Tuesday, June 07, 2005
Growing your own Marijuana affects Interstate Commerce How?
Here we go with another assault on the rights of the states by the Federal Government led by none other than the Supreme Court with their assertion that growing marijuana privately in your own yard under the legality of a state law that permits such activity can be regulated because it affects Interstate Commerce. BS. At least Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas have a clearer picture of what is going on.
Justice Thomas, dissenting.
So we have the state of California, a sovereign entity on its own, with a law allowing the use of marijuana by a citizen when prescribed by a physician to alleviate pain and nausea and otherwise allow someone to experience a little better quality of life while suffering with whatever disease has debilitated them in the first place. And we have a housewife who has complied with the state laws, received her prescription for medical marijuana to ease her suffering and is quietly growing a few plants in her own back yard out of the way and for her personal use under California state law.
Oh my, this is not good, says the Drug Enforcement Agency. We must send in some agents to confiscate these evil plants and arrest this hideous woman who is blatantly disobeying the federal law against the use or possession of the wicked, wacky weed. But wait, there is nothing illegal going on here, says the woman. I have permission, I can legally grow this stuff.
Hmmmm. Seems like we have a little problem here. What to do? What to do? OK, well, it seems like she is telling the truth and she has the correct paperwork and everything is in order as far as the state of California is concerned. Should be the end of it, don't you think? No way, say the feds. We won't leave here without uprooting all the marijuana plants and taking them with us. We'll let the courts decide this.
OK, so the arguments are heard and through the Appeals Court the decision is that the California woman was justified in growing pot in her back yard and the DEA agents acted wrongly. One last stop at the Supreme Court and all gears go in reverse. No way, say the Supremes. The Federal law is valid and enforceable because of the Interstate Commerce provision. A century before Congress declared that they could write laws affecting states rights under the guise of regulating Interstate Commerce.
On the surface this makes sense. It should be the feds who resolve differences between the states and anything going "interstate" fits that category of regulation. But wait a minute! This woman was growing pot in her own back yard for her own personal use. She lives in California and it is legal for her to do this there. She is crossing NO state lines and is affecting NO Interstate Commerce anywhere on the planet. How is this interference justified? It isn't.
Yet, Justice Stevens, writing the majority opinion, says this is perfectly OK because the personal use of a product MAY have SOME affect on the ILLEGAL Interstate Commerce of marijuana. Stretch it out there Justice Stevens. How far can you make the umbrella of Federal Government reach?
As Justice Thomas said, if Congress can regulate this than they can regulate anything and the Federal Government is no longer limited in power. Let us all praise our all-seeing, all-knowing Federal Government and their wisdom in protecting us from ourselves. God knows we are just entirely too dumb and stupid to know what is right for us. The states don't know what is right for us either, why they think we should be allowed to smoke pot. How outrageous! I am so very thankful that we have such wise people sitting on the Supreme Court upholding how far Congress can control our lives. Let's give them complete control over all aspects of each of our pitiful lives.
Make me sick! Thank god for Justices O'Connor and Thomas, at least, for expressing the cogent, rational views that seem to be so lacking in government today. Can we clone those two? Wait, I have an idea. Let's plant some marijuana in Justice Stevens back yard. Or mail him a joint or two. No, won't work. He doesn't live in California.
But wait, I forgot. It doesn't matter where you live anymore or what the local laws are either. The feds are holding the trump card. The feds are holding all of the trump cards. To hell with the states!
OH
Justice Thomas, dissenting.
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.
Justice O'Connor,
We would do well to recall how James Madison, the father of the Constitution, described our system of joint sovereignty to the people of New York: "The powers delegated by the proposed constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite... . The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State." The Federalist No. 45, pp. 292-293 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961).
It never ceases to amaze me how downright narrow-minded people can be about an issue. Marijuana grows freely and on its' own in many parts of the world. There is no "processing" for the plant to go through to make it potent. There is no refining necessary and it takes no skill to grow it, although a green thumb may help. When a person smokes it, it doesn't send them into a psychedelic wonderland nor does it send one into a screaming fit of hysteria intent on killing everyone in sight. Quite the opposite. It induces a mellow feeling, it stimulates appetite and suppresses nausea and makes you tired. It may even make you laugh a little more.So we have the state of California, a sovereign entity on its own, with a law allowing the use of marijuana by a citizen when prescribed by a physician to alleviate pain and nausea and otherwise allow someone to experience a little better quality of life while suffering with whatever disease has debilitated them in the first place. And we have a housewife who has complied with the state laws, received her prescription for medical marijuana to ease her suffering and is quietly growing a few plants in her own back yard out of the way and for her personal use under California state law.
Oh my, this is not good, says the Drug Enforcement Agency. We must send in some agents to confiscate these evil plants and arrest this hideous woman who is blatantly disobeying the federal law against the use or possession of the wicked, wacky weed. But wait, there is nothing illegal going on here, says the woman. I have permission, I can legally grow this stuff.
Hmmmm. Seems like we have a little problem here. What to do? What to do? OK, well, it seems like she is telling the truth and she has the correct paperwork and everything is in order as far as the state of California is concerned. Should be the end of it, don't you think? No way, say the feds. We won't leave here without uprooting all the marijuana plants and taking them with us. We'll let the courts decide this.
OK, so the arguments are heard and through the Appeals Court the decision is that the California woman was justified in growing pot in her back yard and the DEA agents acted wrongly. One last stop at the Supreme Court and all gears go in reverse. No way, say the Supremes. The Federal law is valid and enforceable because of the Interstate Commerce provision. A century before Congress declared that they could write laws affecting states rights under the guise of regulating Interstate Commerce.
On the surface this makes sense. It should be the feds who resolve differences between the states and anything going "interstate" fits that category of regulation. But wait a minute! This woman was growing pot in her own back yard for her own personal use. She lives in California and it is legal for her to do this there. She is crossing NO state lines and is affecting NO Interstate Commerce anywhere on the planet. How is this interference justified? It isn't.
Yet, Justice Stevens, writing the majority opinion, says this is perfectly OK because the personal use of a product MAY have SOME affect on the ILLEGAL Interstate Commerce of marijuana. Stretch it out there Justice Stevens. How far can you make the umbrella of Federal Government reach?
As Justice Thomas said, if Congress can regulate this than they can regulate anything and the Federal Government is no longer limited in power. Let us all praise our all-seeing, all-knowing Federal Government and their wisdom in protecting us from ourselves. God knows we are just entirely too dumb and stupid to know what is right for us. The states don't know what is right for us either, why they think we should be allowed to smoke pot. How outrageous! I am so very thankful that we have such wise people sitting on the Supreme Court upholding how far Congress can control our lives. Let's give them complete control over all aspects of each of our pitiful lives.
Make me sick! Thank god for Justices O'Connor and Thomas, at least, for expressing the cogent, rational views that seem to be so lacking in government today. Can we clone those two? Wait, I have an idea. Let's plant some marijuana in Justice Stevens back yard. Or mail him a joint or two. No, won't work. He doesn't live in California.
But wait, I forgot. It doesn't matter where you live anymore or what the local laws are either. The feds are holding the trump card. The feds are holding all of the trump cards. To hell with the states!
OH
# posted by OH @ 8:08 AM 
