Posted on 02/25/2005 10:22:10 AM PST by nyg4168
"States' rights" has always been anathema to liberals--a code word for the Southern racism that embraced slavery, and later segregation. Nowadays, however, in an era when Red America controls the federal government and pushes things like a national ban on gay marriage, progressives are embracing states' rights: the founding fathers' idea of Federalism, in which states cede a few key powers to D.C. while maintaining robust sovereignty themselves.
So, what's the latest group to make the case that states' rights should determine policy? Try the flaming liberals at the King County Bar Association (KCBA), who on March 3 will release a radical proposal urging Olympia to reform local drug laws. And by "reform," the KCBA means make certain drugs legal so they can be yanked off the street (a hotbed of violent crime and addiction) and placed in a tightly regulated state market. Regulation could allow for things like safe injection sites, be used to wean addicts off drugs, and sap a black market that gives kids access to drugs.
The mammoth proposal (www.kcba.org/druglaw/proposal.html)--which includes extensive academic research on the history of drug laws, conspiratorial details about the successful efforts of corporations like DuPont and Hearst to squelch hemp production in the 1930s, and dispiriting facts about the failed drug war--is anchored by a 16-page treatise titled "States' Rights: Toward a Federalist Drug Policy."
This states' rights manifesto is the KCBA's rejoinder to the inevitable question: How can Washington State get away with regulating (i.e., legalizing) drugs, like heroin and pot, that the federal government has outlawed under the Controlled Substances Act? It's also a direct challenge to the feds.
"[If our proposals are adopted] we would expect that the U.S. government would seek an injunction in federal court," Roger Goodman, director of the Drug Policy Project of the KCBA, says enthusiastically. Goodman's idea is to force a legal standoff that, he hopes, will eventually set the precedent for states to buck the feds' misguided "war on drugs" by giving states control over the production and distribution of drugs like pot.
The Constitution grants the federal government the right to regulate commerce, which is the cornerstone of the Controlled Substances Act. The KCBA report, which Goodman put together, outlines a couple of states' rights arguments that could be used to trump that authority. The report points out accurately that states have exclusive rights to protect the health, welfare, and safety of their citizens, which includes regulating the practice of medicine. "Recent case law has limited federal authority to meddle in the states' regulation of medical practice," the report says, "particularly limiting the use of the federal Controlled Substances Act to override a state's decisions." This is a reference to a 2002 decision in Oregon v. Ashcroft when the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stopped the feds from using drug law to upend Oregon's Death with Dignity Act where drugs are used in assisted suicide.
The KCBA also argues that when a state becomes a "market participant" by running drug-distribution outlets, the activity would be beyond the scope of federal commerce power. "[C]annabis availability for adults through exclusive state-owned outlets, for instance, would render Washington immune to federal intervention…" the KCBA's states' rights manifesto argues.
Obviously, these legal arguments are just that: arguments. The KCBA readily admits as much. "Whether Washington could now promulgate its own regulatory system… of substances that are currently prohibited under federal law is a critical open question," the report allows. However, raising that question is an important first step in itself. According to Goodman: "That's always part of the reform process."
This is more kookish propaganda from the pro-drug crowd. Don't let anyone fool you, we are winning the war on drugs, one dealer/user/producer/trafficker at a time.
Even if the courts ruled that the Federal prohibition is valid, ending state laws against drug use would save the states money. The cost of enforcement would be shifted in toto to the federal government, and the state law enforcement agencies would not have to do a thing to help them.
I think I agree. This is a perfect area in which federalism can pay dividends. As a conservative with zeal of the newly converted, I no longer care too much about the libertarian's desire to create an amoral anything goes society, but we've got to start thinking outside the box. Legalized drugs will take the profit motive away from the drug dealers.
LOL!!
You forgot your sarcasm tags!
Maybe you don't think drugs should be legalized, but you can't possibly believe the "war on drugs" is being won. What evidence do you have to support that?
Any cost of enforcement shifted to the feds ends up being higher federal taxes and MORE power to the federal government for all of us. That said, I'm all for state actions that result in re-establishing state's rights over federal rights. This one is odd, but I like to hear other states besides us southerners bringing it up.
I agree. I think everything shoul go to states rights. Abortion, homosexual marriage, drug laws, etc....should all be dealt with by each individual state as they see fit. The federal government should stay out of it!
Precisely, just because we remove the laws on this doesn't mean we've condoned an amoral society. Thinking outside the box, as you said, can allow us to find other ways to attack these problems. Individual responsibility is going to have to be taught and learned in America again.
No one will ever legalize drugs in America because there would be no excuse to ever RAISE TAXES again!~}
The Stranger, OY! the meshugana liberal fish-wrap of Seattle.
And I have NO DOUBT Gregoire would love a new tax source.
BAHAHAHAHAAH!!
Your kidding right?
The states have just about taxed cigarettes out of existence their treasury's are sinking without all that Cigarette tax money , they are looking for new sources of money. Legalise drugs and they have it, The states arent worried about criminals making money they just want a new thing to tax .Legalise drugs and the momey you save on locking up drug dealers will be spent on social services to wean folks off the hard stuff. Now having said that I am a proponent of prescription use of heroin for terminal patients. Its cheaper and does a better job than the synthesized stuff.
I disagree.........Just legalizing marijuana alone, and treating it like alcohol and tobacco (restrictions on age and taxing it) would reap financial windfalls at all levels of government.
First would be the criminal justice system would not be overburdened with petty stuff, thus saving taxpayers dollars better used for prosecuting more important stuff;
Second would be freeing up law enforcement to actually deal with the real criminals that neeed to be dealt with by the rest of the criminal just system, thus saving tax payer dollars;
And finally, by eliminating the black market and collecting taxes on it like alcohol and tobacco, any time the state needs a quiet way to balance a budget they can just up the excise tax on it, just like they now do to alcohol and tobacco.
Sounds like a winning proposition all the way around. It seems to me
Seatle is in Washington state, King County is where the Dems pulled off their theft of the Governors office. Not a Southern State.
Really? Introductory Economics says not so. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1351049/posts
Not quite. The Constitution grants the federal government the right to regulate commerce among the several states. The cornerstone of the CSA is the "substantial effects" doctrine, an invention of FDR that appears nowhere in the Constitution.
So you dont disagree then?
PS, and yes Pot would be enough.
Also I remember years ago reading about this judge at the time who few in on his private plane x amount of pot.
He was 1 gram short of the felony!~}
No you're not...the Drug War is LOST, my friend. Those of us who use responsibly are going to continue to do so, & there's nothing the feds can do to stop us (apart from turning America into a complete Orwellian/totalitarian society, which it IS trying to do, albeit ever-so-slowly).
Riiight. That's why we have the new meth scourge to deal with, drugs are cheaper than ever, and the narcos in Colombia are as entrenched as they have ever been.
Absolutely...we can still have a drug war if the feds began to respect the 9th & 10th Amendments like it is supposed to: a conserviative state like Utah can be as prohibitionist as it pleases, a liberal state like the People's Republic of California can make marijuana legal for adults again, & the feds can strengthen border security to prevent the importation of drugs & illegal immigrants from abroad.
I went back and re-read your comment - I guess we do agree.
I have absolutely nothing against pot being treated the same as alcohol and tobacco.....not so sure I'm ready to embrace too much else, yet.
And just for disclaimer, I only indulge in alcohol and tobacco, and that wouldn't change regardless of what they do or don't.
I think the "Wars on (name the substance)" are ridculous wastes of taxpayer money.
I can't help but hear the theme music from COPS in the background as I read your comments. I wonder how many of those perps you see being dragged away felt the same thing?
Dude! What a totally new idea!
(not)
Federalist No. 39
The Conformity of the Plan to Republican Principles
(For the Independent Journal)
James Madison
Were the people regarded in this transaction as forming one nation, the will of the majority of the whole people of the United States would bind the minority, in the same manner as the majority in each State must bind the minority; and the will of the majority must be determined either by a comparison of the individual votes, or by considering the will of the majority of the States as evidence of the will of a majority of the people of the United States. Neither of these rules have been adopted. Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act.
(Emphasis mine)
How can Washington State get away with regulating (i.e., legalizing) drugs, like heroin and pot, that the federal government has outlawed under the Controlled Substances Act?
If it stays IN the State, it's not AMONG the states, now is it?
Why do we keep paying these guys, anyway?
We'll just continue to enjoy ourselves again...& again...& AGAIN, until our responsible use of marijuana is made legal again. The tide is turning in OUR favor, altho I wish it would hurry up.
RE: prison policy
"Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant" (Where they create a wasteland, they call it peace.) Tacitus (historian, ancient Rome)
It cracks me up to see re-legalization described as a "radical proposal".
Remember - pot was made illegal because (according to then Federal Bureau of Narcotics chief Harry Anslinger) it made 'white women have sex with black jazz musicians'. Banning such a substance (which, at the time in 1937, the AMA opposed because cannibis was part of the generally accepted physician's pharmacopiea for thousands of years) for that reason is what was truly "radical".
What will you do once marijuana is made legal again, either in a few liberal states or the US as a whole? Will you move to Saudi Arabia or Malaysia? I know those countries have been known for their tough stand against folks who use drugs.
You are correct I read it wrong--my apologies.
THAT worked out real well, didn't it???
Drug War Clock
http://www.drugsense.org/wodclock.htm
It is Fri Feb 25 2005
Money Spent on the War On Drugs this Year- click on site
The U.S. federal government spent over $19 billion dollars in 2003 on the War on Drugs, at a rate of about $600 per second. The budget has since been increased by over a billion dollars.
Source: Office of National Drug Control Policy
Denny Crane sucks...
With each vacancy in the marked immediately filled. You know we're losing when our massive multi-billion dollar interdiction efforts are simply factored into their profit models.
I suspect a model that incorporates death and incarceration would show the number of customers is declining. Now if drugs used per person is increasing, I have no idea how to measure that.
You compare apples to oranges. Booze was used by a much greater segment of society when it was legal. With the drugs we speak of, first, they have never been legal (in our lifetime) and second, they are not used by a very broad section of the population. Basically only idiots use drugs, and that population is pretty small.
Ain't gonna happen bro.
Regardless of whether pot or alcohol is good for you, it's abundantly apparent that millions of people are going to use it even under fear of going to jail, so why beat our heads against a tree? You can't put everybody in jail...although they certainly try...it's bad for the economy.
"Alcohol is legal, yet this hasn't happened. How can this be?"
Sure. Alcoholism is no problem at all as long as you overlook, accidents, liver deterioration, heart disease, spouse abuse, family destruction, and job loss. Why not add drugs to the mix and destroy more people and families?
Alcohol is a drug. Aspirin is a drug. Heroin is a drug. Nicotine is a drug. Vioxx is a drug. Viagra is a drug. Marijuana is a drug. Maalox is a drug. Cocaine is a drug. Insulin is a drug.
But I'm guessing you define only those who use drugs you don't want to use as idiots.
Sure...Let's make King County (or more specifically, Downtown Seattle) the only city in America where you can legally walk around stoned out of your mind. You think we have a problem with liberals now? If this idiocy passes, there will be an influx of lefties the likes of which you've never seen. Oh...and let's not forget the 'transient' population...pass this law and it will double.
I'm sorry...if you do drugs, stop. You are killing yourself. If you cannot stop, then you need to be forceably stopped. Period. Meth producers/dealers should be shot on sight and their property seized and sold, with the proceeds going to the local officer widows fund. Same for cocaine, marijuana, and any number of a myriad of illegal substances.
You bet it WILL. Like I've said before, the tide is slowly turning in our favor. But you refuse to answer my question: what will you do once it's made legal again? Will you move to Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, or some other place where they execute folks for simple posession? How will you be able to handle living in the US once us druggies aren't considered to be criminals anymore (provided that we use responsibly)? HMMMMMMMMMM???
Put down the mushrooms and come out with your hands up.
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.