Hold Your Nose and Vote for the Other Guy? No way.
During a town hall-style campaign appearance in Concord, N.H., Republican presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich defended his strong anti-drug stance, invoking a little help from George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.
When an attendee suggested founding era politicians took a much more lenient stance on marijuana, Gingrich disagreed.
“I think Jefferson or George Washington would have rather strongly discouraged you from growing marijuana, and their techniques with dealing with it would have been rather more violent than our current government,” Gingrich said.
Really, Newt?
In fact, both Washington and Jefferson grew hemp. In a memo dated Sept. 23, 1789, Jefferson wrote to Monticello overseer Manoah Clarkson, “Tend the next year two acres of hemp on east side the river, and 1000 cotton hills for every working hand.”
Of course, Washington and Jefferson grew hemp for industrial purposes, primarily for making clothing, and no evidence exists that either smoked it. But as the DEA notes in its 2001 clarification of the status of hemp in the federal register, “DEA Administrator Asa Hutchinson stated that ‘many Americans do not know that hemp and marijuana are both parts of the same plant and that hemp cannot be produced without producing marijuana.’” Since 1970, the federal Controlled Substances Act’s inclusion of industrial hemp in the schedule one definition of marijuana has prohibited farmers in the U.S. from growing industrial hemp.
So to put it simply, Jefferson and Washington grew marijuana.
Let’s give Newt the benefit of the doubt, consider the context and assume he was only asserting the founders would have violently opposed marijuana grown for its use as a drug. Bottom line, we don’t really know. Marijuana smoking wasn’t an issue in the late 1700s. But we can say for certain that the framers would have opposed the type of federal regulation of marijuana and other drugs Gingrich supports, because no constitutional power exists for the federal government to wage a war on drugs. And Jefferson was a stickler for adhering to the Constitution.
“In questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”
Marijuana wasn’t an issue during the early years of the Republic, but opium addiction was. How did the federal government handle that contemporary drug problem?
It didn’t.
According to the National Alliance of Advocates for Buprenorphine Treatment, “Prior to 1890, laws concerning opiates were strictly imposed on a local city or state-by-state basis. One of the first was in San Francisco in 1875 where it became illegal to smoke opium only in opium dens. It did not ban the sale, import or use otherwise. In the next 25 years different states enacted opium laws ranging from outlawing opium dens altogether to making possession of opium, morphine and heroin without a physician’s prescription illegal.”
And consider another intoxicating drug –alcohol. It took an amendment to the Constitution to authorize federal regulation of booze.
James Madison said state power would “extend to all 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.” Clearly, drug laws fall under that definition and the current federal drug policy stands as blatantly unconstitutional.
We can engage in a reasonable debate as to whether Gingrich holds a valid position when he advocates for harsh legal action against drug users and suppliers. We can argue the merits of prohibition or a more lax approach to mind altering drug use. But when Newt advances a federal solution to the drug problem, he stands a universe away from the position of Jefferson and Washington.
On this exam, the history professor earns an F.
EDITOR’S NOTE: See the TAC’s Hemp Freedom Act HERE.
About the author
Michael Maharrey [send him email] is the Communications Director for the Tenth Amendment Center. He proudly resides in the original home of the Principles of '98 - Kentucky. See his blog archive here and his article archive here. He is the author of the book, Our Last Hope: Rediscovering the Lost Path to Liberty. You can visit his personal website at MichaelMaharrey.com and like him on Facebook HERE
This is easily answered for me: Are these acts of war on drugs in support of life? What part of life are they supporting exactly? Can you show me the results of the result of support for life? What has it done for life that has allowed life to grow and prosper?
In truth is has done none of these because it bares no fruit to support it; Jailing people to make the producing support is not a sustaining action. Domination is an act against Liberty which we are to be free of. Hemp or the pot plant has enormous industrial uses as has been shown in history and makes excellent products. It can also be used for safe medications that do not kill people, in fact I have not seen or cannot locate any proof Marijuana has killed anyone. Other drugs such as opium have also been used in medications for pain. Alcohol has many uses as well.
Yes there are abuses of these products, but what is the example here, eroding Liberty, the lack of great producing examples where you are allowed to try things to support or sustain yourself? What are the profits attached to the war on Drugs and what has it done to serve communities?
So from an inalienable rights prospective or principals for which to decide from it has added no service, no benefits what so ever. It has been very costly for those who do produce great products and create opportunities for others. So from a results prospective it has furnished nothing towards better and more prosperous communities and goes against life’s support. The constitution when implemented proper supports liberty the restriction of Governments or false or made up authority. These acts increase authority over peoples life which is in total opposition to Liberty.
See this does not need to be a lawyers term, simple english and understanding can be used to define. Those pretending Authority, mostly lawyers and financiers pretend by acts daily.
Life is fully capable of authorizing itself what it will and wont do, so each life may choose for itself and no other life has or can make up some other authority. Yes it can try and some may even accept, but all life will never accept and some may defy by standing against with full authority to do so in total support of life.
The deciding factors are real, genuine and the laws of nature and has not one thing to do with making up false laws at all.
This is easily answered for me: Are these acts of war on drugs in support of life? What part of life are they supporting exactly? Can you show me the results of the result of support for life? What has it done for life that has allowed life to grow and prosper?
In truth is has done none of these because it bares no fruit to support it; Jailing people to make the producing support is not a sustaining action. Domination is an act against Liberty which we are to be free of. Hemp or the pot plant has enormous industrial uses as has been shown in history and makes excellent products. It can also be used for safe medications that do not kill people, in fact I have not seen or cannot locate any proof Marijuana has killed anyone. Other drugs such as opium have also been used in medications for pain. Alcohol has many uses as well.
Yes there are abuses of these products, but what is the example here, eroding Liberty, the lack of great producing examples where you are allowed to try things to support or sustain yourself? What are the profits attached to the war on Drugs and what has it done to serve communities?
So from an inalienable rights prospective or principals for which to decide from it has added no service, no benefits what so ever. It has been very costly for those who do produce great products and create opportunities for others. So from a results prospective it has furnished nothing towards better and more prosperous communities and goes against life’s support. The constitution when implemented proper supports liberty the restriction of Governments or false or made up authority. These acts increase authority over peoples life which is in total opposition to Liberty.
See this does not need to be a lawyers term, simple english and understanding can be used to define. Those pretending Authority, mostly lawyers and financiers pretend by acts daily.
Life is fully capable of authorizing itself what it will and wont do, so each life may choose for itself and no other life has or can make up some other authority. Yes it can try and some may even accept, but all life will never accept and some may defy by standing against with full authority to do so in total support of life.
The deciding factors are real, genuine and the laws of nature and has not one thing to do with making up false laws at all.
This is easily answered for me: Are these acts of war on drugs in support of life? What part of life are they supporting exactly? Can you show me the results of the result of support for life? What has it done for life that has allowed life to grow and prosper?
In truth is has done none of these because it bares no fruit to support it; Jailing people to make the producing support is not a sustaining action. Domination is an act against Liberty which we are to be free of. Hemp or the pot plant has enormous industrial uses as has been shown in history and makes excellent products. It can also be used for safe medications that do not kill people, in fact I have not seen or cannot locate any proof Marijuana has killed anyone. Other drugs such as opium have also been used in medications for pain. Alcohol has many uses as well.
Yes there are abuses of these products, but what is the example here, eroding Liberty, the lack of great producing examples where you are allowed to try things to support or sustain yourself? What are the profits attached to the war on Drugs and what has it done to serve communities?
So from an inalienable rights prospective or principals for which to decide from it has added no service, no benefits what so ever. It has been very costly for those who do produce great products and create opportunities for others. So from a results prospective it has furnished nothing towards better and more prosperous communities and goes against life’s support. The constitution when implemented proper supports liberty the restriction of Governments or false or made up authority. These acts increase authority over peoples life which is in total opposition to Liberty.
See this does not need to be a lawyers term, simple english and understanding can be used to define. Those pretending Authority, mostly lawyers and financiers pretend by acts daily.
Life is fully capable of authorizing itself what it will and wont do, so each life may choose for itself and no other life has or can make up some other authority. Yes it can try and some may even accept, but all life will never accept and some may defy by standing against with full authority to do so in total support of life.
The deciding factors are real, genuine and the laws of nature and has not one thing to do with making up false laws at all.