cannabisnews.com: Federalism Should Extend To Marijuana Raids










  Federalism Should Extend To Marijuana Raids

Posted by CN Staff on September 11, 2007 at 17:51:50 PT
By Radley Balko  
Source: Politico.com 

Washington, DC -- Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) recently said that, if elected president, he would end the federal raids on marijuana clinics in states that have legalized the drug for medical purposes. That makes the Democratic field unanimous now — all would end the raids and allow the states to craft their own medical marijuana policy, free from federal interference. By contrast, just two of the remaining GOP candidates — Rep. Ron Paul (Texas) and Rep. Tom Tancredo (Colo.) — and none of the front-runners have promised to call off the raids.
This is unfortunate for a party that once fancied itself the torch-bearer for federalism — the idea that most laws should be made on as local a level as possible, both to encourage state “laboratories of democracy” to experiment with different policies and to allow people to utilize the freedom of movement to choose to live in those jurisdictions with laws that best reflect their own values. If ever there were an issue for which federalism would seem to be an ideal solution, it’s the medical marijuana issue, which touches on crime, medical policy, privacy and individual freedom — all the sorts of values-laden areas of public policy that states are best equipped to deal with on a case-by-case basis, and for which a one-size-fits-all federal policy seems particularly clunky and ill-suited. Yet the GOP won’t let go. The White House continues to send federal SWAT teams into convalescent centers, dispensaries and treatment centers, often putting sick people on the receiving end of paramilitary tactics, gun barrels and terrifying raids. It’s difficult to understand how the same party that (correctly, in my view) argues that the federal government has no business telling the states how they should regulate their businesses, set their speed limits, keep their air and water free of pollution or regulate the sale of firearms within their borders can at the same time feel that the federal government can and should tell states that they aren’t allowed to let sick people obtain relief wherever they might find it. Medical marijuana is probably a nonstarter politically. Though polls show most Americans support medical marijuana, few decide their votes on the issue, save for a cadre of drug reform activists and the people who actually need the stuff to treat their symptoms. But the issue ought to be of wider concern to principled federalists, because it was the GOP’s stubborn support for near-limitless federal power to fight the drug war that killed the nascent federalism revolution before it ever grew wings.That short-lived revolution began in 1995, when the William Rehnquist-led Supreme Court ruled in U.S. v. Lopez that Congress had no constitutional authority to regulate the sale of guns near schools, then again in 2000 with U.S. v. Morrison, which struck down the 1994 federal Violence Against Women Act. Those two cases ended 60 years of Supreme Court deference to Capitol Hill on the issue of whether the Constitution actually permitted the Congress to enact the laws it was passing. Some legal scholars thought it possible that the court might look for an opportunity to overturn Wickard v. Filburn, the notorious 1942 ruling which said that under the Interstate Commerce Clause, Congress can regulate the wheat a man grows on his own land for his own use. That opportunity came in Gonzales v. Raich, in which the Bush administration argued that the commerce clause allows the federal government to prohibit marijuana grown in one’s own home for one’s own use, even for medical treatment, even in states that had legalized the drug for that purpose. The Supreme Court upheld the government’s right to prohibit marijuana, even under these limited circumstances. The court’s left wing was joined by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Antonin Scalia — who had formed the federalist majority in Lopez and Morrison — to uphold the federal supremacy of the Controlled Substances Act when it conflicts with state law. Justice John Paul Stevens’ majority opinion cited Filburn as the controlling case law. The court’s principled federalists — Clarence Thomas, Sandra Day O’Connor and Rehnquist — wrote in dissent. The Washington Post explained in an editorial a few weeks later how Raich was about much more than medical marijuana. It was about the proper scope and the defining limits of the federal government. The editorial was one of support for a recent federal ruling upholding the Environmental Protection Agency’s decision to halt a construction project due to an endangered cave-dwelling bug native only to Texas that was found on the planned construction site. Had Raich gone the other way, the Post noted, the EPA likely wouldn’t have been able to prevent a hospital from being built in order to save the insect. The Post thought this was a glorious benefit from the Raich decision. I suspect most Republicans feel otherwise. Raich represented the last chance to rein in a Congress that sees no constitutional limits whatsoever on the reach and breadth of its power. It was GOP devotion to the drug war that subverted it, killing the Rehnquist federalism revolution in its infancy, narrowly limiting Lopez and Morrison and freeing the Congress to legislate wherever it pleases, with little or no constitutional constraints. Over the past few months, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson have tried to position themselves as the standard-bearers for federalism. The Los Angeles Times’ Ron Brownstein recently praised Giuliani’s federalist approach to contentious social issues like gun control, gay rights, health care and abortion. Thompson has written several columns touting local control over the past few months. But Giuliani has spent most of his career advocating for more federal power to fight the federal war on drugs. He has declared that he would continue the Drug Enforcement Administration raids on medical marijuana facilities, overruling state law. Thompson is the only candidate yet to take a public position on the raids. While he’s right to note his impressive pro-federalist voting record in the Senate, he also voted for a number of bills strengthening the federal war on drugs. And while Thompson’s campaign essays rightly decry the federalization of crime and the soaring U.S. prison population, they’re curiously silent on the war on drugs — a leading cause of both of these troubling trends. Thompson’s campaign did not respond to inquiries about his position on the DEA raids for this article. Giuliani and Thompson claim they want to reinvigorate discussion of the virtues of federalism. Terrific. But you can’t argue that states should be free to make their own policies without federal interference — except when you happen to disagree with them. You can be a federalist, or you can be an ardent drug warrior. But you can’t be both. Radley Balko is a senior editor for Reason magazine. Source: Politico.com (VA)Author: Radley Balko Published: September 11, 2007 Copyright: 2007 Capitol News Company, LLC Website: http://www.politico.com/Contact: http://www.politico.com/aboutus/CannabisNews Medical Marijuana Archiveshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/list/medical.shtml

Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help





Comment #19 posted by FoM on September 12, 2007 at 13:40:53 PT
 rchandar
I'm hopeful too.
[ Post Comment ]

 


Comment #18 posted by rchandar on September 12, 2007 at 13:03:50 PT:

Elections 2008
I am glad you posted this article. Quite simply, MMJ is a democracy-defining issue that challenges us as believers in democracy. There is no moral concept or idea which can possibly justify the federal raids; in 2007, we must own up to the fact that human life is precious regardless of lifestyle choices. When sick and dying men and women come into the picture, the current federal policy can be interpreted as nothing but shameful, an attempt to kill off our weakest, most dependent, most misunderstood.This is not an issue of casual, recreational use. And when we read John Walters's statements, it's propaganda, it's falsehoods designed to shore up a largely ignorant electorate preoccupied with moral platforms which fail to fulfill America's true mission, to extend rights and dignity to all citizens. All of the platforms Walters identifies, "moral crusade," "terrorism," are so half-baked, excuse my term. The question really is this: do we fulfill our mission to extend rights and health to every citizen, consider every life as precious, or do we do what we usually do, in saying that democracy doesn't mean that we shouldn't kill off a couple million people who don't "fit" the requirements of a fickle, capital-driven society? I'm glad to hear of Democratic solidarity on this matter, and do hope we will be able to carry it through to its conclusion.456 days and counting...
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #17 posted by FoM on September 12, 2007 at 10:51:51 PT

Richard
I know your intentions are good but we are people with our own way of looking at politics and our reasons are more then likely unique to ourselves. I want Universal Health Care like other developed countries have. I would go to a doctor if I didn't have to fear the cost of tests they would probably want to do. I am only one person without health coverage but there are way over 40 million people in the same boat as me. I am a woman and I am pro choice and the Republicans that are running want to make women criminals again and that doesn't settle right with me even though I am not for abortion I am for the right of women to decide themselves.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #16 posted by Richard Zuckerman on September 12, 2007 at 10:41:10 PT:

SIMPLY VOTING FOR A BLACK OR WOMAN PRESIDENT?
I want to impress upon prospective voters that merely voting for somebody because of a few similar issues you agree with may not be in this country's best interest in the long run. For example, a Black person wanting a Black President may vote for Obama because now may be the "best" time in history for it because Obama is popular and running for President. But GOP Democrats & Republicans support world domination, judging from the campaign contributors. A Black Congressman in New Jersey, Donald Payne, is a member of the Council On Foreign Relations. I would not vote for ANYBODY who is a member of the CFR or any other "we're just a think tank" organization, because their interest is global domination, not helping individuals for freedom and economy!!!! THE UNITED NATIONS IS ONE SUCH GLOBALIST ORGANIZATION. There are even a few Blacks in The Vatican. DEATH TO THE "NEW WORLD ORDER"!!! I WILL NOT VOTE FOR ANY GOP DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN BECAUSE THEY SUPPORT THE "NEW WORLD ORDER"!!!Let's see if this "STRIVE Act of 2007" passes and whether our economy and freedoms suffer!!Richard Z.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #15 posted by FoM on September 12, 2007 at 10:16:01 PT

Richard
You talk down to people who consider voting for Obama or anyone else. It's not what you say but how you say it. You aren't better then anyone. We are in this together. That's all.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #14 posted by Richard Zuckerman on September 12, 2007 at 10:10:36 PT:

WHERE DID I SAY YOU CANNOT VOTE FOR ANYBODY ELSE?
HEY FoM:WHERE IN MY COMMENT DID I SAY THAT YOU PEOPLE CANNOT VOTE FOR ANYBODY ELSE???? ALL I SAID WAS RON PAUL IS THE ONLY CANDIDATE YOU SHOULD VOTE FOR!!YOU SUPPORT THE WAR/PROPAGANDA MACHINE BY VOTING FOR GOP CANDIDATES, INCLUDING OBAMA AND HILLARY, MAKING YOU LOOK LIKE A HYPOCRITE!!!LISTEN, FoM, I DON'T LIKE THE CIA, NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY, F.B.I., AND MUNICIPAL POLICE, BECAUSE THEY ONLY WORK FOR BIG GOVERNMENT...EVERYONE BELIEVES THE POLICE EXIST TO PROTECT US, BUT THEIR BELIEFS ARE WRONG. POLICE ARE THERE TO PROTECT THE INTERESTS OF BIG BROTHER STATE, NOT TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE! DON'T TAKE OFFENSE TO ME BECAUSE I TAKE OFFENSE TO THE VOTING PRACTICES OF THE MAJORITY OF VOTERS IN THIS COUNTRY. YOU HAVE TOTALLY MISINTERPRETED MY COMMENT, FoM, PERHAPS SOME UNREVEALED CONTEMPT TOWARDS ME.Richard Z.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #13 posted by ekim on September 12, 2007 at 08:17:03 PT

The draft is open for public comment
Draft Report of Synthesis and Assessment Report 4.3: The effects of climate change on agriculture, land resources, water resources, and biodiversity. The draft is open for public comment from 11 September through 26 October 2007. http://www.climatescience.gov/
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #12 posted by FoM on September 12, 2007 at 07:47:13 PT

Richard
We all should be allowed without criticism to vote for the candidate that we prefer. That's a democracy. I won't discourage anyone from voting for Ron Paul and I don't want to be told I can't vote for my favorite candidate either. 
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #11 posted by The GCW on September 12, 2007 at 04:34:01 PT

Good news
Marijuana Advocate Wins Federal Court DecisionRuling helps clear path for pot legalization vote in Hailey Sept. 12, 2007By Terry SmithExpress Staff writerPro-marijuana advocate Ryan Davidson has cleared another hurdle...CONT.http://www.mtexpress.com/index2.php?ID=2005116994Idaho Mountain ExpressIncudes photo of the hero, Ryan Davidson.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #10 posted by Sinsemilla Jones on September 12, 2007 at 00:08:43 PT

Wups, I forgot about the Love Boat!
I think Fred Grandy ran on the fact that it never sank........except in the ratings, har, har.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #9 posted by Sinsemilla Jones on September 11, 2007 at 23:55:57 PT

LawNodor
While candidates are often accused of running on a fictional record or portraying a character in public that is different from their true personality, Fred Thompson may be the first to run on his record as a fictional character.It's interesting to note that the fictional Fred Thompson once expressed a libertarian attitude towards drug use, although with a "people have a right to be stupid" argument. Fictional Fred also liked to suck down that hard liquor.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #8 posted by Richard Zuckerman on September 11, 2007 at 22:19:18 PT:

WHICH CANDIDATE HAS AN ESTABLISHED TRACK RECORD?
RON PAUL! SINGLE ISSUE VOTERS ARE NARROW MINDED VOTERS! WHAT IS THE SENSE IN VOTING FOR CANDIDATES WHO SUPPORT "MARIJUANA" DECRIMINALIZATION IF THOSE SAME CANDIDATES SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL "MARIJUANA" LAW ENFORCEMENT THRU CONTINUED MEMBERSHIP IN THE UNITED NATIONS, TAKING OUR GUNS AWAY, INUNDATING THIS COUNTRY WITH FOREIGNERS, GIVING OUR JOBS AWAY, TAXING AND SPENDING THE MIDDLE CLASS OUT OF EXISTENCE?????!!!READ ABOUT U.S. SENATOR HILLARY CLINTON'S ROLE IN THE "CHILDREN'S DEFENSE FUND", IN THE "WANTAGATE" SCANDAL ARTICLE IN WWW.WORLDREPORTS.ORG? THERE ARE PLENTY OF STUPID PEOPLE WHO WILL VOTE FOR HILLARY CLINTON BECAUSE THEY WANT A WOMAN PRESIDENT! HILLARY CLINTON WANTS TO INVADE IRAN. SHE SUPPORTS THE IDEALS OF THE COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, EVEN THOUGH SHE SPOUTS OUT OF HER MOUTH THAT SHE WANTS STRONG BORDER ENFORCEMENT. RON PAUL IS THE ONLY PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE WHO WOULD END OUR MEMBERSHIP IN THE UNITED NATIONS!! WE NEED TO GET AS FAR AWAY AS POSSIBLE FROM THE UNITED NATIONS!!! THEY WANT TO TAKE OUR FIREARMS, OUR WEED, AND ENSLAVE US JUST AS MUCH AS THE "WE ARE JUST A THINK TANK" COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, TRILATERALISTS, BILDERBERGS, THE VATICAN, FREEMASONS!!! RON PAUL IS THE MAN WHO IS OUR MOST LIKELY ALLY IN STOPPING OR AT LEAST SLOWING THE POLITICAL DISEASES KNOWN AS THE "NEW WORLD ORDER", "NORTH AMERICAN UNION", "MARIJUANA" LAW ENFORCEMENT, GUN CONFISCATION!!!!!!ARE YOU PEOPLE STILL HANGING ON THAT THE OLD "LESSOR OF TWO EVILS" GUILT TRIP? I HAVE A CLEAR CONSCIENCE KNOWING I AM VOTING FOR THE BEST MAN INSTEAD OF VOTING FOR THE SECOND BEST AS THE "LESSER OF TWO EVILS"! AND, YEAH, RON PAUL WILL NEVER WIN...IF EVERYONE CONTINUES THE DEFEATIST ATTITUDE AND NOBODY VOTES FOR HIM!!!THE NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT GRANTS LESS THAN 10% OF THE MANY MANY FILED PETITIONS FOR CERTIFICATION. SHOULD WE GIVE UP AND NOT EVEN FILE A PETITION FOR CERTIFICATION IF WE BELIEVE WE HAVE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW THE COURT SHOULD ADDRESS? OF COURSE NOT!!! I FILED A PETITION FOR CERTIFICATION WITH THE NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT ON AUGUST 22, 2007, ASKING THE COURT TO ESTABLISH A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR RETALIATORY PROSECUTION AND POLICE FRAME-UP UNDER THE NEW JERSEY CONSTITUTION, TO ORDER RESTRUCTURING OF THE NEW JERSEY MUNICIPAL COURTS [WHICH DO NOT PROVIDE A TRIAL BY JURY], AMONG OTHER ISSUES. I HAVE FILED 9 OR 10 PETITIONS FOR CERTIORARI WITH THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, ALL OF WHICH WERE SUBSEQUENTLY DENIED; BUT AT LEAST I RAISED THE QUESTIONS, RAISED THE ISSUES, FOR THE NEXT GUY WHO ASKS THE SAME QUESTION, THE SAME ISSUE!! AND I CAN GO TO SLEEP AT NIGHT KNOWING I HAVE DONE THE BEST I CAN DO DESPITE MY STATUS AS A POOR LONELY PRO SE LITTLE GUY. THE UNITED STATES GRANTED CERTIORARI FROM A PETITION WRITTEN ON TOILET PAPER, IN GIDEON V. WAINWRIGHT, A LANDMARK SIXTH AMENDMENT DECISION!!!Richard Paul Zuckerman, Box 159, Metuchen, N.J., 08840-0159, richardzuckerman2002 yahoo.com.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #7 posted by whig on September 11, 2007 at 21:47:26 PT

The GCW
YTIPFLESDNATPMETNOCYLNOSAHHSUB
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #6 posted by FoM on September 11, 2007 at 20:54:05 PT

Toker00 and The GCW
LOLEMAHSEMAHSEMAHS
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #5 posted by Toker00 on September 11, 2007 at 20:26:59 PT

GCW
!HTURTEHTTAHTT'NIAToke.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #4 posted by The GCW on September 11, 2007 at 19:10:00 PT

Remember Compassionate Conservatism?
To shallow thinking Bush types that meansconvalescent centersare treated to comforting federal SWAT teams - paramilitary tactics, gun barrels and terrifying raids. Now don't they feel better?NOISSAPMOCROFTIHSSAHHSUBMakes You wonder what they'd receive with out compassion.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #3 posted by ekim on September 11, 2007 at 18:40:54 PT

Dabau
said he would respect the States right look where that got US
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #2 posted by mayan on September 11, 2007 at 18:22:01 PT

Up To Us
Though polls show most Americans support medical marijuana, few decide their votes on the issue, save for a cadre of drug reform activists and the people who actually need the stuff to treat their symptoms.The federal bans on medicinal,industrial and recreational cannabis affect every aspect of our lives. If the majority of Americans fail to enlighten themselves of that fact then they will deservedly suffer the negative consequences.THE WAY OUT IS THE WAY IN...9/11 Truth In New York City 2007: News Coverage: 
http://prisonplanet.com/articles/september2007/100907_b_truth.htm9-11, Six Years Later - By Paul Craig Roberts:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18353.htmDawdler in chief: The suspicious behavior of George W. Bush during the 9/11 attacks:
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_2403.shtmlZwicker offers theories on Sept. 11 tragedy:
http://www.chroniclejournal.com/stories.php?id=63541BBC: Debunked "Pancake Theory" Caused Towers To Collapse:
http://prisonplanet.com/articles/september2007/110907_pancake_theory.htmAmerica's Number One Collapse Expert Thought WTC Bombed:
http://infowars.com/articles/sept11/wtc_collapse_expert_thought_wtc_was_bombed.htmAir America 9/11 Special (tonight!):
http://911blogger.com/node/112759/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB - OUR NATION IS IN PERIL:
http://www.911sharethetruth.com/
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #1 posted by Sam Adams on September 11, 2007 at 18:05:18 PT

My hero
This is the one guy (Balko) that devoted his life's work to fighting back against the militarization of our civilian police forces.  Police are simultaneously becoming rogue criminal gangs and getting equiped with military hardware at the same time, a disastrous combination for freedom.I do feel sorry for him that he has to sift through all these Supreme Court decisions like Wickard and Raich and play make-believe that these Justices are really trying to be honest & do their duty. What a joke. The Supreme Court is just like your local cop, they do whatever the hell they want, "The Law" be damned.When the Wickard case was passed, it didn't mean that the Interstate Commerce Act had been expanded, it meant that representative government had failed. Saying that a man growing his own food on his land is interstate commerce is madness. It's a lie and will always be a lie.It doesn't become true just because the governement says it's true. If we accept it as truth, it means we're no longer living in reality. It means we're letting the government define truth and logic instead of science. The Enlightenment is being attacked. WWII marked the defeat of the Axis, as well as our defeat by the federal govt of the USA.
[ Post Comment ]





  Post Comment