A Clarification
Yesterday’s post that I made (And Marcie followed up on) revolved around the USSC decision regarding "medical marijuana". I believe that a clarification is needed on this topic. After reading, and rereading the decision it struck me that, in essence, the Court didn’t strike down the law. They simply ruled that there are no Constitutional protections for people to resort to the use of an illegal substance to alleviate their pain, or their discomfort. I feel for them. I really do, but they are breaking the law, nonetheless.
And that is what this case resonated. The federal law regarding use, possession, cultivation, and distribution of a Schedule I drug known as marijuana. This is where the dissenters’ arguments are absolutely annihilated. States rights doesn’t apply in this situation. Were this an issue that the states had decided upon, and the federal government stepped in, a serious case could be made for the federal government’s violation of the 10th Amendment.
But the states didn’t start regulating marijuana. The federal government did, and therefore they hold all the cards. And I still disagree with the inclusion of the Interstate Commerce Clause into the case as it, like States rights, doesn’t apply. The federal government doesn’t need a reason to "police" commerce on an illegal substance. It’s illegal, under federal law. They need no justification to step in on a state law that violates federal law; the violation is enough.
Yes, the USSC made another mistake, but it comes as no surprise to me. Except that the resulting decision they made doesn’t do what many have been saying that it does. The state law is not struck down. It’s still legal in California to continue obtaining marijuana for use medicinally—regardless of the form. But the Supreme Court is simply stating that the government will give you no quarter. You have no right to engage in the act.
Do I agree with the decision? I think I made that pretty evident yesterday. I do agree with the decision. Not on a "social" basis, but along the lines of the law. Socially is a different conversation completely, and it has no merit in the debate. The debate is over whether or not people in the America can be protected—Constitutionally—from prosecution in imbibing "marijuana" for medical use. The answer is no. The government can prosecute you.
Now, this may upset quite a few people. I have heard two days full of people disagreeing with this issue. The problem is because they can’t argue the legal merits of it, they switch the debate to a "social issue". Mark Taylor did this on Monday on Hugh Hewitt’s show while filling in for the nationally-syndicated host. I have heard tons of callers to talk shows using the same arguments. It is all based on a "social" argument. If I hear the term "victimless crime" one more time, I might throw-up.
There are, as Justice Stevens pointed out in writing for the majority, recourses that the people can take. In my humble opinion, there are two recourses that can be taken. And neither is an easy route.
First, the people can lobby Congress to revoke the law. That’s a stretch. I don’t see any representative willing to stick his neck out—coming up on an election cycle—for that issue.
Second, the people can lobby Congress to pass a new law that would basically add a provision onto the existing law, making the prescribing of marijuana for medicinal purposes legal, and therefore protected from prosecution. Granted, there would need to be some serious, microscope-like precision in defining the provision, but it could be done.
Personally, I’m not holding my breath for either one. In my opinion, this is a "dog-issue" right now in America. This doesn’t have nearly the emotional input that abortion possesses, and Roe v. Wade brought the emotion to new levels. It would be years more before the heights of emotion might reach the proportions to cause another misstep in judicial malfeasance. But this really isn’t a big issue right now. It’s big for a minority of individuals that, like every one else should be in society, are now responsible for the choices they make.
The Supreme Court didn’t say they couldn’t do it. They said that if you do it, there will be repercussions to your actions. They stated that you can still be arrested and prosecuted. That’s the point of the decision. It was appealed to the Supreme Court for a ruling on the Constitutionality of the law—whether or not we’re protected under the Constitution.
That answer, as we have seen, is no.
This law stays intact. I’ll even state that it’s sad, as I am someone who will defend States rights with the rest of the originalists out there, but the law stands. The states didn’t deal with the issue. The Fed did. They have the "trump" power on this issue. If you’re really ticked about it, then follow the advice of Justice Stevens. Don’t complain to me; you’ll get nowhere on that front. Don’t call into radio shows and complain that the government is "trampling" your rights. You never had them in regard to this issue. Take action to change the status quo, or be silent.
Publius II
Yesterday’s post that I made (And Marcie followed up on) revolved around the USSC decision regarding "medical marijuana". I believe that a clarification is needed on this topic. After reading, and rereading the decision it struck me that, in essence, the Court didn’t strike down the law. They simply ruled that there are no Constitutional protections for people to resort to the use of an illegal substance to alleviate their pain, or their discomfort. I feel for them. I really do, but they are breaking the law, nonetheless.
And that is what this case resonated. The federal law regarding use, possession, cultivation, and distribution of a Schedule I drug known as marijuana. This is where the dissenters’ arguments are absolutely annihilated. States rights doesn’t apply in this situation. Were this an issue that the states had decided upon, and the federal government stepped in, a serious case could be made for the federal government’s violation of the 10th Amendment.
But the states didn’t start regulating marijuana. The federal government did, and therefore they hold all the cards. And I still disagree with the inclusion of the Interstate Commerce Clause into the case as it, like States rights, doesn’t apply. The federal government doesn’t need a reason to "police" commerce on an illegal substance. It’s illegal, under federal law. They need no justification to step in on a state law that violates federal law; the violation is enough.
Yes, the USSC made another mistake, but it comes as no surprise to me. Except that the resulting decision they made doesn’t do what many have been saying that it does. The state law is not struck down. It’s still legal in California to continue obtaining marijuana for use medicinally—regardless of the form. But the Supreme Court is simply stating that the government will give you no quarter. You have no right to engage in the act.
Do I agree with the decision? I think I made that pretty evident yesterday. I do agree with the decision. Not on a "social" basis, but along the lines of the law. Socially is a different conversation completely, and it has no merit in the debate. The debate is over whether or not people in the America can be protected—Constitutionally—from prosecution in imbibing "marijuana" for medical use. The answer is no. The government can prosecute you.
Now, this may upset quite a few people. I have heard two days full of people disagreeing with this issue. The problem is because they can’t argue the legal merits of it, they switch the debate to a "social issue". Mark Taylor did this on Monday on Hugh Hewitt’s show while filling in for the nationally-syndicated host. I have heard tons of callers to talk shows using the same arguments. It is all based on a "social" argument. If I hear the term "victimless crime" one more time, I might throw-up.
There are, as Justice Stevens pointed out in writing for the majority, recourses that the people can take. In my humble opinion, there are two recourses that can be taken. And neither is an easy route.
First, the people can lobby Congress to revoke the law. That’s a stretch. I don’t see any representative willing to stick his neck out—coming up on an election cycle—for that issue.
Second, the people can lobby Congress to pass a new law that would basically add a provision onto the existing law, making the prescribing of marijuana for medicinal purposes legal, and therefore protected from prosecution. Granted, there would need to be some serious, microscope-like precision in defining the provision, but it could be done.
Personally, I’m not holding my breath for either one. In my opinion, this is a "dog-issue" right now in America. This doesn’t have nearly the emotional input that abortion possesses, and Roe v. Wade brought the emotion to new levels. It would be years more before the heights of emotion might reach the proportions to cause another misstep in judicial malfeasance. But this really isn’t a big issue right now. It’s big for a minority of individuals that, like every one else should be in society, are now responsible for the choices they make.
The Supreme Court didn’t say they couldn’t do it. They said that if you do it, there will be repercussions to your actions. They stated that you can still be arrested and prosecuted. That’s the point of the decision. It was appealed to the Supreme Court for a ruling on the Constitutionality of the law—whether or not we’re protected under the Constitution.
That answer, as we have seen, is no.
This law stays intact. I’ll even state that it’s sad, as I am someone who will defend States rights with the rest of the originalists out there, but the law stands. The states didn’t deal with the issue. The Fed did. They have the "trump" power on this issue. If you’re really ticked about it, then follow the advice of Justice Stevens. Don’t complain to me; you’ll get nowhere on that front. Don’t call into radio shows and complain that the government is "trampling" your rights. You never had them in regard to this issue. Take action to change the status quo, or be silent.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 6:43 PM
1 Comments:
I'm glad you clarified the distinction between the law and social arguments. According to my Libertarian newspaper, California physicians can still RX pot for health reasons but the pot clubs will close. I agree with you on the legal issue. You are correct. The medical profession doesn't know if pot is a pain reliever or something to get high on. There are many pain remedies on the market. My main objections to pot is that, to me, the smell is sickening, and it may lead to harder drugs with the result shown in the Opium war and lastly the aclu favors legalization of pot and all drugs without restriction. Rawriter.
Post a Comment
<< Home