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

Skip to comments.

The Limits of Frederalism - Why you can't be a federalist and ignore medical marijuana.
Reason ^ | September 14, 2007 | Radley Balko

Posted on 09/17/2007 7:17:18 PM PDT by neverdem

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) recently said that, if elected president, he would end the federal raids on medical marijuana patients and their health care providers.

That makes the Democratic field unanimous now — all would end the raids and allow the states to craft their own medical marijuana policy, free from federal interference. By contrast, just two of the remaining GOP candidates — Rep. Ron Paul (Texas) and Rep. Tom Tancredo (Colo.) — and none of the front-runners have promised to call off the raids.

This is unfortunate for a party that once fancied itself the torch-bearer for federalism — the idea that most laws should be made on as local a level as possible, both to encourage state “laboratories of democracy” to experiment with different policies and to allow people to utilize the freedom of movement to choose to live in those jurisdictions with laws that best reflect their own values.

If ever there were an issue for which federalism would seem to be an ideal solution, it’s the medical marijuana issue, which touches on crime, medical policy, privacy and individual freedom — all the sorts of values-laden areas of public policy that states are best equipped to deal with on a case-by-case basis, and for which a one-size-fits-all federal policy seems particularly clunky and ill-suited.

Yet the GOP won’t let go. The White House continues to send federal SWAT teams into convalescent centers, dispensaries and treatment centers, often putting sick people on the receiving end of paramilitary tactics, gun barrels and terrifying raids.

It’s difficult to understand how the same party that (correctly, in my view) argues that the federal government has no business telling the states how they should regulate their businesses, set their speed limits, keep their air and water free of pollution or regulate the sale of firearms within their borders can at the same time feel that the federal government can and should tell states that they aren’t allowed to let sick people obtain relief wherever they might find it.

Medical marijuana is probably a nonstarter politically.

Though polls show most Americans support medical marijuana, few decide their votes on the issue, save for a cadre of drug reform activists and the people who actually need the stuff to treat their symptoms.

But the issue ought to be of wider concern to principled federalists, because it was the GOP’s stubborn support for near-limitless federal power to fight the drug war that killed the nascent federalism revolution before it ever grew wings.

That short-lived revolution began in 1995, when the William Rehnquist-led Supreme Court ruled in U.S. v. Lopez that Congress had no constitutional authority to regulate the sale of guns near schools, then again in 2000 with U.S. v. Morrison, which struck down the 1994 federal Violence Against Women Act.

Those two cases ended 60 years of Supreme Court deference to Capitol Hill on the issue of whether the Constitution actually permitted the Congress to enact the laws it was passing. Some legal scholars thought it possible that the court might look for an opportunity to overturn Wickard v. Filburn, the notorious 1942 ruling which said that under the Interstate Commerce Clause, Congress can regulate the wheat a man grows on his own land for his own use.

That opportunity came in Gonzales v. Raich, in which the Bush administration argued that the commerce clause allows the federal government to prohibit marijuana grown in one’s own home for one’s own use, even for medical treatment, even in states that had legalized the drug for that purpose. The Supreme Court upheld the government’s right to prohibit marijuana, even under these limited circumstances.

The court’s left wing was joined by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Antonin Scalia — who had formed the federalist majority in Lopez and Morrison — to uphold the federal supremacy of the Controlled Substances Act when it conflicts with state law. Justice John Paul Stevens’ majority opinion cited Filburn as the controlling case law. The court’s principled federalists — Clarence Thomas, Sandra Day O’Connor and Rehnquist — wrote in dissent.

The Washington Post explained in an editorial a few weeks later how Raich was about much more than medical marijuana. It was about the proper scope and the defining limits of the federal government. The editorial was one of support for a recent federal ruling upholding the Environmental Protection Agency’s decision to halt a construction project due to an endangered cave-dwelling bug native only to Texas that was found on the planned construction site.

Had Raich gone the other way, the Post noted, the EPA likely wouldn’t have been able to prevent a hospital from being built in order to save the insect. The Post thought this was a glorious benefit from the Raich decision.

I suspect most Republicans feel otherwise.

Raich represented the last chance to rein in a Congress that sees no constitutional limits whatsoever on the reach and breadth of its power. It was GOP devotion to the drug war that subverted it, killing the Rehnquist federalism revolution in its infancy, narrowly limiting Lopez and Morrison and freeing the Congress to legislate wherever it pleases, with little or no constitutional constraints.

Over the past few months, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson have tried to position themselves as the standard-bearers for federalism. The Los Angeles Times’ Ron Brownstein recently praised Giuliani’s federalist approach to contentious social issues like gun control, gay rights, health care and abortion. Thompson has written several columns touting local control over the past few months.

But Giuliani has spent most of his career advocating for more federal power to fight the federal war on drugs. He has declared that he would continue the Drug Enforcement Administration raids on medical marijuana facilities, overruling state law.

Thompson is the only candidate yet to take a public position on the raids. While he’s right to note his impressive pro-federalist voting record in the Senate, he also voted for a number of bills strengthening the federal war on drugs.

And while Thompson’s campaign essays rightly decry the federalization of crime and the soaring U.S. prison population, they’re curiously silent on the war on drugs — a leading cause of both of these troubling trends. Thompson’s campaign did not respond to inquiries about his position on the DEA raids for this article.

Giuliani and Thompson claim they want to reinvigorate discussion of the virtues of federalism. Terrific. But you can’t argue that states should be free to make their own policies without federal interference — except when you happen to disagree with them. You can be a federalist, or you can be an ardent drug warrior. But you can’t be both.

Radley Balko is a senior editor for reason. This article originally appeared in The Politico.




TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: federalism; fredthompson; giuliani; keepitillegal; libertarian; marijuana; medicalmarijuana; obama; rehnquist; ronpaul; usvlopez; warondrugs; wod; wodlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-68 next last

1 posted on 09/17/2007 7:17:21 PM PDT by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Can't is a strong word.... What's the penalty if you do?
2 posted on 09/17/2007 7:30:24 PM PDT by SteveMcKing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Yo! Any of you Federalists
got any papers man?


3 posted on 09/17/2007 7:50:36 PM PDT by billorites (freepo ergo sum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

The author sounds right to me. Butt out Fed.


4 posted on 09/17/2007 7:57:56 PM PDT by DB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Hmmmm.... maybe why the fence isn’t built yet...... If it was legal to grow yer own, who would ever pay for it?


5 posted on 09/17/2007 8:06:13 PM PDT by rawcatslyentist (Did you know that everyday mexican gays sneak into this country and unplug our brain dead ladies HJS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
It was a most disappointing opinion by Antonin Scalia. When the Constitution says “necessary”, it should mean “necessary.” Scalia’s argument was uncharacteristically weak.
6 posted on 09/17/2007 8:09:47 PM PDT by ALPAPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

I’d like to see a reasoned argument rebutting the points made in this article.

I have often argued the same point of the author, its this issue that decides whether you merely talk the talk in terms of federalism or if you walk the walk.


7 posted on 09/17/2007 8:09:51 PM PDT by RWR8189 (Fred Thompson for President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: billorites

"Like, Ron Paul for President, man!" - Tommy Chong

8 posted on 09/17/2007 8:19:00 PM PDT by Uncle Miltie (I'm With Fred (So far, anyhow......Let's have a brawl.....Then join up at the end.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

So let me get this straight...did this guy just say that arresting criminals causes prison populations to rise? I’m not for greater federalizing of crime but Marijuana is not a harmless drug that we want mainstreamed. The Netherlands have seen crime rates and drug use particular among the youngest instead of plummet, as is often claimed will happen with legalization, skyrocket. The cost to society in terms of imprisonment and the war on drugs is small compared to the cost of decriminalization which would be a disaster as it has been everywhere it has been tried. They only ones who don’t seem to understand this are the users. Let the high lead the high and they fall into the ditch or else they end up married to Hillary Clinton. I think I’d take the ditch. lol


9 posted on 09/17/2007 8:20:46 PM PDT by Maelstorm (South Vietnam held back against the North for 2 years until Senator Kennedy cut military funding.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

I agree completely with the points of this article.


10 posted on 09/17/2007 8:25:02 PM PDT by Ronin (Bushed out!!! Another tragic victim of BDS.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm
Many said the same thing about appealing alcohol prohibition. I'd like to see some actual stats listed on the Netherlands. While marijuana is not benign, it's much less harmful on the body and intoxication than alcohol.

I personally hate marijuana-and smoking in particular-but the Feds have no business getting involved with it. If a state wants to make it illegal, so be it, but I do not want the federal government involved nor our federal tax dollars spent on 'fighting' it.

11 posted on 09/17/2007 8:26:30 PM PDT by rb22982
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: billorites
Yo! Any of you Federalists got any papers man?

Is that supposed to be funny? And why would you deny the sick the ability to pharmacologically use their endocannabinoid receptors?

Maybe you should rethink your name. The Bill of Right was created because the states feared an all powerful central gubmint. They wanted a limited federal gubmint so they included the Ninth and Tenth Amendments for rights retained by the states and the people.

12 posted on 09/17/2007 8:30:22 PM PDT by neverdem (Call talk radio. We need a Constitutional Amendment for Congressional term limits. Let's Roll!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

The Bill of Rights, pardon me.


13 posted on 09/17/2007 8:34:18 PM PDT by neverdem (Call talk radio. We need a Constitutional Amendment for Congressional term limits. Let's Roll!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm
Either you're a Federalist, or you're not.

Whether Medical Marijuana, Abortion, Speed Limits, Education, Welfare or Gambling...you're either a Federalist or you're not.

14 posted on 09/17/2007 8:39:59 PM PDT by Mariner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm

I’d much rather walk thru the worst parts of Amsterdam than the worst parts of any US city.

I’ve heard that ‘skyrocket’ claim many times before, but seeing the current stats of crime in the Netherlands, I find it hard to believe crime could have ‘skyrocketed’ very much. I’d love to see the US have just double their crime.


15 posted on 09/17/2007 9:20:42 PM PDT by Nate505
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Should we decriminalize?

It seems to me the question is not whether you or I should care about what a third party puts into his body, that is afterall a moral judgment, rather, the question is whether the government should care about what someone puts into his body?

Clearly the government has a constitutional right to regulate and criminalize drugs just as it has the right to regulate food and ethical drugs. The question is not whether it's constitutional but whether it is good public policy.

Seems to me that if a government prohibition on the use of drugs actually eliminated drug use, few except perhaps some aging hippies and top models would argue vehemently against such laws which would redeem so many wretched lives. But experience has shown that government fiat does not eliminate drug use. So the real question is, does government prohibition reduce drug use? And if it does, is the price worth paying? It is not entirely clear that the laws against drug use actually reduce their use because the prohibition itself creates a financial incentive which works to subsidize its use. The government has never found a way to eliminate or reduce drug usage without inserting a profit factor. Worse, the more the government is effective in reducing the inflow of illegal drugs, the more it creates a counter incentive of increased profitability by the law of supply and demand. Perversely, since the drugs tend to be addictive there is a physical compulsion to seek more of the drug and, since government efforts to eliminate it inevitably raise its price, users in withdrawal are tempted to finance their habits by becoming dealers. So it is not clear whether the government's efforts to reduce drugs by prohibiting their use actually does more harm than good.

One of the prices we pay for our government's campaign against drugs is certainly a loss of liberty. I tend towards the Libertarian's view that it is none of the government's damn business what I put in my body. However, I recognize that such usage inevitably presents a risk to society. I do not want inebriated drivers plowing into my automobile whether they are drunk on alcohol or drugs. But society has learned a hard lesson, that is better to make the drunk driving the crime but not the consumption of alcohol itself.

Another price we pay is a loss of privacy. Mandatory testing of both government and private employees is to some degree intrusive. Queries about drug use and application forms are equally intrusive. Undercover agents operating in public bathrooms is an affront to our dignity. Eavesdropping of telephone conversations is unquestionably an invasion of privacy. It is the reduction, or rather the presumed reduction, if any, in the amount of drug usage obtained by these intrusions worth the price?

We pay a great financial price as well. The war on drugs costs us billions of dollars annually in enforcement and incarceration costs. Is this money well spent?

There is an insidious price as well: corruption and its handmaiden, cynicism. Our police, our border agents, our judges, one might say the entire criminal justice apparatus has been infected with a corruption generated by the huge profits to be made-profits which are there only because the government by its policies has created them. Inevitably cynicism results in the whole of the people beginning to despise rather than revere the rule of law.

Because drugs are illegal, the price is high and profits are enormous. Yet we send our boys to fight in Afghanistan to deprive Taliban chieftains of their poppy fields which finance at least indirectly the very terrorism we fight against. Would it not be better simply to eliminate the profits in poppies by legalizing the drug? Can we ever hope to bring sanity to Columbia while we in effect subsidize narcos by billions of dollars a year? Is the damage to our foreign policy, like the damage to our precious rule of law, worth what benefit we get from criminalizing drugs use?

On balance, I have to throw my lot in with William F. Buckley and say that the war against drugs is lost and we ought to try a new tact.


16 posted on 09/17/2007 9:42:36 PM PDT by nathanbedford ("I like to legislate. I feel I've done a lot of good." Sen. Robert Byrd)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

*sigh* Again we get back to the idea that the federal government’s limits are enumerated in article 1, section 8 of the Constitution. If a state or a community wants to ban marijuana, or, for that matter, grow vast fields of bud, that is their business. Commerce between the states is a federal affair, true, but I’d be hard pressed to argue that a state making a drug illegal to possess is interstate commerce. This isn’t an argument for or against dope. This is an argument about who gets to implement and enforce drug laws. (Given a choice, I’d say ban marijuana - it’s awful stuff. Lots of things are awful. Many of those awful things shouldn’t be regulated by the federal government.)

Sadly, I’m about 100 years behind the times here. We continue to slouch towards socialism.


17 posted on 09/17/2007 9:47:16 PM PDT by redpoll (redpoll)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

Excellent essay! I believe the war on drugs is a fools errand. Corruption overseas and how it screws up foreign relations with other countries, besides the two you mentioned, seem to me the the only missing parts, IMHO.


18 posted on 09/17/2007 9:59:58 PM PDT by neverdem (Call talk radio. We need a Constitutional Amendment for Congressional term limits. Let's Roll!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Jefferson was a lefty in his time. People who misconstrue “federalism” are much farther to the social left.


19 posted on 09/17/2007 10:27:12 PM PDT by familyop (U.S cbt. engr. (cbt.)--has-been, will write Duncan Hunter in)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
If ever there were an issue for which federalism would seem to be an ideal solution, it’s the medical marijuana issue, which touches on crime, medical policy, privacy and individual freedom — all the sorts of values-laden areas of public policy that states are best equipped to deal with on a case-by-case basis, and for which a one-size-fits-all federal policy seems particularly clunky and ill-suited."

The author is right on substance--the constitution gives no power to congress to regulate entirely in-state commerce. But the single best issue? Seems to me the federal takeover of all aspects of commerce in the 30' and 40's is a more profound and and more serious incursion into the constitutional scheme.

20 posted on 09/17/2007 11:03:04 PM PDT by ModelBreaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm
"The cost to society in terms of imprisonment and the war on drugs is small compared to the cost of decriminalization which would be a disaster as it has been everywhere it has been tried."

Not True

Cannabis has been decriminalized in California and many other states since the 1970s. Not legalized, but no arrest made and a small fine levied for conviction of possession of an ounce or less.

There are a lot of things that have occurred in California that could accurately be called disasters but decriminalization of marijuana certainly is not one of them. And none of the horrible things that the opponents of medical marijuana predicted has happened either and it's been almost 10 years since it passed.

I personally take great comfort in the DEA raids on the doctors, clinics and patients and their caregivers. After all, if our government was really fighting a war on terror (aka Islamic facists who want to destroy us), the feds would use every means possible to protect U.S. citizens from those threats.

The simple fact that the federal government is able or willing to deploy such a large amount of money and heavily-armed personnel in the selective pursuit of sickly pot smokers, most of whom are sanctioned as legal by their own states, would seem to indicate how committed they are to picking on non-violent citizens rather than keeping us safe from Islamic bombs.

Plus, we have the added bonus of a congress that can legally declare any substance a 'dangerous drug' as long as the political climate is ripe.

It's really reassuring to know that our brilliant politicians can do this without any so-called facts from all of those doctors and research scientists . I mean, what would those brainy science types know about chemistry or drugs, anyway?(sarcasm off)

21 posted on 09/18/2007 12:17:26 AM PDT by Hoof Hearted (Run*Fred*Run)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: rawcatslyentist

The same type of people who buy beer rather than brewing their own or buy tobacco products rather than growing their own.


22 posted on 09/18/2007 12:35:12 AM PDT by TKDietz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: El Gato; Ernest_at_the_Beach; Robert A. Cook, PE; lepton; LadyDoc; jb6; tiamat; PGalt; Dianna; ...
Safety: In Stun Gun Training, Officer’s Spine Is Fractured

New York State and City Sue Merck Over Vioxx

FReepmail me if you want on or off my health and science ping list.

23 posted on 09/18/2007 12:41:06 AM PDT by neverdem (Call talk radio. We need a Constitutional Amendment for Congressional term limits. Let's Roll!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Isn’t this the third time this damn article has been posted?


24 posted on 09/18/2007 12:47:38 AM PDT by DesScorp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm
Our crime rates are much higher than those in the Netherlands on average. Per capita drug use is higher here too. You’ve been mislead. Marijuana use did go up in the Netherlands after they started allowing possession and allowing sales from marijuana retail establishments, but that happened at a time when per capita use rates were way, way below ours, before the drug craze that hit here had made it there. In recent years drug use rates in the Netherlands have been in the middle range compared to other nations in the EU, and of course per capita drug use in the U.S. tends to be higher than or right up there with use in the EU countries with the highest per capita use rates. The laws really don’t matter that much. The UK downgraded marijuana to a lesser classification of crime a few years age, making it such that almost everyone caught with it will only receive a warning and nothing else. Since then marijuana use dropped in the UK instead of going up. The laws don’t really make that much of a difference when it comes to marijuana. Most people who want to smoke it already smoke it, regardless of the laws.
25 posted on 09/18/2007 12:50:56 AM PDT by TKDietz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: DesScorp
Isn’t this the third time this damn article has been posted?

Searching under "The Limits of Frederalism," all I get is one posting. What's the problem, with federalism?

26 posted on 09/18/2007 1:01:18 AM PDT by neverdem (Call talk radio. We need a Constitutional Amendment for Congressional term limits. Let's Roll!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: rb22982
I personally hate marijuana-and smoking in particular-but the Feds have no business getting involved with it.

So do I.

The promotion of drug abuse in the popular culture has been chemical warfare against the young people of this country since the 1960's.

I think marijuana should be legalized completely for adults over 21.

"Medical" marijuana is a huge crock of shiite.

Do the Feds have a right to be involved? All marijuana is an imported product not indigenous to North America.

27 posted on 09/18/2007 4:49:56 AM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

The promotion of drug abuse in the popular culture has been chemical warfare against the young people of this country since the 1960’s.

I think marijuana should be legalized completely for adults over 21.

“Medical” marijuana is a huge crock of shiite.

Do the Feds have a right to be involved?

All marijuana is an imported product not indigenous to North America.


28 posted on 09/18/2007 4:52:29 AM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm

Thank God for the war on drugs! After all, we’ve been fighting that war for nigh onto forty years now, and it’s worked so well, you can’t hardly find any of those bad ol’ drugs in America any more.


29 posted on 09/18/2007 6:20:36 AM PDT by Notary Sojac ("If it ain't broken, fix it 'till it is" - Congress)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

Nice convoluted rant. However, you could have said the same thing by merely stating that prohibition has failed in every instance tried, whether it be alcohol or drugs. The government has no business in the drug business. As far as you saying that the question is not whether it is constitutional is a very ignorant statement and is a slippery slope indeed.


30 posted on 09/18/2007 6:23:15 AM PDT by calex59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: DB
It’s a pity that the “medical marijuana” is just a front for “legal” dope dealing. It’s always dressed up as being for the “sick”, but a hundred dollars and a visit to an unscrupulous doctor with little more than a secretary and a filing cabinet in his office can score you a medical marijuana card.

Once you have the card, you can posses marijuana, you know for the “depression” you are suffering. Now here is the real kicker. If you call up the “mobile meds dispensary” they will deliver right to your door, for a small “donation” of course. You just put your “donation” in the jar and take delivery of your “medication”.

It’s little more that dope dealing in the open.

31 posted on 09/18/2007 6:26:42 AM PDT by chaos_5 (... I'm just another angry white male ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: rawcatslyentist

We could use the FDR-era judge’s claim that a farmer growing his own wheat for his own consumption is subject to “interstate commerce” regulation because

if he weren’t growing his own, he’d have to buy it through interstate commerce.


32 posted on 09/18/2007 6:29:35 AM PDT by MrB (You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Those two cases ended 60 years of Supreme Court deference to Capitol Hill on the issue of whether the Constitution actually permitted the Congress to enact the laws it was passing. Some legal scholars thought it possible that the court might look for an opportunity to overturn Wickard v. Filburn, the notorious 1942 ruling which said that under the Interstate Commerce Clause, Congress can regulate the wheat a man grows on his own land for his own use.


Elect Fred, watch him replace 2-4 justices, and see the nation be put on a better path for generations to come.


33 posted on 09/18/2007 7:26:43 AM PDT by Atlas Sneezed ("We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them, I won't chip away at them" -Mitt Romney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mariner

Don’t forget machine guns! ;-D


34 posted on 09/18/2007 7:28:34 AM PDT by Atlas Sneezed ("We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them, I won't chip away at them" -Mitt Romney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood
"Medical" marijuana is a huge crock of shiite."

My terminally ill wife and her medical team disagree with you and I have seen first hand the benefits of medical marijuana. But I'm sure you are right. What would we know about it, anyway?

35 posted on 09/18/2007 8:27:45 AM PDT by Hoof Hearted (Run*Fred*Run)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood
"All marijuana is an imported product not indigenous to North America."

Do you really believe this, or do you just like to make things up?

36 posted on 09/18/2007 8:29:57 AM PDT by Hoof Hearted (Run*Fred*Run)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

IBrp!

hehehehe


37 posted on 09/18/2007 8:34:39 AM PDT by woollyone (whyquit.com ...if you think you can't quit, you're simply not informed yet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: calex59
As far as you saying that the question is not whether it is constitutional is a very ignorant statement and is a slippery slope indeed.

Why don't you try the same argument on Justice Scalia (I recommend a more respectful tone) and learn just who it is who is ignorant.


38 posted on 09/18/2007 11:17:42 AM PDT by nathanbedford ("I like to legislate. I feel I've done a lot of good." Sen. Robert Byrd)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood; calex59; chaos_5
"Medical" marijuana is a huge crock of shiite.

Then why do you find 2355 citations when you enter endocannabinoid system or endocannabinoid receptors or endocannabinoids into PubMed, which is a service of the National Library of Medicine and the National Institutes of Health? Endocannabinoid is a contraction of endogenous and cannabinoid, in the same way endorphin is a contraction of endogenous and morphine. Would you deny patients morphine and similar analgesics?

39 posted on 09/18/2007 12:12:18 PM PDT by neverdem (Call talk radio. We need a Constitutional Amendment for Congressional term limits. Let's Roll!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
I did not say it has no medical use, I am saying that the medical use is very much abused.

If you want my personal opinion, decriminalize. For get regulating, it is’nt suitable for human consumption under FDA rules. And, it’s a liability. If people want the stuff, let them grow it in their back yard. If they want to sell it to each other, thats fine too, just pay your income taxes.

40 posted on 09/18/2007 12:46:12 PM PDT by chaos_5 (... I'm just another angry white male ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: chaos_5
For get regulating, it is’nt suitable for human consumption under FDA rules.

That assumes the FDA is infallible, and its rules can't be revoked. Be that as it may, smoking is one of the quickest ways to deliver the active ingredient or ingredients. Even if smoking is problematic, at least one company made solutions of marijuana extract delivered by metered dose inhalers, like the ones used by folks with asthma and other chronic respiratory diseases.

41 posted on 09/18/2007 1:38:29 PM PDT by neverdem (Call talk radio. We need a Constitutional Amendment for Congressional term limits. Let's Roll!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

I love the irony! A Pothead writing in Reason magazine!


42 posted on 09/18/2007 1:46:17 PM PDT by Redleg Duke ("All gave some, and some gave all!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Redleg Duke
How do you know the author is a "pothead"? And where does the article show the lack of reason that you imply?
43 posted on 09/18/2007 2:47:59 PM PDT by Murray the R
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: familyop
People who misconstrue “federalism” are much farther to the social left.

Who has misconstrued federalism?

44 posted on 09/18/2007 2:49:21 PM PDT by Murray the R
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Redleg Duke
I love the irony! A Pothead writing in Reason magazine!

I'm amazed at the folks who think they can give back handed insults, e.g. your statement or the ban on online gambling, to libertarians, and then cry in their beer when the GOP loses Congress last November. IIRC, Conrad Burns in Montana and George Allen in Virginia lost their Senate seats by margins that were less than the votes in the Libertarian column in each state.

If you like irony, the author of the ban on online gambling in the House, Jim Leach, also lost his seat. Self identified conservatives are about one third of the electorate. Self identified small 'l' libertarians are about ten to fifteen percent of the electorate. We have more than enough enemies without alienating part of the GOP big tent.

Smackdown! By Independents & Moderates

45 posted on 09/18/2007 3:52:30 PM PDT by neverdem (Call talk radio. We need a Constitutional Amendment for Congressional term limits. Let's Roll!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Hoof Hearted
Do you really believe this, or do you just like to make things up?

Marijuana is Indian hemp... INDIA is in Asia...

Marijuana is not indigenous to North America.

46 posted on 09/18/2007 3:56:42 PM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: chaos_5; neverdem
If people want the stuff, let them grow it in their back yard. If they want to sell it to each other, thats fine too, just pay your income taxes.

My sentiments exactly. Legalize it for those over 21.

"Medical" marijuana is a con job, a huge crock of shiite.

But, even though you might think it should be completely legal for adults, the druggie fascist will scream bloody murder if you think any other way than they do...

That's only partly why I hate druggie scums...

Here is the other part:

I had a dream a girlfriend was going to die in high school. Her parents hated my guts. I begged her, and them not to let her go on a weekend trip with some of her goofy girlfriends. They dismissed me as being a nut, of course. She was killed en route in a head on collision - they (four girls) were all under the influence of mescaline, alcohol and marijuana... something I did know she was into...

I loved her most dearly... I hate druggies and drunks with a screaming passion to this very day (gritting my teeth). So if you or anyone else happen to be offended by my blatantly vicious and mortally violent views against drugs and their pushers, you will know why... It has been chemical warfare against the young people of this country since the 1960s...

WHAT MORE DO YOU POTHEAD DOPE FIENDS WANT? I SAID IT SHOULD BE LEGAL FOR ADULTS!

47 posted on 09/18/2007 4:08:01 PM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood
Legalize it for those over 21

I disagree. Any "legalization" implies regulation, and with regulation come liability. This is why I feel there should be no government involvement with the stuff.

Any commercial processing and packaging should be illegal.
Driving high should be considered DUI.
As for kids, schools can decide what substances are allowed on campus. ie, some have even banned soda.

This does push the growth and distribution into the underground market. So what, thats where it is now. As for prosecuting dope dealers, I'll be you can get them on tax evasion. Remember Al Capone.
I feel this would alleviate some of the over crowding of jails and burden on local governments who are trying to prosecute minor marijuana possession cases without growing government envelopment.

48 posted on 09/18/2007 4:38:54 PM PDT by chaos_5 (... I'm just another angry white male ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: chaos_5
As for kids, schools can decide what substances are allowed on campus. ie, some have even banned soda.

So, I catch somebody giving or selling the stuff to my kids, I could just cut their throats? Sounds fair...

49 posted on 09/18/2007 5:03:32 PM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood
So, I catch somebody giving or selling the stuff to my kids, I could just cut their throats?

Well, that way you wont have to worry about sending them to college. LOL Joking aside, shouldn't it be the parents responsibility to teach their children that smoking dope is bad? Weather or not it is illegal doesn't change the fact that it should be the parents responsibility to instill values and the character necessary to make the right decisions in life.

50 posted on 09/18/2007 5:08:47 PM PDT by chaos_5 (... I'm just another angry white male ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-68 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