Skip to comments.Feds won't give assurance on medical pot
Posted on 07/01/2011 4:11:36 PM PDT by george76
The U.S. Justice Department says that marijuana dispensaries and licensed growers in states with medical marijuana laws could face prosecution for violating federal drug and money-laundering laws... Deputy Attorney General James Cole said a 2009 memo by then-Deputy Attorney General David Ogden did not give states cover from prosecution.
Starting in February, 10 U.S. attorney's offices have asserted they have the authority to prosecute medical marijuana dispensaries and licensed growers in states with medical marijuana laws. Prosecutors, the states complained, are not even willing to declare that state employees who implement such laws are immune from prosecution.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
It is our doper fellow citizens who put us between a rock and a hard place. Do we let them trash our nation even further? Or do we cry out for a tyrant who’ll preserve our country (or what’s left of it) from their dope-destruction?
We have demonstrated an incapacity for self-government, so we must instead be ruled over. The very aspect of the colonists which justified their independence is the thing we have lost.
So we’re losing our freedom, and deservedly so. We act like children. Our parents have given us a little freedom and trust, and we run wild like we’re in “Lord of the Flies”. Can we handle freedom? Obviously not.
We can blame the tyrants. But that’s like blaming the lion for chasing down a sick antelope. The tyrant is always there, waiting. And we’ve made our nation sick and weak, helpless to defend against him.
We deserve what we’re getting, because not enough of us will tell the dopers - and all the rest of those who will not rule themselves - to knock it off and act like grown men and women. I’m ashamed at what we’ve become, and plenty ticked off at those who have perverted liberty into license and so brought tyranny down on all our heads.
Speak for yourself. Obama's memo is making the rounds. He thinks he can walk all over the Constitution (actually he is), and it is not because of a few people smoking pot. I'll reject your view that we deserve a tyrant because of this subject. Your assertation is tyrannical by nature.
Quite frankly: no. I don’t believe that marijuana is as big of societal issue as that of crack, meth, heroin or presciption drug abuse.
But if you think that I’m advocating legitimizing crank, or smack, or any other number of pharmaceuticals - legit or otherwise - that’s another story.
You want to shoot glue into your veins, nobody’s going to stop you. From a pragmatic standpoint: none of that can be allowed. IF all social programs and safety nets are abolished and everybody is totally on their own, and we don’t mind the permanent ghetto class - which one will undoubtedly exist (once you’re in it no hope of escape either) - then go for it.
'I'll get you my little pretty. And your little plant, too!'
I see both sides of the argument but I tend to lean towards the federales staying within their enumerated powers. I don't see where the WOD falls within Art 1, Sec 8. Let the states deal with it. If it becomes too big of a national problem, then no doubt an amendment would pass restricting certain drugs. That's the proper way to approach the problem. Didn't work out so well once before with alcohol, but who knows???
From "A Clockwork Orange" in case you missed it. A VERY strange movie in its day. Today, not so much.
No doubt. After doing a quick search, she appears to be a fire breathing advocate for “social justice”. Not surprising given her background.
It would appear that ostensibly under the General Welfare clause in the Preamble, and putatively the Commerce Clause of Art. I Sec. 8, that Congress has authority in such matter.
That being said, it would appear that based on precedence, the XVIII Ammendment - Prohibition of Intoxicating Liquors into the United States and its territories - that on the face of things the WOD and authority of the DEA would appear to be extra-Constitutional.
As it stands presently, Prohibition is still in affect - in accordance to the XXI Ammendment - and as such, I believe that regulation of narcotics and/or pharmaceuticals apart from that implied or inferred as being established by the Commerce Clause is an overzealous excercise of Congressional authority.
As a fundamental matter of law I strain to see any difference betwixt Congressional authority exerted in the WOD, DEA and that of Prohibition; either or all mandate with regards to the aims of such needs to be granted explicitely either to or conferred by the States (in accordance to precedent established with the Ammend. XVIII).
As far as I’m concerned there are a lot of more sinister substances than marijuana that society needs to concern itself with. And if use of cannibis is permitted exclusively with respect to medical purposes, I believe the risks to be far less than legitimate substances, e.g., Oxycontin, Fentenyl, etc.
There’s no doubt that ONE of the putative reasons for Congress’ mandate of any authority is to promote General Welfare, however, since alchohol has no fundamental medical purpose, why then was the XVIII Ammendment perceived as necessary?
Good posting, with some history and facts.
I personally don’t believe the issue of this thread is about whether marijuana should be legalized or not.
The issue, as I see it, is that the Federal government has CHOSEN to not pursue prosecution for violations of federal laws; with the intent of hopefully gaining voters for their socialist ideals.
Federal laws exist regarding aiding, abetting and giving sanctuary to illegal aliens, as well as marijuana and other drugs, and voter fraud and intimidation at polling places. Yet this Democrat administration’s Dept. of Justice refuses to pursue prosecutions for violations in their pursuit of votes.
Perhaps you are not as informed as you could be about I.8.3, and the difference between the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and the power to regulate commerce among the several states.
I request that you read the following pieces:
James Madison on the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations: http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_3_commerces18.html">
James Madison on the power to regulate commerce among the several states: http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_3_commerces19.html
Clarence Thomas's brilliant opinion in US v Lopez, in which he explains why the New Deal Commerce Clause is a fraud: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-1260.ZC1.html
It's a "hate the sin, love ths sinner" kind of deal.
Defending the right to free speech means defending someone else's right to say something you don't agree with.
The right to the keep and bear arms also applies to people we might not necessarily like or trust.
In our constitutional republic,the Tenth Amendment means that the states have the right to pass laws we don't agree with.
The Founders talked about the States being "laboratories of democracy", and weren't under any illusion that every law they passed would be good law, but believed that when they did pass bad laws the people would sort it out and fix it once they had a taste of living under it.
Don't forget that we still have the process of amendment and can still use it to give that power to the federal government if the states and the people decide that's what they want.
Do not let anyone make you defend "drug legalization" for recognizing that the authority to pass those laws was never properly granted to the national government and thus, still rests with the States. It's a dishonest tactic and anybody that tries it needs to be called out and confronted head on.
Don't think for one minute this issue isn't being played and calculated to sow dissent among the ranks of conservatives, and used to help defuse arguments about state's rights in the face of constitutional challenges to Obama's health care plan and other abuses of power.
That is entirely within the pervue of the executive prerogative: enforcement of the law. They can choose to do so zealously or not. They can interpret the law narrowly or not.
Its like coming in late to work every day and the boss does nothing about it. One is clearly a violation of policy, but you park in ‘his’ unmarked spot and he fires you. Police officers are sworn to ‘uphold the law’ and yet they grant Michigan drivers their customary 10 MPH over the speed limit (maybe not without a glare though). Pot / speedlimit same thing in my eyes.
Crack, crank, smack you name it, that’s akin to three-sheets drunk and stumbling around in a crowd with a fully loaded combat magazine, round in the M-203 and finger on the trigger; somebody’s gonna get hurt.
True enough, and by twisting it into a pretzel, progressives took a huge leap beyond a simple reading and meaning to expand feral powers. Shouldn't come as a surprise I suppose since governments historically tend to do just that. From the context in which the phrase appears I can't perceive any emanating penumbra that gives them the authority to play Robin Hood.
...since alchohol has no fundamental medical purpose, why then was the XVIII Ammendment perceived as necessary?
Heh; what??? Anyhow, in the not too distant past, various tonics, elixirs and syrups were in fact offered for "medicinal purposes". No doubt ubiquitous during prohibition. I'm led to believe red wine and beer in moderation can have beneficial, even medicinal effects. And who's to say that "taking the edge off" during a stressful period doesn't provide some benefits; even if short term? Well, all of which is beside the point since we're really talking about the regulation of Mary Warner(late aunt's pronunciation) under the auspices of the commerce clause. Which has also been twisted into a pretzel by progressives.
Medical pot is an oxymoron.