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.
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.
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)
The same type of people who buy beer rather than brewing their own or buy tobacco products rather than growing their own.
New York State and City Sue Merck Over Vioxx
FReepmail me if you want on or off my health and science ping list.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Don’t forget machine guns! ;-D
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?
Do you really believe this, or do you just like to make things up?
IBrp!
hehehehe
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.
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?
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.
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.