Skip to comments.Gone to Pot
Posted on 06/13/2005 12:01:32 PM PDT by Keyes2000mt
Last week, the Supreme Court issued a ruling allowing the Federal government to prosecute people who possess marijuana for medical purposes as allowed by their state's laws.
The administration and anti-drug forces are celebrating. This is a setback to the pro-drug crowd. Shouldn't this thrill us?
If your primary concern is stopping people from using marijuana and stopping the drug culture in its tracts, the ruling is cause for celebration. If a limited federal government is a concern then you have to look at the Supreme Court's ruling in a different light.
The Drug War v. The 10th Amendment
When looking at a federal law, the question we, as well as the courts must ask is, "Is it Constitutional?" The 10th Amendment tells us succinctly: "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."
I search my Constitution in vain for any section that allows the Federal government to forbid medical marijuana. As such, its an issue for the states under the Constitution.
I'm skeptical of marijuana's medical benefits, but my skepticism doesn't matter, only the decision of the states that have approved medical marijuana. Its none of my business as a citizen of Idaho, if a citizen of Oregon uses prescribed marijuana to treat AIDS or multiple sclerosis.
What does affect me is the growth of Federal government and the assumption of powers by the Federal government that were never conferred to it by the Constitution. If we turn a blind eye to the Federal government taking power that's not theirs, we open the door for more power grabs. The philosophy that allows the government to enter the house of sick people and arrest them for using a substance that is legal under state law and which there is no constitutional power to regulate under the Constitution, allow the Feds to steal farms and ranches, interfere with even the most minor regulation of abortion by the states, and will be the same power used to force a uniform policy on gay marriage on the people, against their will.
A federal government that is so powerful that it is a foil by which you can force your neighbors across the nation to do your will, also can bring you under its yoke. Its like feeding a monster in hopes that it won't destroy you eventually.
I have no expectation that standing for the tenth Amendment on this issue will lead to liberal respect for the tenth Amendment rights of those with whom they disagree. However, the only way that the Founders' vision can survive is if we consistently and clearly stand behind the Constitution. That sometimes means that other states will do things we don't like. In some areas of Nevada, there's legal prostitution. In Vermont, there are gay civil unions. In Montana, casinos mar an otherwise beautiful landscape. I don't like any of these situations, yet without a Constitutional Amendment, there's nothing I can lawfully do about it and for that I'm grateful.
When we become a nation ruled from Washington, DC by bureaucrats, judges, and Congressional kings, we've lost the Republic the founders intended and have instead become an Empire, where the most important decisions are made by those who are not accountable to the People.
There's a bill in Congress (HR 2087) proposed by Conservative Rep. Dana Rohrbacher (R-Ca.), Liberal Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), and libertarian Ron Paul (R-Tx.) among others, which would allow physicians to legally prescribe cannabis in states that have legalized medical marijuana. I'll be contacting my Representative and my Senators to urge their support for this important legislation, not because I favor medical marijuana or believe all the claims its proponents make, but because I love our Constitution, and believe that we cannot disregard the Constitution to suit our own ends.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Drug Warriors!
It's not about weed, it's about Wickard!
It's not about governtment power, you dopers just want to get high. /sarcasm
...for class reading.
ok.......when the supreme court runs roughshod over the constitution, when the congress we elected to uphold and maintain the constitution are more concerned about their own political careers than holding the judges responsible, when the president sits on his hands and will do nothing about an out of control court, what can we as citizens do? this is a question for the lawyers. can someone tell me what can be done?
Thanks for nothing to all those a$$bat WoDdies. We f*cking told you this would happen.
Here's the problem I have with most of the anti-drug crowd. They make it personal. They dislike drugs, so they dislike all people who don't favor drug laws.
It's not about tweaking the nose of people who disagree with you, it's about running roughshod over the Constitution.
They're not the only ones who fall into this trap - plenty of otherwise reasonable conservatives get fooled into thinking this is an issue of stoners vs. normal people. "Heck, I don't use drugs, why should I mind if the federal government increases its power to police drug use?"
They'd rather live in a drug-free totalitarian state than a liberty-minded Republic in which pot was legal. Drugs apparently tear at the very fabric of civil society itself more than an unrestrained government could possibly do.
Hey, what goes around comes around. The Marijuana Tax Stamp Act was modeled after the Machine Gun Tax Stamp Act.
It's all about CONTROL. Their control over us.
"The tree of liberty should be watered by the blood and tyrants and patriots every twenty years or so" - Thomas Jefferson
Yeah? Machine guns are still legal, mostly.
"of" not "and"
too much of a hurry
The National Firearms Act of the 30's required a Federal Tax Stamp for the transfer or sale of a machine gun. The Feds then refused to issue the stamp. They did the same with marijuana once the Supreme Court upheld the practice.
Some old ones are. New ones can't be made legal. And God forbid you should have a slam-fire on a semiautomatic while a BATFE agent is watching. Instant felony charges - because a part of a previously-legal gun wore out! I don't think I'd be so bold as to state that "machine guns are legal" - "some machine guns not entirely illegal" is closer to the truth.
"What is ominous is the ease with which some people go from saying that they don't like something to saying that the government should forbid it. When you go down that road, don't expect freedom to survive very long."-- Thomas Sowell
A chilling quote. Little long for a tagline, or I'd borrow it.
Only specific enumerated powers herein granted by the Constitution exist. In other words, unless the Constitution specifically says Congress can, Congress can't.
You will not find any specific enumerated power that allows Congress to prohibit the citizen of medical marijuana, marijuana, alcohol, or anything else you can think of.
Article 1, Section 1 - All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States...
"Thanks for nothing to all those a$$bat WoDdies"
Not exactly difficult to understand. Did you have a more specific question?
Understand your complaint, but don't know what a "a$$bat WoDdie" is. Guess it's not important.
Well, an a$$bat is part of the new Internet slang compendium. A cross between a moon bat and an a$$hole. A WoDdie is a War on Drugs supporter.
Mind your language, please - don't want you to be banned :-).
Not that I wanna be a farking nitpicky icehole about it. Those bastichez can rot in hill.
Glarble glibble gub.
My thoughts exactly. ;-)
It's all about CONTROL. Their control over us.
I remember back in 1986 or 1987, when that college basketball player, Len Bias, overdosed on cocaine and died. I also remember the media and the government going ape-sh*t over it, and screaming for more Federal powers to combat evil drugs.
Even back then, I saw the escalation of the "Drug War" as having nothing to do with drugs. Rather, it was a massive power grab designed to eviscerate the Bill of Rights in general, and the 4th Amendment specifically.
So let me say with bitter sarcasm and extreme prejudice, "Thank You, oh naive and gullible Drug War supporters, for ushering in the end of the Republic, and the emergence of the totalitarian super-nanny-state!"
Hey, we've got no rights to our property, our children, our bodily fluids, or finances! But at least we're DRUG FREE.
(SPITS) That kind of freedom is Orwellian, described in "1984" as "That dog is free of lice".
amen to that.
You're half right. We're nowhere near drug free, nor are we even headed in that direction ... the street prices of illegal drugs are stable or falling.
Ummm, not exactly. It's his own administration pushing this usurpation of the constitution. They argued for this, and won with the imbeciles on the SCOTUS.
So far, he has supported the repeal of the first amendment (CFR) and the forth (Patriot act) and now the tenth. But hey, there's three years left, I wonder what else they want trash.
"What is ominous, is the ease with which some people go from stating that they don't like something, to saying that the government should forbid it. When you go down that road, don't expect freedom to survive very long."
Y'know, I don't think many nazi's had a big problem with fascism.
Turned out... there was some kind of pressure problem in the building and the water levels were fluctuating.
One afternoon we all stopped at a local watering-hole for a beer after work. When we were leaving, a van rolls into the parking lot and the side door slides open.
Stumbling out in a HUGE cloud of reefer-smoke... you guessed it... just like in the movie!
These are the suckers who've fallen for the anti-christ's deception. Ain't gonna be no room on the head of a pin for them.
You got that right!
I will not vote for any candidate who opposes medical marijuana. That puts me between a rock and a hard place. I'm over sixty and have always voted the Republican ticket. I will for the first time in my life be voting for a Democrat. Living in California, that means I'll be voting for Nancy Pelosi.
This is a Constitutional issue with me, and my Republican representative will not support the Constitution.