Navigation

Tag Archives | Drug War

Left and Right Agree to Disagree

By on January 2, 2013 in Federalism 18

After an embittered presidential election, a never-ending kabuki on Washington finances, and now a fierce debate over property rights, many would be surprised to know that members from opposite sides of the political spectrum have found some common ground. Betsy Woodruf at National Review Online sure was. She was shocked to find agreement between the Republican Governor of Illinois, Mitch Daniels, and Tom Dickenson of Rolling Stone magazine regarding medical marijuana and federalism. Both, it seems, favor letting the states determine their own drug policy, even though they may not agree on what each state ultimately decides.

First, note that agreement between the two parties happens more often than not. In principle they all agree on war, debt, entitlements, taxation, police statism, drones, the central bank, socialistic healthcare, prohibition, and many other issues. Of course they disagree on just how much debt there should be; if the military ought to bomb the people of third-world countries or drop bombs and machine-gun them; and whether individuals should forfeit 35 percent of their income or only 33 percent. Some diversity of thought.

But what’s noteworthy about this particular case is that each can agree because neither is trying to force the other into submitting to a single policy. Here we see one of the great things about decentralized government: it tends to reduce conflict by allowing various groups to “live and let live.” This is isn’t possible when all policy decisions are made by one body, when a polity becomes too big. Continue Reading →

Continue Reading

New Marijuana ‘Controversy’ Being Pushed by Bureaucrats, Newspapers

By on October 1, 2012 in Drug War, Media 0

With the economy struggling and cities going bankrupt left and right, you would think that bureaucrats in the state of California would focus on shoring up the spending problems before expending more precious resources toward a crackdown on medical marijuana. But that is not the case. The Los Angeles City Council voted to ban medical marijuana dispensaries back in July, a decision that won the ire of voters.

This unanimous 14-0 bipartisan agreement that cut off commerce and jobs at a time when they are so desperately needed was so reviled by voters that signatures were quickly collected in enough time to get a repeal measure on the ballot in November. With marijuana being more widespread and popular than ever, it is very possible that these bureaucrats will have their prohibition overturned and the medical marijuana industry will be allowed to grow without senseless laws stifling them.

But according to a Sept. 23 editorial in the Los Angeles Times, the medical marijuana industry cannot be allowed to Continue Reading →

Continue Reading

Montanans Plead the 10th

By on July 3, 2012 in Drug War 0

Last August, a group of medical practitioners and pharmaceutical manufacturers filed suit against the federal government in U.S. District Court. They claimed the feds violated their rights by sending armed agents into their businesses and, according to a report in the Santa Fe New Mexican “‘seized and destroyed thousands of live plants,’ and ‘took away hundreds of pounds of dried marijuana’ during a March 2011 raid on licensed producers, and stripped certain providers of lights and other equipment used to grow and distribute the herb, which caused [...] significant financial damage.”

But the district court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims, saying the issue had “already been decided.”

However, as Daniel Abrahamson notes, medical marijuana hasn’t really been decided by the courts, as most of the relevant cases haven’t actually been argued in court. In nearly all cases, the parties have settled or withdrawn their appeals. So it would appear to be an open question, ripe for such a challenge.

The group hopes they’ll have their chance to advance their case later this year in the 9th Circuit Court. One of the chief complaints raised by attorney Paul Livingston, who represents this Montana group, is that “It is truly astonishing that so much weight is given, so many actions taken, and so much reliance placed on a demonstrably false notion; that marijuana has no known medical uses.”

But the main thrust of their case doesn’t rest solely on the medical science regarding cannabis, the 10th Amendment will also be key to their argument. Livingston will attempt to show that both the power to police and provide safety to the public lie not with the Feds, but with the several states. Such a two-pronged approach ought to be the most effective, insomuch as petitioning the government courts to limit their own powers is concerned. Continue Reading →

Continue Reading

Taking it off for the 10th?

By on September 21, 2009 in Activism 5

A marijuana activist is doing something “special” to bring attention to the fact that the federal government is completely ignoring the 10th Amendment.  Writes Angela Macdonald of Examiner.com:

Angela, the host, producer, and writer of The Reefer Report has vowed to wear no clothing during her ten minute news program.

“The Federal government is stripping the citizens of the United States of their 10th amendment rights. Until medical marijuana is legalized on a federal level, I will not be wearing clothes on the show.”

Angela went on to explain how important the 10th amendment is by stating, “We are not allowed to petition a vote on the federal level like we can on a state level. We can’t even vote on any federal issues during an election. This is why the 10th amendment is so important. On top of all this, how can we expect police in any give state to do their jobs when the federal government can just come in and over-ride what the citizens of that state voted into law? The 10th amendment is just as important as any other amendment, and it was written for a reason.”

It’s important to note that the federal government is seriously violating the Constitution’s doctrine of delegated powers by continuing the criminalization of marijuana.  Their stretching of the commerce clause as an excuse has given precedent for them to invade many other areas too.

While I strongly support efforts to make decisions on marijuana, and many other issues, on a state-level, a proper understanding of the Constitution makes it clear that the federal government is not authorized to either criminalize or legalize marijuana.

What they need to do is not force either side on everyone – they just need to get out of the issue altogether.

Either way, it’s certainly good to see more and more people getting behind these principles of decentralization.  Find the show here.

Continue Reading