The marijuana ruling was insane...

[feelthebreeze]

Last night on broadcast network news, it was reported that the US
Supreme Court ruled against the validity of protection from
prosecution those people growing, using, etc. marijuana for medical
purposes. The news anchor said they sited the matter as falling under
interstate commerce, and therefore Congress has a right to regulate
it on a federal level (thus overriding state medical marijuana laws),
and marijuana (federally speaking) is a Class I drug (meaning with no
medicinal value).

Given that it's ILLEGAL to traffic marijuana interstate for any
reason, I wondered at this ruling. This morning's newspaper article
clarified things for me:

In the majority opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote: "One need
not have a degree in economics to understand why a nationwide
exemption for the quantity of marijuana (or other drugs) locally
cultivated for personal use (which presumably would include use by
friends, neighbors, and family members) may have a substantial impact
on the interstate market for this extraordinarily popular substance."

---of course, again, interstate commerce of marijuana is ILLEGAL, so
presumably the US would want to work and is working towards
eradication of that commerce. Additionally, I believe the states that
have medical marijuana laws are rather strict with regard to "no
sharing with others for their recreational use." All the states are
well aware of the no-exceptions illegal status of the substance in
the eyes of the Feds, and are careful to keep within strict bounds
when the referendums are written for presentation to the electorate.

The one sentence quoted above (I certainly have not read the ruling,
just the newspaper article) completely ignores the fact of illegality
of interstate commerce of this substance. How weird is THAT???

Furthermore, the paper reports that "The court's majority marijuana
ruling relied heavily on a 1942 Supreme Court case that held that the
broader wheat market could be affected by wheat GROWN FOR HOME
CONSUMPTION."

THAT does not bode well. Think about the implications for the future.
I don't intend this to be a "sky is falling" post; simply want to
inform. But think about what you yourself might be growing right now
in your own backyard for your own consumption. Do your neighbors also
grow these things? If you all grow these things, could that effect
the broader market for these things? Can you imagine in your worst
nightmare not being able to (legally) grow vegetables and/or flowers
in your yard? Not being able to (legally) save seeds to grow your own
annuals next year? WOW. Could this line of thinking one day impact
organic growers? Will we all be eating GMO/antibiotic
laden/non-organic etc. food in the future, grown from seed that
produces fruit that has sterile seed ala Monsanto's products?

What a contortion of a ruling!! Not the aspect one would expect the
Supreme Court to focus on in coming to a decision. And what was the
break down of the 6-3 ruling? This is very interesting. The six:
Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Bader-Ginsburg, Breyer...and Scalia.
(When's the last time this bunch agreed on anything?)

The three: Rehnquist, Thomas, O'Connor.

And if you think I'm jumping to a crazy conclusion regarding the
implications of this ruling, here's a quote from the dissenting
opinion, written by O'Connor:

"The Court's definition of economic activity is breathtaking. It
defines as economic ANY ACTIVITY INVOLVING THE PRODUCTION,
distribution, AND CONSUMPTION OF COMMODITIES."

Commodities. The things we grow in our yards.

http://www.astroworld.us/archives/000502.html#000502

[On the Road]

1. Oh, Now I See the Flaw in the Decision

In general, the federal government should have broad power to regulate banned substances. Whether or not you agree the specific issue of medical marijuana is another matter.

But the specific case involved interstate commerce.

"Grow-your-own" marijuana for personal use should never be classified as interstate commerce. O'Connor is right. The interpretation is breathtaking in its wrongheadedness.

[feelthebreeze]

2. Breathtaking being a political term for...

WTF! It just gets more and more crazy here in cockamamie town.

[On the Road]

3. Seriously, I Appreciate This Link

because up until now, the court seemed to be on solid constitutional ground even if I didn't particularly like the outcome. But interstate commerce? No way. :crazy:

[DefenseLawyer]

5. Actually the federal government doesn't

have "broad power" to regulate banned substances. The Constitution innumerates the powers of Congress in Article I Sec. 8 and those powers do not include "regulating banned substances" or even banning substances in the first place. The closest it comes is granting the power: "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes." It is not just the specific case that involves interstate commerce, every law of the nature requires a finding that it involves interstate commerce, because the "Commerce Clause" is the only source of constitutional authority for such laws that don't deal with one of the specific enumerated powers of congress.

[Internut]

6. The fact that the Supreme Court is willing to

twist reality completely out of shape in order to fit all the round pegs of Federal power-grabs into the square hole of "interstate commerce" just underscores the fact that the Constitution really does not mean much. Since the Supremes have shown that they are willing to consider absolutely anything as fitting the "interstate commerce" clause, the Constititution might as well not exist.

[gmsage]

17. That's right and it's also the reason...

...that they had to amend the Constitution in order to prohibit sale and manufacture of alcohol. The end run for marijuana was use of the commerce clause, and the new prohibition was sold to the people as the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937. Since levying taxes is one of Congress' few limited powers, it was probably a pretty easy sell.

I remember reading somewhere that Congress used the "supremacy" clause as a basis for writing the CSA, totally ignoring what I like to call the "pursuance" clause. Supreme law of the land my ass! Nonetheless, Alcohol prohibition only lasted 13 years. Prohibition of marijuana has been going on for 68 years, all without a Constitutional amendment. This is not the country I was taught to believe in when I was a kid.

[SpiralHawk]

9. It's a quintessential States Rights issue

And look where the Republicans line up on this: Supporting Big Government over and above the states in everything.

It's a topsy-turvy world, alright. The Republicans support big Government, handouts for the wealthy, destruction of the environment, and then they Spend like Drunked Sailors -- bankrupting the nation. What a party. Their actions never match their Newspeak propaganda. What a bunch of doozies.

[gmsage]

10. Unfortunately, the problem is more than just the Republicans...

...and I have a real deep seated hatred of those whackos. This drug war is really the darkest side of the New Deal. Look to Roosevelt if you want to find the the WOD's daddy. Funny how this is the only part of the New Deal that Bush and his War Criminal cohorts want to keep.

Roosevelt's Democratic progeny have done no better. The morning after Clinton was elected president I remember thinking that the war on marijuana would soon be just a bad memory, (I even sprung for some grow lights and started a garden) then Clinton gave us Lee Brown, and his replacement, Gen. Barry McCaffrey. We all know how that went. I started voting Green after that. Moderate democrats are as bad as their sweethearts across the aisle.

The so-called "liberal" justices on the SC aligned themselves with Antonin Scalia in expanding federal power against medical marijuana patients, while three of the most conservative dissented in favor of Raich and Monsen. Man, talk about whiplash!

The Democratic candidate for Governor of NJ is, unfortunately, Jon Corzine. Corzine was confronted by Cheryl Miller and her husband Jim in 2000 and 2001 and asked for his opinion on the issue of MMJ. He stated that "it is a complicated issue". He finally stated that he had "faith in the FDA to regulate drugs and would not be in support of any legislation which circumvented that process". He then promised to schedule a formal meeting in his Washington DC office which he never followed through on up until Cheryl passed away on June 7th, 2003.

My Congressman, Democrat Frank Pallone Jr., now running for Corzine's Senate seat, has the same opinion. Pallone told me in his Hazlet, NJ office that Rep. Barney Frank's medical marijuana bill would, "give too much power to the states". He has consistently voted against the Hinchey-Rohrbacher amendment.

I'm still a registered democrate, but how can I support this party, (PLEASE, NO HILLARY OR LIEBERMAN) with representatives like these? According to a recent AARP poll 72% of people over the age of 45 agree that marijuana should be an option for patients. The only people in the dark in this country are those in congress, and they are there by choice. Complicated issue my ass!

sage

[Al-CIAda]

4. This should be a minor campaign issue. Medical use. n/t

[Spectral]

7. Is there more info on the wheat case?

"Furthermore, the paper reports that "The court's majority marijuana
ruling relied heavily on a 1942 Supreme Court case that held that the
broader wheat market could be affected by wheat GROWN FOR HOME
CONSUMPTION."


It just makes me wonder if the wheat farming industry got their buddies in the Supreme Court to protect their business. Wasn't that the Supreme Court of Franklin Roosevelt? Why would they rule against the people?

[theboss]

8. You are taking a right-wing position

The Commerce Clause interpretation that was upheld is the key to the entire New Deal.

Read this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3806087

[gmsage]

12. Well, then I guess I disagree with the whole New Deal...

...but that hardly makes me a right-wingnut.

I also have nothing against lawyers, but they have done precious little for me or any other marijuana law offenders that I know.

I joined Lawrence Elliot Hirsch's Action Class for Therapeutic Cannabis in 1999. This was where I first met Cheryl and Jim Miller, (after hearing about her civil disobedience in the office of then Rep. James Rogan over his negative vote on HJ Res 117). After Judge Marvin Katz dismissed the lawsuit, we were ALL left out in the cold and from what I have been told, Hirsch took a lot of money from a number of plaintiffs to help with cases outside of the action class, then did nothing for them. BTW, Angel Raich was also a plaintiff in that action class back when she was Debra Cannistracci.

The fact is that there is no Constitutional muster for a federal war on drugs. Where in the document does it give Congress the right to prohibit a plant? Any plant? Oddly enough, I am a democrat who took his oath to "protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic" seriously. Citing Wickard in the Raich case is moot because respondent Filburn had signed onto the federal program which limited his growing crops beyond defined limits. And he took their payoff. Raich and Monsen did no such thing!

As far as appealing to Congress? Cheryl Miller travelled to "the beltway" 9 times with husband Jim, to appeal to Congress. They ignored and delayed her to death. As I said in my posting, my own appeals to my own representatives have been mostly ignored. Granted, we have had more help from Democrats in Congress, but as strange as it seems, even Dana Rohrbacher is on our side on this issue. Lyn Nofziger is also a strong supporter. I'm always surprised by how many "Democrats" are resistant to any change in these draconian laws.

I do not believe that State's Rights includes slavery or Jim Crow. There's a big difference between "owning" a plant and owning a human being. If hotels in Atlanta decided to exclude dark skinned people, you can be sure that today there would be protests and boycotts of those hotels. This ain't the 50's. If white racists in the South tried to bring back Jim Crow or slavery, I have no doubt that there would be a large mobilization of concerned citizens who would take up arms against them. John Brown had no help from the Feds. The Nation of Islam has become much stronger and no doubt better armed, since those days. I also have no doubt that people like us, who care about such matters, would volunteer to help. The Lincoln Brigades enlisted to help fight the fascists in Spain, without any government policy forcing them to do so.

I am a small d very left democrat who does not believe that over-reaching federal policing is the answer.

[davepc]

14. Federalism, and its scope and depth is not a right wing/left wing issue

its been the center of the debate about our government since its founding and being a degree of an anti-federalist does not magically make one a right winger.

There needs to be a balance between the powers of the federal government and the powers (and rights) enjoyed by the people and the states (see the 10th amendment).

If the pendulum swings too far in one direction then the will of the people and their duly elected Representatives at the state level are meaningless if they can be casually cast aside by federal fiat. That creates a dangerous centralization of power that can be used for much ill.

Justice Thomas said it best:

"Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything— and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers."

http://wid.ap.org/scotus/pdf/03-1454P.ZD1.pdf

I don't think a Federal government that has some reins on it is a bad thing, and I think this ruling helps open the door to more casual disregard by the federal government of the laws and desires of the States and the people within them. If the Fed can just point to the commerce clause willy nilly to support anything they want to regulate or ban or restrict then whats the point of having states?

[gmsage]

15. Here, here.....Very well said! Thanks. N/T

[rhett o rick]

11. Why are the Righties afraid of Mary Jane?? n/t

[gmsage]

13. Unfortunately, it's many of the so-called "lefties" too....

...nonetheless we trudge on hoping to find more Dems that are against creating a therapeutic police state.


BTW, anybody interested in raising their voices in support of New Jersey's, Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act (S-2200)introduced in the Legislature by Sen. Nicholas Scutari (D-Middlesex, Somerset, Union), please come to the NJ Statehouse tomorrow, June 9th at 12:00 PM (High Noon till 1:00 PM). The Statehouse is on State Street in Trenton. Rally is being organized by the New Jersey Coalition for Medical Marijuana .

sage

[gmsage]

16. What about my paintings?

The Supreme Court's over-reaching in Gonzalez/Ashcroft vs. Raich could probably be applied to anything that we produce which could potentially have value, and in the case of my artwork, even if that commercial value doesn't really kick in till after I'm "moulderin' in the grave".

Where's the limit? How will this be applied concerning art that the Feds view as offensive? We've got a load of censor happy loons in there right now. What's to stop them now? And what about porn? We know that this is one of Sam Brownback's obsessions.

Again, where's the limit?

[Gyre]

18. I learned to hate the result-oriented S. Ct. rulings

in law school. The liberties they've taken with the Commerce Clause over the years have been astounding, and produced some of the most(like this) completely assinine and logically incoherent holdings in the history of western jurisprudence.

Gyre