Getting Tough on Crime!

Published on June 7, 2005 By Gideon MacLeish In Politics

Yesterday, the Supreme Court of the United States made a decision giving the federal government the ability to override state law in prosecuting a certain class of hardened criminals.

Who are these criminals, that the government should get tough on them? Are they murderers? rapists? Identity thieves? No, these dangerous criminals are those sick and dying who have committed the unconscionable crime of turning to medical marijuana to alleviate their symptoms. In yet another blow to the states' rights that the GOP falsely claims to champion, the Bush league took to SCOTUS a challenge to the medical marijuana laws enacted in ten states. SCOTUS' decision allows for the federal prosecution of citizens within that state.

If there was an issue of interstate transportation, then yes, I would agree, the fed has oversight. But when the issue is marijuana grown within the state for medical use, there shouldn't be a case. In its zeal to continue the failed and discrtedited "war on drugs", SCOTUS made another decision whose impact will only stand to make criminals out of a group of people who want nothing more than to live the remainder of their lives with a little less suffering.

Comments

Dr Guy

on Jun 07, 2005

I think there is a question of Interstate Commerce. In other words, you stay in california and use it there, and the feds cant touch you. They can fine the state for allowing it (fine as in witholding some of the federal dollars), but I dont think they can prosecute you.

I may be wrong. Is there a link to the ruling?

latour999

on Jun 07, 2005

In yet another blow to the states' rights that the GOP falsely claims to champion,

"But I thought the Republican Party was in favour of states rights"

"Well, Jon, that was before they owned the federal government"

-The Daily Show

The war on dugs is a bullshit war. Who are these people hurting? No one. All they want is to get some marijuana for their pain. Besides, more social problems are as a result of prohibiting drugs that the drugs themselves. Remember Prohibition and Al Capone?

Gideon MacLeish

on Jun 07, 2005

latour,

This is one area where you and I fall in 100% agreement. Drugs are a "victimless" crime; where an offense against another is coupled with drug use, legal action should focue on the OFFENSE, not the drug use.

Dr Guy

on Jun 07, 2005

Update. I did not find the ruling, but did find the dissent by Thomas. And apparently they are usurping the States rights on this one.

I dont like drugs, and I dont want my kids doing them. But this just plain sucks. There is no such thing as the 10th amendment any longer.

Gideon MacLeish

on Jun 07, 2005

Link

There's the most recent Yahoo! News story on this. I would have posted a link, but I thought there'd be a billion blog articles on this topic today, less than 24 hours after the ruling. Apparently, though, nobody cares about the undermining of liberties

.

As for the comments on drug use: I am against drug abuse, but support the right of adults to make responsible decisions. I also know the medicinal value of marijuana, as use in the past has assisted me in dealing with my social phobia and dysfunctions and actually getting OUT in the community, without the potentially dangerous side effects of "major" drugs designed for that purpose (such as Paxil). Marijuana is an herb, and a reading of Genesis leads me to believe God fully intended it for our use ("EVERY herb bearing seed"). Like many substances, it can be abused, but its potential for abuse should not be justification for ignoring its medicinal value.

And, you're right...the 10th amendment is effectively no longer. The biggest tragedy is that it came at the hands of those who claim to be its champions.

latour999

on Jun 07, 2005

and a reading of Genesis leads me to believe God fully intended it for our use

The burning bush?

Sorry, I just had to

InfoGeek

on Jun 07, 2005

The Court basically said that if you grow it and use it, you COULD still sell it across state lines, in which case the Commerce clause comes into effect and trumps the state law.

This is what irks me. This is not the "dreaded" liberal judges. These are state laws that the citizens wanted. 10 states citizens said, if you need weed to get you over the chemo, that's ok by us. The legislature doing its part formed the law.

And if you think the republican congress is going to make that type of federal law, well, can I interst you in some ocean front property in Arizona?

IG

ParaTed2k

on Jun 07, 2005

Too many look at this as just a drug issue. As long as they do that, then they miss the real issue. The real issue isn't even the Supreme Court. At least this time they actually cited U.S. Law for their decision. The fact is as long as the FDA continues to classify Marijuana as a "Schedule I Drug" (Have a high potential for abuse and no acceptable medical value), the medical and legal worlds hands are basically tied.

If an acceptable medical purpose has been established, those who want medical marijuana legalized need to quit wasting their time with the courts and start pressuring the FDA to change to amend the "Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970".

Gideon MacLeish

on Jun 07, 2005

If an acceptable medical purpose has been established, those who want medical marijuana legalized need to quit wasting their time with the courts and start pressuring the FDA to change to amend the "Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970".

Gotta peg you with an insightful for this one. But no, legal hands aren't tied. 10 states' legislatures determined that medical marijuana use was legal; the Supreme Court said they had no business making such determination. It's not about drugs, no, but it IS about states' rights.

The problem with FDA approval is that it is VERY MUCH about money. This is why aspartame is legal as a sweetener in the US and stevia is not; it must bear the label "dietary supplement" to be sold in the US, despite its history as an artificial sweetener long predating that of saccharin or nutrasweet. The FDA is yet another of our government entities that is for sale to the highest bidder.

That being said, I have no doubt the marijuana legalization lobbies have the money to obtain government reclassification. The fact they won't spend it in this direction does make one question their motives.

ParaTed2k

on Jun 07, 2005

But no, legal hands aren't tied. 10 states' legislatures determined that medical marijuana use was legal; the Supreme Court said they had no business making such determination. It's not about drugs, no, but it IS about states' rights.

Wrong as it may be, state laws can't supersede the FDA, and neither can Doctors, or the AMA. The Supreme Court actually made the right decision on this one. They didn't make law, they didn't supersede law, they didn't even cite foriegn law. They heard the case and found for laws as they stand, not as one side or the other wished them to be.

A side note, another thing that hurts the medical marijuana issue is how openly those who say they are for it, are willing to flaunt non medical marijuana use also. In many cases those who smoke pot for recreational purposes are actually hurting the cause of medical marijuana.

Thanks for the "insightful", even if you didn't completely agree with me, that's pretty rare. We'll see where the lobby goes from here. I doubt we've seen the end of the whole thing.

Gideon MacLeish

on Jun 07, 2005

In many cases those who smoke pot for recreational purposes are actually hurting the cause of medical marijuana.

You bring up a very interesting point there. I am a former marijuana user for the legitimate reason of combatting anxiety. I would go back to it in a heartbeat if its use were legal.

One thing I realize, though, as a Libertarian and an activist is that those positions paint a HUGE target on me. Using would be foolish, as my words have basically singled me out. If you're going to lobby for legalization, it's probably best that you be "clean" until you achieve your goals.

As for the "insightful": I don't save those for 100% agreement. If everybody agreed with me, I'd lose my "edge" and I wouldn't have any readers, now, would I?

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!