People are surprised when they find out that I am somewhat open to de-criminalizing pot usage to some extant.
As far as being a gateway drug, I think this has more to do with the social circles one is in contact with than the drug itself.
It's a bad decision, based on a bad 1942 decision by the Court. I don't remember the name of the case, it's the one where a guy was growing wheat for his own use and the then-court said that it involved interstate commerce.
According to the Court a person in one state gets advice from a Doc in that same state and scores some weed grown in that same state and that involves interstate commerce, giving the Feds the right to intervene.
A reading of the Constitution by someone untainted by law school would lead that person to believe that interstate commerce would have to involve, um, interstate commerce.
The Wheat case, Wickard v. Filburn, the Supreme Court extended the Commerce Clause to allow states to ban the growth of wheat because "wheat grown for home consumption would have a substantial influence on price conditions on the wheat market", thus home-grown wheat would have an affect on interstate commerce.
In their most recent ruling, the Supreme Court relied on this case, finding them strikingly similar. "The similarities between this case and Wickard are striking. In both cases, the regulation is squarely within Congress’ commerce power because production of the commodity meant for home consumption, be it wheat or marijuana, has a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market for that commodity."
Apparently the Supremes were worried that California invalids were going to drive down the price of pot?
The Defendants in this case wasn't selling anything, and there is no "national" market for marajuana. Basically, the court stated that the Federal Government has a rational basis for ensuring that there is no "national market" for marajuna, and threfore, can make it's possession illegal.
From a historical perspective, this doesn't hold water. If the Federal Government decided that it should be illegal to possess Alchohol, it is a historic fact that they they would need a consitutional ammendment to enforce it (See the 18th Ammendment). However, if the Federal Government wan't to ban marajuana, they have that right under the commerce clause because choosing to criminalize the possession of something affects interstate commerce?
Welcome to the new Federalism.
jandre, WAIT. Are we agreeing on something here?
I can never be sure.
I doubt we agree on the level of involvement the government should have in individuals making personal medical decisions, but we probably agree that this decision opens the doors for the Federal Government to take away what few areas the people in a particular region could govern themselves without the involvement of the Feds.
Is this really a bigger health concern than Nevada allowing legalized prostitution? The Federal Government can pretty much claim jurisdiction over anything they want under this logic.
I am also one of those yet to be convinced, "Gateway drug" or no. One thing I observe is that the way we've got things set up right now, some Really, Really Bad people are making a LOT Of money on it. This, of course, is exacerbated by the whole corruption baggage that comes in attendance.
I'm not sure either if I really believe in "victimless crimes". We probably all now that some folks are more susceptible to that stuff than others. With that said, if I set the stage of somebody smoking dope in their own home, not influencing others in any way; Is that a situation I would want the federal government involved in? My answer is no (H*LL NO). Is that a waste? Absolutely. (IMHO it is, but that is just for Tom). Life is about choices........ and responsibilities... and paying the ferryman.
You surprised me on this one, Kathy.
Is this Buffalo from Townhall chat?
Very sensible Republican thinking.
Commenting by HaloScan
