As much as you might like to make this an instance of Republican repression I am pretty sure that the Clinton administration also worked on shutting down medical marijuana clubs.
In general arguments that the police should not focus on this problem because there are other problems don’t really hold much water in my opinion. If this sort of reasoning was followed then organizations could only work on one thing at a time.
Oy vavoi. How stupid.
Not that I am a proponent of hate or anything, but I know for a fact that the SC City Council has other things to do. Why do they waste their time passing meaningless bills?
The homeless issue came to a head this year when they tried to resolve the problem in the most clumsy manner possible. It obvious this folks in the SC council are more interested in platitudes than actually solving problems.
It doesn’t help that they have far to many “enablers” in town who think that homless people with ‘funny’ signs (they aren’t funny, sorry) are a wonderful part of the “color”.
The problem was the street musicians and differentiating between a panhandler and a musician. hey made some rules and the panhandlers just picked up kazoos and plastic harmonicas to qualify as musicians. The most recent effort has been made by the musicians, who have decided its best to regulate themselves rather that let the disasterous SC council do anything.
Big city problems are starting to creep in, too. Gang fights on Pacific and a drug zone have popped. The council has done nothing, said nothing. But they sure got that resolution condemning Bush about Iraq passed quickly. Its obvious where their priorities are.
I’ve said it elsewhere, and I’ll say it here: The SC city council makes the Philadelphia city council look like a model of efficiency.
If the feds can always overrule any state laws they choose to, it means that the states have no rights. Any law that any state passes is valid only so long as the feds deign to permit it to be valid. We might just as well quit pretending to have states.
Who said that?
The feds can’t overrule any state laws they choose to.
A state cannot criminalize what the federal constitution permits, it’s true. And where Congress has autthority that conflicts with the states’, it’s true federal law wins.
But Congress has no right to pass any law they please. In general, Congressional power is limited to matters affecting interstate travel or commerce.
That said, Congress does have some ways to flex the federal muscle. An excellent example is the “national” speed limit. Congress has absolutely no authority to tell a state what the speed limit should be. Of course, they are perfectly free to withhold federal highway funds from a state that does not comply with their mandate - but the choice lies with the state.
So why does Congress have the right to criminalize drugs, then?
Because Congress found that the drug trade is inherently inter-state – that is, the vast majority of prohibited drugs originate in one state, or outside the country, and are transported to another state. Based on that finding, Congress had the power to criminalize drugs.
So, what’s to prevent Congress from declaring that it can criminalize, say, shoplifting, by merely “finding” that since the goods being stolen by shoplifters were likely transported across state lines at some point, it has the jurisdiction to legislate against shoplifting?
The answer, as you might have guessed, is the federal court system, which has shown its willingness in the past to curb Congress’ enthusiasm for passing its Constitutionally-imposed boundries. Certainly the reach of federal power is much greater now than it was, say, 150 years ago. But even today, Congress cannot simply make any law it pleases about any subject. There must be some sort of connection to an area over which Congress has jurisdiction.
Consitutionally, it seems to me that Congress can ban the trading and transportation of drugs between different states, but I simply can’t see how that can be construed to prohibit drug trade that is legal in that jurisdiction and is done entirely within one state.
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.
If they needed a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol, I don’t see why they wouldn’t need one to ban any other type of drug.
I just have to pop in and say “Yay Santa Cruz”…
It’s pretty unusual to see the liberals taking up the “states rights” agenda. I’m not sure how I feel about all this, but at least they are true to their word. A couple years ago I watched an interview with a Santa Cruz police man about medical marijuana. He said that they had no interest in stopping it, and if that bugged the feds then they’d have to come and do it themselves.
Here’s something I’ve wondered about:
What would it take to move marijuana from Federal Schedule I to Federal Schedule III? (Schedule III includes drugs that have medical utility and can be made available by prescription, e.g. codeine.)
If the determination of which drugs are in which schedules is actually written into Federal law, then it would literally take an act of Congress to move marijuana from Sch. I to Sch. III. However, if marijuana is only classified as Federal Schedule I by some lower-down-the-ladder regulatory agency, we might be able to change the agency’s mind without getting the politicians involved (similar to the way the FAA determines the Federal Aviation Regulations without having to have each regulation voted on by Congress).
Ah – here’s what appears to be the relevant section of Federal law:
It is unclear to me what the law means by “an immediate precursor.” However, farther down in section 812, marijuana (spelled “marihuana”) was listed among the substances initially placed on Schedule I.
Since the U.S. Code is actual laws passed by Congress, this means that “marihuana” is named explicitly in the text of the law, at least as a substance that starts out on Schedule I.
Are there any Controlled Substances Act experts out there who know whether there are any clauses in the law that would allow marijuana to be moved off of Schedule I without the passage of a new law or the amending of an existing law by Congress?
Because, as I explained above, Congress found that the vast majority of drugs make their way into interstate trade, especially given the unregulated nature of the growing, production, and distribution thereof. There is no effective mechanism to keep California pot in California. Based on this finding, Congress asserted its authority to act.
This is an excellent point, and probably deserves a thread all its own. Of course, in months and years past, it HAS had a thread all its own. A quick search will reveal previous discussions on this point.
Right- so anything Ashcroft- or any such Official does- is right, and we must accept it as such? You point was that the Law is there, and thus Ashcroft MUST follow it. My point was that Ashcroft has made a conscious decision to enforce that Law, when his amount of resources do not allow the enforcement of EVERY law. And, also that Politics do not mandate the rigorous enforcement of every Law. Both of these points are correct, and you have failed to effectively dispute them.
Thus, Ashcroft is not “simply doing his Duty, whether or not his likes it”- he has decided to spend his limited resources on enforcing that particular aspect of that particular law. Thus, what we are disagreeing with is that decision. My disagreement is based upon the fact that it is a waste of precious Law enforcement resources at a time of crisis. I’d rather they spend it looking for terrorists- IMHO they pose a much greater “clear & present danger” than some aging hippies lighting up a doobie in Santa Cruz.
The problem is that there is a federal agency - the DEA - whose mission is the interdiction of drugs. Their budget is approved by Congress. Mr. Ashcroft cannot take money from the DEA and re-direct it to “fighting terrorism.”
Nowhere do I make the claim that every act taken by a public offical is “right”.
I certainly agree that there is a certain amount of discretion available to him, however. But the proper standard of review is not merely for you to substitute your judgement for Mr. Ashcroft’s - if that’s how it worked, then you’d be the AG.
The proper standard of review is to ask if Mr. Ashcroft is abusing his discretion - that is, could a reasonable person reach the decisions he did?
As as been demonstrated above, the answer thus far is yes. If you have additional evidence to offer, by all means, do so.
As you see here- you imply that Ashcroft is “yust followink orters”, but in your reply above you agree he has considerable discretion in where he spends his resources. The DEA also fights terrorism, by working against drugs brought in from terrorist sources- which those guys in Santa Cruz are anything but. They could be spending their budget by busting heroin & cocaine smugglers instead. And of course- the bust of the MJ growers in CA also cost the AG’s office money out of his budget also, not just the DEA’s. He could have said “no way is my office going to spend it’s budget & resources on prosecuting these sort of crimes”. But Ashcroft made the opposite choice.
And I do not see why, here on a MB, why I can’t suggest my judgement is better than our AG’s- after all, that’s the whole idea isn’t it?
Amd yes, most reasonable persons would agree that by busting aging hippie doobie dudes in Santa Cruz- he IS abusing his discretion- and in fact, by popular vote here in the most populist state in the nation- we have agreed he is. We voted to legalize “medical use”. He is twarting the “will of the public” by going against that.
You can suggest it, of course. But I can equally well deny it. And the only opinion that controls the Justice Department’s agenda is Ashcroft’s, and Bush’s, not yours or mine.
I don’t agree. The will of the people of California, yes. Not the will of the people of the United States. As long as the people of the United States agree that marijuana should be federally prohibited, Ashcroft is acting reasonably. In the end, we’re back to this point: you’re arguing that you, not he, should decide the issue. But YOU are not the AG. He is.
Frankly, I think it entirely proper and fitting that Atty Gen Ashcroft be excoriated as a hypocrit, moron, etc. for vigorously enforcing marijuana laws in a state that would rather not see it.
Medical marijuana laws are to provide medicine for people who are suffering. It is the only effective medication that helps these cancer and AIDS patients keep food down, and it is also the most effective medication for glaucoma. Anyone who would argue to throw these growers and users in prison is a hard hearted bastard. Where I come from we call prosecuting medical marijuana growers: compassionate conservatives.
In fact, enjoying the suffering of gay men who have AIDS, and extolling the virtues Thurmond’s 1948 segretationist campaign are two of the things that define this administration and the current Republican party for me.
The “people” of the United States agree on no such thing. Our elected representatives do- which is hardly the same thing.
But as I said- and you agree- Ashcroft can to a certain extent spend his resources on what he chooses. He has chosen to bust some aging hippies in Santa Cruz at the expense of possibly missing a valid terrorist threat elsewhere. Isn’t terrorism against the Law? Or if you think Ashcroft is doing everything he possibly can do to combat terrorism- that more resourse won’t help at all- then aren’t heroin & cocaine also illegal (and smuggling it can assist terrorist fundraising)- and there is no way you can say they have all the resourses they need to combat these drugs- since they are always asking for more money to do so. That bust of some old dopers could have been a bust of cocaine smuggles juat as well.
In what way is he hypocritical? Is he smoking pot at home?
Moron - well, that’s your opinion. But you must also paint with the ‘moron’ brush all who support the concept, not just him. Which means, I guess, that the country is full of morons. I have a tough time arguing against that concept, I admit.
I guess I’ll just say that ‘moron’ seems a tad harsh to apply to someone who is clearly intelligent, but merely disagrees with your views.
[quote]
Medical marijuana laws are to provide medicine for people who are suffering. It is the only effective medication that helps these cancer and AIDS patients keep food down, and it is also the most effective medication for glaucoma. Anyone who would argue to throw these growers and users in prison is a hard hearted bastard. Where I come from we call prosecuting medical marijuana growers: compassionate conservatives.
[quote]
This is a shift in the argument: you’re now saying that the law should be ignored because of the benefits of medical marijuana. This is something that should be addressed to Congress - why, do you think, if the benefits of marijuana are so clear, has Congress refused to change the law that criminalizes it?
This is a good example of the fallacy of the strawman. We are not discussing whether anyone “enjoys the suffering” of anyone else, nor the virtues, or lack thereof, of the segregationists. That has absolutely nothing to do with the issue under debate, and it is dishonest to suggest otherwise.