Cannabis Capitulation: The Marijuana Exception to Jan Brewer's Federalism

Townhall.com ^ | July 27, 2011 | Jacob Sullum

[Semper911]

I have seen this beneficial effect first hand and was amazed so I have no objection to medicinal use. In fact why not just legalize it and tax it.

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.

[1066AD]

I guess you could make it prescription only (and accept there would be some abuse of course). You said cancer can take you slowly, but the effects of the treatment can kill you in a matter of days, how true, I lost a good friend two years ago, he was enduring a brutal regimen like yours, I had an optimistic email from him right before his final session but he died a week later, just couldn't take it any more.

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.

[Regulator]

Oddly, I thought you might dredge up some of the Authoritarian bilge that Hamilton spewed.

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.

[Semper911]

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.

[Huck]

It's not surprising that you, like many others, are confused and mistaken about the ratification of the Constitution. Madison's scheme was so convoluted, even in old age he was still trying to explain it:

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Huck]

Of all the hills to die on-- it is amazing the time and energy put into this issue, which is essentially tilting at a trivial windmill. You'd think legalizing pot was the salvation of the Republic. Pathetic.

If one is suffering from a debilitating illness, I imagine the salvation of the republic becomes less important than seeking relief.

[Huck]

they did not negotiate away their own state sovereignty

Of course they did.

[tacticalogic]

Where does the Constitution require the SCOTUS to rule based on "intent?" Answer: It doesn't. And anyway, your opinion means diddly. The SCOTUS gets the last word, and they've spoken. CSA is constitutional. Pass an amendment if you don't like it.

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.

[Huck]

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.

[tacticalogic]

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?

[tacticalogic]

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?

[Huck]

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.

[tacticalogic]

Why should I trust somebody who won’t answer that question directly?

[Huck]

I give up. Why?

[tacticalogic]

No reason to, but reason not to.

[Huck]

Do what you think is best. Means nothing to me either way.

[Sola Veritas]

“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.

[Semper911]

I am surprised that this cannot be corrected with minor changes to federal law

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.

[Sola Veritas]

“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.

[Semper911]

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 possession. 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.