Federal Police State Acting In An Unconstitutional Manner

[Tony]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108881,00.html ...full article

Marijuana (search) for medical use is legal under state law in nine states, but federal law says that the drug is not legal under any circumstance and this is causing enforcement to butt heads and leaving ailing people in pain.

Kidney cancer, diabetes and lung disease are among the ailments that give Don Nord, 57, constant pain. He's on 15 different medications but one he can no longer take because it was taken from him.

Nord is one of around 300 Coloradoans who have a state medical marijuana registry card, allowing use of the drug to ease pain from debilitating conditions.

"Right now it helps me relax," said Nord. "It helps me deal with the pain."

The federal government has no constitutional authority to pass and enforce such laws. Why haven’t there been more legal challenges to drug laws in America?

[Tmy]

The govt has all sorts of mob like tactics. Like messing with Doctors licenses or withholding Fed money. So they get their way!

I dont see why pot is made into such a big deal. Like in sports. You can take steroids all day long and they look the other way. But god forbid a player have pot in his system!! Its not like its performace enhancing. Whats the big deal.



Hey Tony,
You got the superbowl down there huh. Does that really do alot for the local economy??? GO PATS!!!

[Tony]

Originally posted by Tmy

Hey Tony,
You got the superbowl down there huh. Does that really do alot for the local economy??? GO PATS!!!


They are projecting it will add something like 300 mil. to the local economy. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

[Tmy]

Feds are allways using the purse strings to control the states. Like the fed highway funds. many states voted down a .08 DUI limit. That was till the feds tied highway money to the .08. Either you dropped the limit, or you get less road money. Its usually called extortion when we do it.

[Luke T.]

Federal law trumps state law.

But here is what strikes me as the profoundly stupid part about the medical marijuana laws. From the article:

Many times federal judges don't know what to do in this confusing situation but in late 2003 the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled medical marijuana patients are protected from federal prosecution as long as they grow their own, get it for free and don't sell it.

You have to grow your own. Think about that. Imagine if you had to make your own insulin if you were a diabetic. Or culture your own penicillin if you were sick.

There are prescription drugs which are chemically similar to heroin and cocaine. These idiots could solve the whole medical marijuana conflict by having the state make it a prescription drug manufactured for the end user like any other.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Federal law trumps state law.



Not if it's unconstitutional.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Tony



Not if it's unconstitutional.

You have to show why it's unconstitutional. If you can't show why, then how do you know it is?

-z

[Tony]

Originally posted by rikzilla


You have to show why it's unconstitutional. If you can't show why, then how do you know it is?

-z

The tenth amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Tony


The tenth amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

All this says is that if the power isn't in the constitution, then the power isn't constitutional. Not exactly a strong proof, is it?

Virtually all Federal criminal statutes derive their authority from the commerce clause. The recent 9th Circuit opinion concludes that some drug statutes regulate behaviour not affecting interstate commerce. Their reasoning seems quite suspect to me, given previous Supreme Court opinions on the matter.

That is the question, does the commerce clause allow this sort of law. Supreme Court case law seems to indicate yes, although the 9th circuit disagrees in cases where the drugs are produced in the same state where the drugs are used.

It seems to me that this argument was clearly rejected by the Supreme Court in Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942). The holding in Wickard was explicitly upheld in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995), the first case in many years to overturn a law as going beyond the reach of the commerce clause.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Tony


The tenth amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

On the face of it, it sounds like you make a good point. I also wonder why more people haven't challenged federal drug laws. Perhaps because so many people find drug abuse to be repugnant? Personally I have no use for drugs or those who abuse them...but if there is a valid medical use I don't see why it should be prohibited. The only other thing I have against the drug war is mandatory minimum sentencing. I've heard horror stories such as the girl who drove a person to a drug deal. She knowingly drove to a drug meet, but she figured she couldn't get in trouble as she had nothing whatsoever to do with the deal.

For this naivete she got 10 years with no possible parole because of the mandatory sentencing. The judge had no choice but to send a young girl with no priors to prison for 10 years! This is real injustice, and I do wish liberals would choose to champion an innocent person like this rather than the likes of the detainees at Gitmo.

-z

[bignickel]

Yeesh, yet another narcotics thread.

Well, to get this out of the way: The Supreme Court over many decisions (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment10/01.html#1) decided that based on the way the Constitution is worded, and more importantly, NOT worded, indicates that the Federal Government does not have to make any further amendments to the Constitution to specifically list powers that it needs to enforce it's existing mandate.

To wit: The Federal Government has several mandates (insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, etc). If it had to list every single right that it needed in order to fulfill it's mandates, the Constitution would be become swollen with all of them. They would be writing to it every year. Therefore, it is assumed that the Federal Government has unlisted powers for every one of it's mandates.

Of course, that only begs the question: which mandate is the Federal Government following in regulating the brain chemistry of it's citizens?

Anyways, as I've said before, this is all moot. The reason that we have all these laws is because the majority of U.S. voters want them. While a republic in name, the U.S. has frequently been very democratic (majority rules) on many issues of personal rights.

Why do the majority of U.S. voters want narcotics laws of some kind? I believe that it's mostly because of fear. Fear of the other. Fear of 'those' people, with their music, and clothes, and loud culture, coming into our neighborhoods, knocking on our doors, showing up in our schools, etc etc etc. But if we have narcotics laws keeping the 'other' in perpetual fear of drug raids, imprisonment, destablizing their neighborhoods... well, it comes them in check doesn't it?

Cynical thought for the day: Joe and Jane Six-Pack sleep easier each night knowing that somewhere there is a policeman's boot on the back of a young black man's neck.

I believe it's unfair for the citizenry to ask our police force to serve out this role. They deserve much better than to be put to such use. The policemen should be the friend of the citizenry, not someone that is regarded as a necessary irritant.

EDITED: dang, I should have known that Rik was gonna beat me to posting!

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by rikzilla


On the face of it, it sounds like you make a good point. I also wonder why more people haven't challenged federal drug laws. Perhaps because so many people find drug abuse to be repugnant? Personally I have no use for drugs or those who abuse them...but if there is a valid medical use I don't see why it should be prohibited. The only other thing I have against the drug war is mandatory minimum sentencing. I've heard horror stories such as the girl who drove a person to a drug deal. She knowingly drove to a drug meet, but she figured she couldn't get in trouble as she had nothing whatsoever to do with the deal.

For this naivete she got 10 years with no possible parole because of the mandatory sentencing. The judge had no choice but to send a young girl with no priors to prison for 10 years! This is real injustice, and I do wish liberals would choose to champion an innocent person like this rather than the likes of the detainees at Gitmo.

-z

Just to clear something up before it gets mixed up.

There is a difference between the following two items:

1) Draconian drug laws are a good idea and I like them

2) Those drug laws are constitutional

I would say no to (1) and yes to (2) given existing Supreme Court opinions w/r/t thr commerce clause.

Also, I think liberals have enough time on their hands to dislike mandatory minimmums as well as percieved rights abuses in Gitmo. It's just the battlelines are so well drawn in the former. It is so like two weeks ago and liberals move on. Liberals are nothing if not chic, so it appears they care more about the latter than the former...

[DavidJames]

"liberals have enough time on their hands to dislike mandatory minimmums as well as percieved rights abuses in Gitmo. It's just the battlelines are so well drawn in the former. It is so like two weeks ago and liberals move on. Liberals are nothing if not chic, so it appears they care more about the latter than the former..."

I would also add that it is not "PC" to oppose mandatory laws. If they do, they are accused of being soft on crime.

[Tony]

What does the ACLU have to say on this blatant civil rights abuse?

[Tmy]

How about good old fashion "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Where does the govt get off denying its people medicine based soley on political views. You mean to tell me we have constitutional right to abortions but not medical pot?

Its not like pot is a dangerous drug. Its silly that a doctor can give you oxycotin and valium but not pot.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by DavidJames
"liberals have enough time on their hands to dislike mandatory minimmums as well as percieved rights abuses in Gitmo. It's just the battlelines are so well drawn in the former. It is so like two weeks ago and liberals move on. Liberals are nothing if not chic, so it appears they care more about the latter than the former..."

I would also add that it is not "PC" to oppose mandatory laws. If they do, they are accused of being soft on crime.

Yes we all know that liberals can be identified by their hard line on crime...



(?)

[DavidJames]

"Yes we all know that liberals can be identified by their hard line on crime...
(?)"

I don't follow. My comment was that when I've seen politicians speak against mandatory sentencing (usually they've been liberal), they've been accused of being soft on crime.

[LFTKBS]

Originally posted by Tony
What does the ACLU have to say on this blatant civil rights abuse?

Why don't you find out?

ACLU Drug Policy (http://www.aclu.org/DrugPolicy/DrugPolicyMain.cfm)

"The "War on Drugs" is not working. After decades of criminal prohibition and intensive law enforcement efforts to rid the country of illegal drugs, violent traffickers still endanger life in our cities and tons of cocaine, heroin, and marijuana still cross our borders unimpeded. For the first time in history, the number of inmates in American prisons and jails has exceeded 2 million people, a rate of incarceration that is the highest in the world! This has happened despite the fact that violent crime has fallen to its lowest levels since 1974, when data was first collected nationally. Drug offenses account for nearly 60% of the federal prison population and more than 20% of the state inmate population.

"The ACLU has been an outspoken critic of the War on Drugs since the Reagan administration renewed efforts to stamp out illicit drugs in the early 1980s. The ACLU Drug Policy Litigation Project (DPLP), founded in 1999, conducts the only national litigation program addressing civil rights and civil liberties violations arising from the War on Drugs. Based in New Haven, Connecticut, the DPLP has litigated cases on many issues, including drug testing, racial justice, medical marijuana, needle exchange, religious freedom, electronic music culture, voting rights, students' rights and government programs such as welfare. The DPLP also provides support to ACLU drug reform efforts at the local, state, and national levels."

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by DavidJames
"Yes we all know that liberals can be identified by their hard line on crime...
(?)"

I don't follow. My comment was that when I've seen politicians speak against mandatory sentencing (usually they've been liberal), they've been accused of being soft on crime.

"I would also add that it is not "PC" to oppose mandatory laws. If they do, they are accused of being soft on crime."

Has anyone ever been accused of being anti "P.C." for opposing long sentances for all drug offenders?

What I meant:

1) Your statement implies that being "P.C." requires one not to oppose mandatory minimums as that would be soft on crime.

2) Being "P.C." is (somehow) an accusation usually directed towards a "liberal."

3) Thus, it seems you are saying the "politically correct" ("liberal") position is in favor of the minimums.

4) I would disagree with that assessment of the liberal viewpoint.

[bignickel]

Not to derail this thread, but I'd have to agree. "PC" is just a new name for the way politics have always been done in republics and democracies: something is "PC" when it's not going to offend key groups.

For most of this countries history, it's been PC to:
1. deny women the vote and equal rights, and denigrate them
2. deny minorities the vote and equal rights, and denigrate them
3. deny homosexuals equal rights, and denigrate them

As these groups became more powerful, they've been able to put wield enough political power thru their alliances to make it politically disadvantageous for politicians to threaten them.

You would think the Bill of Rights would be enough to protect in this country... but c'est la vie.

Of course, we don't have to worry about the practices of young wives being 'accidently' scalded to death when their dowries are insufficient (India) or of female genital mutilation (Africa) or even of minorities being exterminated (Rwanda), so we can be somewhat grateful that the extremes of PC here in the U.S. never approach the extremes elsewhere.