Posted on 07/27/2011 10:42:14 AM PDT by Kaslin
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, a Republican and former U.S. attorney, has never been keen on his state's Compassionate Use of Medical Marijuana Act, which his predecessor, Jon Corzine, signed into law on the last day of his administration. But last week, Christie announced that New Jersey will proceed with plans to let six nonprofit organizations distribute marijuana to patients with "debilitating medical conditions" such as cancer, AIDS and multiple sclerosis, despite the risk of federal prosecution.
In Arizona, meanwhile, the Medical Marijuana Act approved by voters last November remains on hold thanks to Gov. Jan Brewer, who worries that it conflicts with the federal Controlled Substances Act. Brewer, a Republican who proudly advocates a "new federalism" that "protects the States and (their) citizens against an overreaching federal government," in this case seems happy to let the Obama administration override the will of Arizona's voters.
Although President Obama has repeatedly said he opposes "using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws on this issue," several U.S. attorneys warned last spring that compliance with state law offers no protection against federal prosecution for growing or distributing marijuana. That position was confirmed by a June 29 memo from Deputy Attorney General James Cole.
Citing this reversal, Brewer has asked a federal judge to decide whether the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act, which she opposed before the election, "complies with federal law" or is "pre-empted in whole or in part because of an irreconcilable conflict with federal law." Oddly, Brewer expresses no preference between those two diametrically opposed choices, which reinforces the impression that her suit is a veiled attempt to overturn Arizona's law without antagonizing its supporters.
Brewer claims to be concerned about the legal exposure of state employees who license and regulate dispensaries. But Dennis Burke, the U.S. attorney for Arizona, says he has "no intention of targeting or going after people who are implementing ... state law."
In any case, all state regulators would be doing is determining who qualifies for a medical exemption from state drug penalties. As the American Civil Liberties Union notes in a motion to dismiss Brewer's suit, performing that function does not conflict with the Controlled Substances Act or prevent the federal government from enforcing it.
The ACLU argues that there are no plausible grounds for charging state employees with a federal crime, since licensing and regulating dispensaries does not involve growing or distributing marijuana and does not meet the intent and knowledge requirements for convicting someone of conspiracy, aiding and abetting, acting as an accessory or money laundering. The group adds that regulators could not be prosecuted simply for failing to rat out licensees to the feds, since "respecting confidentiality does not constitute an affirmative act," which is required to convict someone of concealing a felony.
Although Vermont, Delaware and New Jersey have proceeded with plans for state-licensed dispensaries despite the prosecution threats, Brewer is not the only governor who has capitulated to federal pressure. Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire, a Democrat who had supported a bill that would have authorized dispensaries, decided to veto it after receiving a threatening letter from U.S. attorneys. Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee, who ran as an independent, likewise has halted plans for dispensaries.
But Brewer's timidity is especially striking in light of her devotion to state autonomy in areas such as health care, where she has challenged federally mandated insurance, and immigration, where she has sought to pick up the slack from an administration she perceives as insufficiently committed to enforcing the law. "The United States has a federal government, not a national government," she declared in a speech last March, promising to "pursue a policy of renewed federalism" and complaining that "never during our nearly 100 years of statehood has federal interference ... been more blatant."
Two months later, Brewer surrendered to federal interference by suspending her state's medical marijuana program. Legal scholars often bemoan "the drug exception to the Fourth Amendment." Apparently there is also a drug exception to the 10th Amendment.
Amazing really is the word for it. It is such a shame that the "stoners" who use it for fun have ruined it for the people who could benefit it from it.
I don't even want to describe the things I have had to go through to get it -- dealing with shady characters and putting my friends at risk to help me get it. Making it legal and taxing it would make it easier for the stoners and I would really not want that. But I just don't see any reason they can't just make it available to the cancer doctors. Or better yet, extract the actual substance (THC) as a tincture, put it in a vaporizer like an E-Cig, and give it to the cancer patients.
Like you say, a research program to extract the beneficial components would be valuable but I fear it'll be many years yet tho' perhaps other countries might try.
Without bothering to counter using any of a number of quotes from others, one simply has to point out that the States ratified the Constitution.
Why would such irrelevant entities have to go to the trouble of forming state conventions for the ratification of a document to create them as subdivisions? Does the baby create the mother?
Like all Hamiltonian groupies, you have it backwards. The States predated the Constitution; they collectively came together with representatives to re-negotiate the terms of their union ("...in order to form a more perfect...") and they did not negotiate away their own state sovereignty, no matter what Mr. Hamilton or his operator Mr. Marshall attempted to do with their own self serving chicanery.
Federal supremacy only applies to those areas granted to it. Federal laws which usurp those boundaries are null and void, usurpations, as even your hero Hamilton had to admit.
So sorry about your friend. It must still be so painful to think about.
Cancer treatment probably kills more people than the cancer itself. But of course it also saves lives too if one can stay hydrated and not get an infection of some sort. I didn’t even know I could be so sick and still survive. About half way through the treatment, I was certain I was going to die very soon. There was just no question in my mind. I felt like I was in a crowded room and slowly being led to the exit. Then my friend convinced me to smoke some weed, and things turned around at that exact point. It was all about keeping fluids down.
I am sure your friend fought all he could, but with dehydration, virtually no immune system, and heavy metal poison running through your veins, life hangs precariously in the balance. One bad day is all it takes to tip the scale.
I appreciate every day now, and I am still trying to get all my strength back and manage the after effects. But I always try to tell of my experience on these medical marijuana threads so that others might remember it as an option if they ever find themselves meeting with an oncologist.
Best to you, FRiend.
1. It was formed, not by the governments of the component states, as the federal government for which it was substituted was formed. Nor was it formed by a majority of the people of the United States, as a single community, in the manner of a consolidated government.That's why it had to be state conventions. They needed to derive from the same authority that made the state constitutions, so that they could legitimately supercede and nullify state constitutions at will. I'll give Madison credit for being fair. His project was a stinker, but he did it on the up and up.It was formed by the states, that is, by the people in each of the states, acting in their highest sovereign capacity; and formed consequently by the same authority which formed the state constitutions.
As for why they kept states around at all, the main reason was political expedience. Again, from Madison:
Conceiving that an individual independence of the States is utterly irreconcileable with their aggregate sovereignty, and that a consolidation of the whole into one simple republic would be as inexpedient as it is unattainable, I have sought for middle ground, which may at once support a due supremacy of the national authority, and not exclude the local authorities wherever they can be subordinately useful.--letter to G Washington
As for the Hamilton groupie nonsense, it just shows what a drooling moron you are. I have not expressed any special admiration towards Hamilton. I see him as a villian. But facts are what they are. Unlike you, I can recognize facts without throwing little baby tantrums.
If one is suffering from a debilitating illness, I imagine the salvation of the republic becomes less important than seeking relief.
Of course they did.
Pass an amendment if you don't like the original intent of the Commerce Clause. The People have the last word, not the USSC, and not you.
Intent is meaningless. It’s not the original intent of the commerce clause that is in question. Yeah, I guess you could pass an amendment that somehow addresses the 200 years of commerce clause jurisprudence, from McCulloch v Maryland to Gonzalez v Raich. It will never happen. Can’t imagine what it would look like.
When the day comes that the claim the authority to start confiscating firearms as an exercise in “regulating commerce”, which side will you come down on when the shooting starts?
When the day comes that the claim the authority to start confiscating firearms as an exercise in “regulating commerce”, which side will you come down on when the shooting starts?
Same side I'm on now--the antifederalist side.
Why should I trust somebody who won’t answer that question directly?
I give up. Why?
No reason to, but reason not to.
Do what you think is best. Means nothing to me either way.
“Please open your mind and maybe do some research of your own of people who use this drug as a necessity. Just stroll through any cancer center, ask around, and you will change your mind about it being a placebo effect.”
Please understand that I don’t have ANY problems with the regulated medicinal use of Marijuana. Persons like yourself should be able to get this as a prescription drug.
What troubles me is that others with non medical interests are attempting to use the “medical” route as a means to legalize the drug for recreatinal use. They hurt persons like yourself that have a legitimate medical need from getting needed help. A sad state of affairs.
I am surprised that this cannot be corrected with minor changes to federal law so states can have real “medical” use of marijuana available....without clashing with federal law. I suspect, again, that it is those with nefarious purposes that stop this from occuring.
Sadly our government doesn't make "minor" changes to accommodate those in need. Instead they complicate things and turn a simple thing into a huge, complicated ordeal.
And it's not just the federal government -- take a look at this thread for a good example. Jan Brewer is basically refusing to enact a law that was voted on by the people. Even the FReepers on this thread don't agree on what is right -- the debate rages while the patients are left to fend for themselves.
Personally (and selfishly) I am glad that there is so much demand for the stuff on the black market. The black market is true free enterprise -- supply and demand, a willing buyer and a willing seller. It ensures that it will always be readily available. And I like our chances with a judge and jury if I or any of my cancer patient pals get caught with it.
FRegards, and thanks for your support.
“Personally (and selfishly) I am glad that there is so much demand for the stuff on the black market. The black market is true free enterprise — supply and demand, a willing buyer and a willing seller. It ensures that it will always be readily available. And I like our chances with a judge and jury if I or any of my cancer patient pals get caught with it.”
I’m trully sorry for your predicament. It is also troubling that you have to resort to a “Black Market” (which exists for illicit use) to obtain medication. And I’m concerned that getting it from that source just hurts legitimate medical use.
If you keep the amounts you maintain low so you cannot be accused of distribution. Then I don’t think any jury would convict you if caught in possesion. I’m as anti-drug as they get, but (if on a jury) would never vote to convict someone that was clearly seeking medicinal relief.
Funny you mentioned that, because I have been tempted to get a larger amount since it is such a hassle (and scary) to get it. But I don't use it that much any more, so for the last year or so I have just bought a little to keep on hand. The truth is I hate the stuff, but I wouldn't want to be without it. The relief is just so instant and effective.
And you are welcomed on my jury anytime! (My doctor and nurses have already said they would testify for me if needed!)
Thanks again for your support, FRiend.
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.