getting out of a situation at the time where we felt like we were being run over by a tyrannical government in England, and we didn't want that situation to develop here with our own far central government. The founding fathers tried to build in safeguards to protect against this, and those safeguards are no less important today than they were over 200 years ago.
58 posted on 12/17/2004 11:38:46 AM PST by TKDietz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Indie
You should then also be consistent with your anarchist views and call for the legalization of all drugs, not just marijuana.

And if you were consistent and honest you would mention that you also favor no restrictions on prostitution, gambling, pornography, and gay rights.

Am I correct?

59 posted on 12/17/2004 11:41:52 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: TKDietz
Are you looking at whether the federal government outlaw marijuana altogether, or whether a person can grow a small amount of marijuana and use it within his state or have someone grow it for him for use within his state?

If those second two types of activity are constitutionally off-limits to the federal government, then it doesn't have the full power to do the first. Again, it doesn't matter what state law says.

60 posted on 12/17/2004 11:42:44 AM PST by inquest (Now is the time to remove the leftist influence from the GOP. "Unity" can wait.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: TKDietz

"A lot of us believe that the Supreme Court has made some important errors in interpreting the Constitution that have _taken a_ severely eroded the sovereignty of the individual states, and that's not a good thing."

Should say:
"A lot of us believe that the Supreme Court has made some important errors in interpreting the Constitution that have severely eroded the sovereignty of the individual states, and that's not a good thing."

"and we didn't want that situation to develop here with our own far central government."

Should say:
"and we didn't want that situation to develop here with our own far away central government."


61 posted on 12/17/2004 11:42:45 AM PST by TKDietz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: inquest
"If those second two types of activity are constitutionally off-limits to the federal government, then it doesn't have the full power to do the first. Again, it doesn't matter what state law says."

I don't think it's as simple as that, but you have a right to your opinion. I bet the Supreme Court examines the state law in their opinion on Ashcroft v. Raich though.
62 posted on 12/17/2004 11:45:33 AM PST by TKDietz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: inquest
Liberals love all this states right shit when it involves gay marriage, and free dope, but when it comes to invasive intrusion in all areas of our life by the federal goverment from how much mileage my car has to get to what kind of shortwave radio I can use they say its the fed's responsiblity. John
63 posted on 12/17/2004 11:45:57 AM PST by jrfaug06
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TKDietz
The real test will come when a state legailizes marijuana, that, too me, would have a better chance of getting by then this silly medical marijuana deal. John
64 posted on 12/17/2004 11:48:22 AM PST by jrfaug06
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: TKDietz
I bet the Supreme Court examines the state law in their opinion on Ashcroft v. Raich though.

That's the problem. They're always looking for an excuse to muddy up a simple issue. Gives them far more wiggle room that way.

65 posted on 12/17/2004 11:52:48 AM PST by inquest (Now is the time to remove the leftist influence from the GOP. "Unity" can wait.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
"It is just important to know where all this crap starts and what starts it."

Why is it important?

Translation: I can't be bothered with anything that's not on Entertainment Tonight . . .
66 posted on 12/17/2004 11:53:45 AM PST by Beckwith (John, you said I was going to be the First Lady, as of now, you're on the couch . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: inquest
"... that the purpose of the clause was to give the federal government any restrictive power over actual commercial transactions within the country."

Scintilla? Perhaps more than that.

How about United States v. The William, 28 Fed. Cas. 614, no. 16,700 D.Mass. 1808, just 19 years after ratifcation?

"Further, the power to regulate commerce is not to be confined to the adoption of measures, exclusively beneficial to commerce itself, or tending to its advancement; but, in our national system, as in all modern sovereignties, it is also to be considered as an instrument for other purposes of general policy and interest."

Now, surely there were a few Founding Fathers alive in 1808 to say, "Hey, that's not what we meant!". Did anyone say that?

Are you saying that since Congress didn't exercise their power for 100 years that they never had that power? I hope that's not your logic or your argument.

67 posted on 12/17/2004 11:56:18 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: jrfaug06

Both sides love States Rights until a State does something they disagree with.


68 posted on 12/17/2004 11:57:15 AM PST by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Protagoras
"you stiil trying to peddle that BS?"

Didn't I once ask you to show me where the 18th amendment was necessary? You said it was, IIRC.

So, find any proof? Link? Quote? Web site? Snopes?

You have anything, other than an opinion (and insults)? Thought not.

69 posted on 12/17/2004 12:01:33 PM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: TKDietz
Amendment X

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.

Doesn't say anything about cannabis being under the purview of the federal government. This is either a state's rights issue or personal issue. It's only a federal issue because of the tax.
70 posted on 12/17/2004 12:02:05 PM PST by Beckwith (John, you said I was going to be the First Lady, as of now, you're on the couch . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
First of all, I'm quite willing to bet that that case was referring to foreign commerce, not interstate commerce. Considering that one of the parties appeared to be a ship, that's a reasonably safe bet.

Secondly, this is what I said: "There isn't a scintilla of evidence from the writings of either federalists or anti-federalists at the time that the purpose of the clause was to give the federal government any restrictive power over actual commercial transactions within the country." Your cite didn't contradict that. All it referred to were the end goals that particular measures were to shoot for, not the nature of those measures themselves.

71 posted on 12/17/2004 12:03:56 PM PST by inquest (Now is the time to remove the leftist influence from the GOP. "Unity" can wait.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Didn't I ask you once whether you had stopped beating your wife yet?

Didn't I ask you to prove a negative?

Thought not.

No one buys the snake oil son, give it up.

72 posted on 12/17/2004 12:06:02 PM PST by Protagoras (Christmas is not a secular holiday)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: gdani
Non-prescription medications can kill. There's some kind of number floating around concerning aspirin.

"Can this drug kill you" is not one of the criteria.

Marinol is approved. Sativex is seeking approval. I support these drugs, no problem.

Smoked marijuana is not medicine.

73 posted on 12/17/2004 12:09:15 PM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie

And no one seems to care about states rights as long as the federal government is doing something they agree with.

I don't think most people get it. Most probably have no idea what federalism is or what people mean when they talk about states rights. Of course huge numbers of people in this country couldn't even name the vice president or the attorney general.

That's why it is so important for our Supreme Court to do the right thing and defend the Constitution. The masses don't get it and they don't know what they are losing when the federal government is allowed to usurp the authority of the states. By the time they do get it, it's going to be too late, if it's not already.


74 posted on 12/17/2004 12:09:33 PM PST by TKDietz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: VaBarrister; scottybk

The original Agricultural Adjustment Act was passed in 1933, well before our involvement in the war. Even the revised Act was passed in 1938.


75 posted on 12/17/2004 12:19:15 PM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Marinol is approved.

And often leaves it's takers unable to do simple tasks because it's so powerful.

Smoked marijuana is not medicine

If it relieves pain and helps people with chronic illnesses, why do you care?

It's obvious why physicians and drug companies care -- there's no money in something that can be grown in a ditch outside.

76 posted on 12/17/2004 12:22:14 PM PST by gdani
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Marinol is approved. Sativex is seeking approval.

Can you think a single thing that doesn't need approval?

77 posted on 12/17/2004 12:23:47 PM PST by Protagoras (Christmas is not a secular holiday)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen; scottybk
Its constitutionality as regulating interstate commerce was never questioned. It only became an issue when Filburn sued the Secretary of Agriculture to prevent the enforcement of the Act because his actions were purely intrastate. This occurred in 1941.
78 posted on 12/17/2004 12:23:59 PM PST by VaBarrister
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: gdani
why do you care?

Some where, somebody is doing something which is "unapproved".

79 posted on 12/17/2004 12:25:39 PM PST by Protagoras (Christmas is not a secular holiday)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Beckwith
"Even during Prohibition, it was legal to produce a small amount of liquor, ..."

Ah, a lot of things were legal during Prohibition, including drugs. Heroin was available over the counter until 1924.

We live in a different world today. Not a lot of "personal responsibility" goin' on.

80 posted on 12/17/2004 12:26:34 PM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Durus
"Using the amendment process to remove a power that the federal government usurped in the first place borders on the absurd."

You're right. All that needs to be done in that case is to simply challenge the laws written under that usurped power in court as unconstitutional.

Oops. Wait. That was done, and the courts have found that the power was NOT usurped.

Now what?

81 posted on 12/17/2004 12:32:04 PM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
call for the legalization of all drugs, not just marijuana . . .

Am I correct?

Not hardly. Are you comparing the benign effects of marijuana to crank, crack, smack and the like?

82 posted on 12/17/2004 12:36:09 PM PST by Beckwith (John, you said I was going to be the First Lady, as of now, you're on the couch . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
BUT, if Congress IS regulating interstate commerce and some intrastate activity "substantially effects" Congress' interstate regulatory efforts, the Necessary and Proper Clause gives Congress the power to write laws covering that particular intrastate activity.

That's your current pet theory. Got anything to support it?

83 posted on 12/17/2004 12:37:10 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: gdani
Smoked marijuana is not medicine

Who says so?

If I am not well and I smoke a doobah and become well, then it's medicine enough for me.

I need to say this dialog about medical marijuana is a smoke screen (pun intended).

I will say to my dying day, if I grow 6 plants out in the south 40 for my personal use it's nobody's business.
84 posted on 12/17/2004 12:41:57 PM PST by Beckwith (John, you said I was going to be the First Lady, as of now, you're on the couch . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Ya because the courts simply pointed out the place in the constitution where that power was enumerated.

Oops. Wait. They couldn't do that so the courts "found" the power someplace.

Such usurpation will continue until there is a police state (followed by a civil war) or a court will actually read the constitution.

85 posted on 12/17/2004 12:42:49 PM PST by Durus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic; robertpaulsen
The Shriveport Rate Cases.


Congress ... does possess the power to foster and protect interstate commerce, and to take all measures necessary or appropriate to that end, although intrastate transactions of interstate carriers may be thereby controlled."

Houston, East & West Texas Railway v. United States, 234 U.S. 342 (1914)

86 posted on 12/17/2004 12:43:02 PM PST by VaBarrister
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Beckwith
I agree with you.

That was an excerpt of an earlier robertpaulsen comment, hence the italics.

87 posted on 12/17/2004 12:43:59 PM PST by gdani
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Now, surely there were a few Founding Fathers alive in 1808 to say, "Hey, that's not what we meant!". Did anyone say that?

Indeed they did.

James Madison to Joseph C. Cabell 13 Feb. 1829

Letters 4:14--15

For a like reason, I made no reference to the "power to regulate commerce among the several States." I always foresaw that difficulties might be started in relation to that power which could not be fully explained without recurring to views of it, which, however just, might give birth to specious though unsound objections. Being in the same terms with the power over foreign commerce, the same extent, if taken literally, would belong to it. Yet it is very certain that it grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government, in which alone, however, the remedial power could be lodged.

88 posted on 12/17/2004 12:44:03 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Not a lot of "personal responsibility" goin' on.

So you would be in favor of all substances being legal as long as the personal responsibilty was added back in?

89 posted on 12/17/2004 12:45:39 PM PST by Protagoras (Christmas is not a secular holiday)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Ah, a lot of things were legal during Prohibition, including drugs. Heroin was available over the counter until 1924.

We live in a different world today. Not a lot of "personal responsibility" goin' on.


Speak for yourself.

Your implication is that since there is not a lot of "personal responsibility goin' on", that you or some government agency is going to manage everyone's "personal responsibility?"

Are you sure you're at the correct forum?
90 posted on 12/17/2004 12:46:16 PM PST by Beckwith (John, you said I was going to be the First Lady, as of now, you're on the couch . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: VaBarrister
I understand. But the AAA was written to protect the nation's wheat industry, war or no war.

It was very specific -- even our Mr. Filburn was allowed to grow his own wheat for personal use. He merely had to pay a per-bushel penalty (which he refused to do).

Now, to say that the court ruled the way they did because we were at war is a bit of a stretch. I don't buy it.

91 posted on 12/17/2004 12:48:01 PM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: VaBarrister
The Shreveport Rate Cases.

The Shreveport case involved regulation of intrastate commerce indirectly because it was done by a registered carrier of interstate commerce. The decision states "by reason of their control of the carriers". What was being regulated was the carrier, as an instrument of interstate commerce. By robertpaulsen's logic, it was necessary and proper for Congress to declare each and every one of us an "instrument of interstate commerce" for the purpose of regulation under the Commerce Clause.

92 posted on 12/17/2004 12:49:34 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Beckwith
My question was for Indie because of his statement in post #32. I am making no comparisons.
93 posted on 12/17/2004 12:51:55 PM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

I wasnt saying I bought his application of it, just supplying a possible source of his logic.


94 posted on 12/17/2004 12:53:23 PM PST by VaBarrister
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Protagoras

"What we have here is a failure to communicate."


95 posted on 12/17/2004 12:54:39 PM PST by headsonpikes (Spirit of '76 bttt!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: inquest

WRONG

It's about the AMA and its MASTER, the drug companies, currently FDA guidelines state that only a drug can cure, treat, or diagnose disease (all lies) and there is no way there are going to let natural substances that they can't charge for enter in the market.
96 posted on 12/17/2004 12:55:38 PM PST by Scythian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conserv13
Froma Harrop has a pithy column on this at Jewish World Review.

The Public Choice effect has seldom been stronger than it is in the War on Drugs. I can think of one other case where this much effort and this much stridency went into trying to sustain an irrational and unsustainable law: alcohol Prohibition. That one created a river of blood, too.

Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit Eternity Road:
http://www.eternityroad.info

97 posted on 12/17/2004 12:56:41 PM PST by fporretto (This tagline is programming you in ways that will not be apparent for years. Forget! Forget!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
"That's your current pet theory. Got anything to support it?"

Of course I do. But it's just a start. You got anything (besides your tired old opinion) to negate it?

"[T]he New Deal Court’s own constitutional justification for its radical expansion of the scope of federal power over commerce was that the congressional measures in question were valid exercises of the power granted by the Necessary and Proper Clause and were not direct exercises of the power to regulate commerce among the several states. That is, the Court did not simply and directly enlarge the scope of the Commerce Clause itself, as is often believed. Rather, it upheld various federal enactments as necessary and proper means to achieve the legitimate objective of regulating interstate commerce."
--Stephen Gardbaum, Rethinking Constitutional Federalism, 74 Tex. L. Rev. 795, 807-08 (1996)

98 posted on 12/17/2004 12:58:05 PM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: jrfaug06

Move to Florida the land of flowers, where this flowering herb will someday be legal to possess again. Our prison system here is so overcrowded that a good civil disobedience foray could really tax the system to the point of collapse.


99 posted on 12/17/2004 1:01:34 PM PST by PaxMacian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: headsonpikes
"What we have here is a failure to communicate."

Great movie.

What we really have is a failure to communicate our real agendas. All this "pot isn't medicine" nonsense is a smoke screen for authoritarianism.

And the warriors say the medicine thing is a smoke screen. Maybe it is, that's why I never argue that aspect of it.

100 posted on 12/17/2004 1:06:46 PM PST by Protagoras (Christmas is not a secular holiday)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 401-442 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson