This morning, City Councilman and former cop, Dennis Zine held a press conference prior to Wednesday’s Los Angeles City Council meeting calling for DEA Administrator Karen Tandy to stop her newest tactic of threatening property owners who rent to medical cannabis dispensaries, and to allow the City of LA to proceed with regulations of med weed distribution without federal interference.
SO WHAT DID THE DEA DO IN RESPONSE? It raided five six TEN clinics. The raids are going on as I type. The largest raid is taking place at the medical marijuana collective known as CPG—or the California Patient’s Group—located at 6208 Santa Monica Blvd. (Santa Monica and Vine). An estimated 200 people are protesting in front of the collective and the LAPD is on site, but the Hollywood Division officers have only been called out to handle “perimeter control.” They aren’t involved in the raid.
Coincidentally the raids also come on the day when Congress is expected to vote on the Hinchey-Rohrabacher Amendment, which would cut off funds for just this kind of out-of-proportion DEA action that, while legal under Federal law, thumbs its nose in the face of California state law.
Several staff and patients are reportedly being held inside the dispensary.
UPDATE: When I talked to Councilman Dennis Zine a few minutes ago, he said the raids were anything but a coincidence. “They knew about our resolution and our plans for regulation, so now they’re flexing their muscles, trying to show us who’s boss. Frankly I’m outraged that the DEA would stoop to this.”
CPG collective hours after the raid; although the front door was unlocked, DEA agents broke it down.
Not closed for long.
Here’s a copy of the letter from Zine to the DEA’s Tandy:
July 25, 2007
Administrator Karen Tandy
Drug Enforcement Administration
2401 Jefferson Davis Highway
Alexandria, VA 22301Dear Administrator Tandy:
Property owners who lease to medical cannabis (marijuana) dispensaries in the City of Los Angeles have recently received notices from your agency threatening the owners with arrest and property asset forfeiture. The notices were mailed just as my colleagues and I were anticipating a vote on an Interim Control Ordinance (ICO) prohibiting the establishment of new medical cannabis facilities in Los Angeles and requiring existing facilities to register with the State of California and the Los Angeles City Clerk. I am writing to ask that you abandon this tactic and allow this City Council to continue the important work of regulating these facilities without Federal interference.
I understand there is a difference between Federal law and California law in regards to medical cannabis. Despite the difference, cities and counties must continue to uphold the will of our voters and adopt sensible guidelines to regulate the provision of medical cannabis in our communities. Voters in California and in Los Angeles support the medical use of cannabis and want safe, well-regulated access. Medical cannabis facilities are a community based response to the need for safe access and represent the State of California’s effort to fully implement California’s medical cannabis law, which was approved by California voters in 1996.
Los Angeles city staff has been carefully researching appropriate regulatory strategies for medical cannabis facilities since I first introduced a motion to explore this issue in 2005. Today, we adopted the ICO, and a working group made up of city staff, law enforcement, and citizen representatives has already started to consider permanent regulations for the City of Los Angeles medical marijuana dispensaries.
Local regulations are the key to preventing abuse of California’s voter-approved medical cannabis law and to protect legally qualified patients, their providers, and neighborhoods from harm. We urge you to abandon your tactic of targeting property owners so that we can move forward with our important work. This will serve the interests of our constituents while the U.S.
Congress works to harmonize federal law with the will of the people and the laws of the twelve states that currently allow medical cannabis.Sincerely,
DENNIS P. ZINE
Councilman, Third District
It would seem the DEA’s reaction can be translated to read: Hey, Zine! Screw U!
The raids are particularly vexing coming as they do on a day when the City Council has taken a first appropriate step toward writing permanent regulations governing the dispensaries, with the idea of separating the legitimate collectives from those who are shaving the dice—legally speaking. Until the regulations are in force, today’s vote (which must be repeated later in the week by the full City Council as many members were absent) has instituted a moratorium on the opening of any new med marijuana collectives.
Here, by the way, is a copy of the City Council resolution supporting Hinchey-Rohrabacher.
P.S. ….Does anyone see it as vaguely ironic that the day after the Feds threaten to cap the California prison population (where the largest percentage of inmates are being held for nonviolent drug convictions) that federal DEA agents are arresting medical marijuana purveyors and patients (and allegedly two protesters, but that’s not been confirmed), to needlessly fill up the federal lock-ups?
PPS: Around 4:30 this afternoon, Dennis Zine issued the following statement:
“I am greatly disturbed that the Drug Enforcement Administration would initiate an enforcement action against medical marijuana facilities in the City of Los Angeles during a news conference regarding City Council support of an Interim Control Ordinance to regulate all facilities within the City. This action by the DEA is contrary to the vote of Californians who overwhelmingly voted to support medicinal marijuana use by those facing serious and life threatening illnesses. The DEA needs to focus their attention and enforcement action on the illegal drug dealers who are terrorizing communities in Los Angeles.”
Yeah, doesn’t it just figure. Amazing. Simply, amazing. I’m not so sure that I wouldn’t be just as happy to de-fund the DEA, the ATF, and the OVP. Wonder if we couldn’t do it in a 3 for 1 package?
[…] DEA Raids Medical Marijuana Spots 174 Murders in Los Angeles County This Year So Far Carjacker Kills 16 Year Old Boy $110k Reward For […]
[…] DEA Raids Medical Marijuana Spots 174 Murders in Los Angeles County This Year So Far Carjacker Kills 16 Year Old Boy $110k Reward For […]
Does anyone see it as vaguely ironic… ? Off the chart ironic. But then, why would we expect the judicial and enforcement arms of the federal gov’t to reach some kind of alignment? California; the current recipient of the old squeeze play.
Will someone from the left give us a list of which laws should be enforced and which ones should not? Apparently passage of laws by representative government is not good enough for you, and enforcement of those laws by people who are sworn to enforce them is unacceptable.
The law of California, “SB 420,” is the law that should be enforced Woody. Those Federal officers are violating the sovereignty of California and the will of its voters.
Good, Joe. Governor George Wallace used to talk about the “sovereign state of Alabama,” but the Alabama National Guard was nationalized by President Kennedy and Wallace had to step aside from the “school house door” at The Univ. of Alabama. Let’s just go back to the way things were before the federal government started interfering in state business and states’ rights. We’ll show them “fed’rl bu-ro-crats.”
Yeah, Woody. Liberals in the middle of the 20th century moved to increase federal power. AND YOU WERE AGAINST IT!!!! You thought, and still think when it’s convenient, that the federal government often oversteps its bounds and should let the people of the states make their own laws. You’ve said as much about abortion and gay marriage and even desegregation. You don’t go around telling conservatives to shut up and follow federal law, you expect them to speak out and call for change. But when it comes to a state having liberal preferences, to you it’s just a bunch of liberal law breakers who need to stop complaining. In Woody’s world only other people can commit hypocrisy. It’s a world rich with irony. I need to stop wasting my time, but he really is incredible.
Thanks, Mavis. Nice distinction. It is a waste of your time, but I’m glad you took the time anyway.
Conservatives may not agree with certain laws, but they still follow them. That is a distinction. Liberals choose activist judges, states rights, and anarchy to avoid obeying laws as written.
Woody, if you were an honest conservative it would be a little easier to respond to you. But, you’re not. You are, however, a relatively honest authoritarian. That is also a distinction. In this case, I believe, it is the most important distinction that could be made.
Nice one Woody. The thing is, in the case you reference, the State of Alabama was attempting to “limit” individuals’ constitutionally protected civil rights and civil liberties without due process. Medical Marijuana laws expand civil liberties rather than limiting them. The federal govenment has a responsibillity to intervene when states attempt to place limits on individuals’ constitutional guaranteed civil rights, but should not interfere with any attempt on the part of states to expand those rights. Interestingly, the constitutional basis for the exsitence of the DEA, the commerce clause, which allows the federal government to form law enforcement agenies as part of it’s constitutionally mandated duty to regulate interstate commerce, may not really apply in the case of some dispensaries which use marijuana grown only in California and, therefore, don’t actually engage in interstate commerce.
Well said, Joe and Mavis.
I was at work when the raid happened. Nothing too exciting at all. They came in the back door with body armor and rifles, announced their entry, cleaned out all the cannabis products (but left all of the smoking equipment) and took $1000 cash. They took me to the federal building for processing, and questioning, and release without any charges because I really wasn’t working there for very long at that point. While I do not plan to continue working there, the owner plans to keep the facility open.
I figured you folks would like to hear first-hand from somebody who was present at the scene. I treated he officers with respect, and they returned the favor. But in all the confusion, my keys and cellular phone were left on the edibles refrigerator rather than being thrown in an evidence bag.
Oh, God’s sakes! Where to begin! One would think that if the Federal Government were actually serious about fighting the GWOT, said Government wouldn’t waste 10 seconds or 10 bucks trying to keep a few thousand very sick people from using a weed! Or, do the Feds have to prove to us that they really don’t give crap about sick people? Totally BS.
I’ve gotten into a lot of arguments with friends who say that we ought to just legalize pot. I could care less if it ever happened (Although I wouldn’t oppose it). There’s just too many other issues way more important than that. BUT, the Federal Government ought to at least have the decency to allow the sickest and most disadvantaged amongst us a simple registry that says to the cops: “these folks need pot as medicine. Don’t bust.”
Where’d you go Woody?
Look, honestly, the majority of these places are all fronts for marijuana drug dealers and idiots with those quacky issued cards from crooked doctors and their so called alternative medicine clinics. I personally know a huge number of people who carry those cards to either deal high grade chronic attempting to get around local laws or smoke it with a bullshit made-up illness.
One of these places is a front for a family that I personally know that is dealing Canadian BC but using some other idiot’s name on the business license. This family has been arrested in the past for having guns, hundred of thousand of dollars, and snorting cocaine.
If I wasn’t an honest person and wanted to be a good undercover crook making hundred of thounsand of dollars taxed free-the dipensaries are the way to go…
It’s true that the majority of people using medical Marijuana are not AIDS or Cancer patients and that most of the “ailments” for which people are issued medical cannabis recommendations are minor or suspect. The fact is that California law gives doctors broad discretion in recommending cannabis for any condition that impairs a patients quality of life. It’s important to keep in mind that millions of Americans are unecessarily taking anti-depressants and other pharmecuticals and no federal law enforcement agency is raiding Rite-Aid. Poplock is right that medical cannabis is simply back door legalization in a sense. But the fact is, Americans like drugs, and prohibition of cannabis, which is far less dangerous than many pharmecuticals is undeniably hypocritical.
Not a lot of time now, Joe, but I don’t think that the role of the federal goverment is either to restrict or expand liberties.
Ishmael, I’m with you. No speeding tickets until the GWOT is won!
Woody,
You obviously didn’t read my comments. I never suggested that it was the role of the federal government to expand civil liberties. I said that one role of the federal government was to protect individuals against violation of their civil rights or liberties by the states without due process. If the individual states choose to expand civil liberties, the federal government should not restrict those rights unless they are in direct conflict with the constitution. The constitution specifically states that that all issues not dealt with in the constitution are left to the states. The constitutional basis for federal interference in medical marijuana, as well as for the exsistence of the DEA itself is the “commerce clause”. Hated by most conservatives, the “commerce clause” is the constitutional mandate of the federal government to regulate interstate commerce and is the basis for most of the expansion of federal power in the 20th century. Whether it applies here is worthy of debate. The supreme court did allow for enforcement of federal drug laws which are in conflict with state medicinal marijuana laws. However, being a good conservative you should take heed of the fact that the strongest decent in that case came from Antonin Scalia, who was resolute in his opinion that medicinal marijuana was an issue to be decided by state rather than federal law. The DEA is operating within the letter of the law, but certainly not the spirit of the law. Please read my comments before responding.
Joe, I said that I was short on time, thus I relied on a quick scan. After reading your comment a little closer, my contention is the same. You say that the feds should act only to expand civil liberties but must back away in restraining them. The feds should enforce the Constitution no matter which way the wind blows.
I’m actually for more states’ rights, but the Left has used the feds to beat up on state governments who went against them. You want it both ways when it suits you.
On the marijuana issue, I’m not going to fight California if everyone there wants to go to hell in a handbasket. However, when fighting for your cause, do it legally and don’t get upset when law enforcement does its job.
LotS, I don’t completely understand your application or lack of application to me of the terms “honest conservative” (aren’t they all?) or a “relatively honest authoritarian.”
You may not believe this, but I have fought authority most of my life. I am not your typical corporate guy and once told the president of a company where I worked, when I was VP-Finance, that he was a crook and that I wasn’t going to help him cheat another businessman on a contract that we signed. I don’t respect authority that does not accept the heavy responsibilty of doing what is right. However, if I can change authority, I will. If I can’t change authority, I will leave if I can or accept that I must follow it.
I am driven more by absolutes of right and wrong rather than deal with situational ethics and closing my eyes to wrong-doing.
BTW, the feds better not try to institute a 55 MPH speed limit again. Give us the liberty to get where we need as fast as we can.
Okay, Woody. I may very well be wrong. So, you classify yourself. Which one of the following groups best reflects your thinking?
Edmund Burke, Thomas Carlyle, Vilfredo Pareto, Joseph Schumpeter, Leo Strauss, Michael Oakeshott, Irving Kristol, Nathan Glazer, Norman Podhoretz, and George Will?
Or,
Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Adam Smith, Thomas Malthus, Fredrich Hayek, Robert Nozick, James Buchanan, Robert Barro, and Paul Volker?
Since, as you say, I am driven more by absolutes of right and wrong rather than deal with situational ethics and closing my eyes to wrong-doing. I can be more fair when I consider the notion of honesty.
Woody,
You obviously didn’t read my comments again. I did not say that the federal government should expand civil liberties. I said that they should not interfere with states attempt to do so unless those attempts are in direct violation of the constitution. That’s what the constitution says.
We did do it legally. The voters of California overwhelmingly passed a ballot initiative and our state senate affirmed and clarified it with SB420. These laws are not in direct conflict with the constitution and therefore should not attract federal intervention.
“I don’t respect authority that does not accept the heavy responsibilty [sic] of doing what is right. However, if I can change authority, I will. If I can’t change authority, I will leave if I can or “accept that I must follow it”.”
Are you kidding me Woody? You would have made an excellent subject of King George, or follower of Hitler or Stalin.
Joe, if you don’t think that the feds should expand civil liberties, then you would have been on the wrong end of the civil rights movement, which voided state laws. (I still think that someone should be literate to vote.)
Why should government interfere with individuals trying to expand their liberties? Let’s consider a very real possibility. Suppose that the voters of Topanga, California decide that they want to legalize prostitution and gambling in their town. Should the state interfere and, if so, should the feds step in to allow their democratically decided freedom?
I might have been loyal to King George, but I would have gotten the hell out of Germany or Russia. BTW, you lose for bringing up Hitler.
—-
LotS, you named several people whom I never studied and have no idea of their roles in history. You might as well have listed Huckleberry Hound.
The best way to define me is by not lumping me in a group or comparing me to someone else. I am an individual and make up my own mind on issues based upon the values instilled within me and taught to me by my parents. I don’t read the views of influential people to determine a course to support. That’s indicated by me just jumping in and commenting on Celeste’s posts without having to refer to other sources first.
What am I? To keep with the cartoon theme and as Popeye said, “I yam what I yam.”
LINK: Smoking just one cannabis joint raises danger of mental illness by 40%
The feds are just trying to save you from your own bad decisions.
The feds are just trying to save you from your own bad decisions. Isn’t your assertion an example of nanny state support? It’s also, a fairly authoritarian assertion. One of those places where the extreme right rubs shoulders with the extreme left.
While, [T]he feds better not try to institute a 55 MPH speed limit again. Give us the liberty to get where we need as fast as we can. is an argument against the nanny state and is more consistent with the arguments of the Classical Liberalism/Libertarianism.
Woody,
In the civil rights era the federal government was protecting constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties, not creating new ones (i.e. not expanding civil liberties). For the final time time, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS A CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATED RESPONSIBILITY TO INTERVENE WHEN STATE LAWS “LIMIT” CIVIL LIBERTIES SPELLED OUT IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS AND THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION
– Jim Crow Laws = State Limit Limit On Civil Liberties (Conflicts w/ Bill of rights and due process clause)
– CA SB 420 (Med. Marijuana) = State Expansion of Civil Liberties (Does not conflict with US constitution)
As far as Topanga, gambling and prostitution are not protected or prohibited by the constitution. Therefore, the constitution expressly leaves it up to the STATES, not municipalities to decide. If those activities are banned under California law, as prostitution is and some forms of gambling are, Topanga cannot legalize them in conflict of California law. People don’t have an absolute right to expand civil liberties outside of a constitutional framework. However, unless you support a broad interpretation of the “commerce clause,” (i.e. judicial activism) the constitution leaves medical marijuana laws to the states. Medical marijuana was legalized in California, through a legal process spelled out by the California constitution.
correction,
I mistakenly said the Bill of rights guarantees the right to vote. It’s actually the 15th amendment, which, of course, is not part of the Bill of Rights.
Also, take a look at the 10th 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 the people”
Don’t want to interfere with this excellent discussion, but just to clarify: In Topanga Canyon, it is a well known fact that we can do what we please. (We don’t need no stinking state or federal laws).
(I’m kidding. Sort of.)
But carry on.
Re: Marijuana May Increase Psychosis Risk; http://tinyurl.com/2sar7s
I waited thinking GM might choose to comment….
(A) Correlation is not causation.
(B) The researchers specifically stated they could not prove causation.
(C) Those of us who have worked in community mental health/community Psychiatry have known since the 70s of the high correlation between psychotic disorders and cannabis use.
(D) The question posed by those on the frontlines went more towards, To what degree do those with mental illness attempt to self-medicate with drugs or alcohol, prior to first diagnosis, or in lieu of/conjunction with prescribed meds.
(E) This specific research effort sounds like a meta-analysis. While meta-analysis is a useful tool, it has its inherent drawbacks. I haven’t seen the original research to know what steps the researchers took to deal with differences in definitions, controls, etc. over time.
(F)
Whoa, Nellie! How the heck did I do the first line of that second block quote? Well, huh! For those reaching for their glasses (like me), it should read:
“Dr. Wilson Compton, a senior scientist at the National Institute on Drug Abuse in Washington, called the study persuasive.”
LotS, I was being facetious when I said that the fes were trying to save you from your own bad decisions–sort of like Hillary wanting to give government health care to people who chose to buy liquor and new cars instead of insurance.
Hey, my wife is screaming at me to move a mirror. I’ll have to get to the rest of the comments later.
Joe, in the civil rights era, states and the federal government were dealing with the same U.S. Constitution that existed prior to the Civil War and subsequently allowed Jim Crow laws and literacy requirements for voting. The federal government began later, in fact, to apply different standards and interpretations to rights that were not acknowledged earlier–not enforcing a previously claimed right or a Constitutional provision superior to state law.
The federal government will do whatever it pleases, or so it seems and so it does. If California and, specifically San Francisco, voted that treason against the U.S. is legal in their eyes, the federal government might choose to limit their newly proclaimed “right.”
Many counties prohibit liquor sales (and there are plenty of dry counties). Should the Feds move in and force them to sell booze? Why, my county prohibits the sale of beer on Sunday or the sale of it within a certain distance of schools and churches. I’m waiting for the federal government to say that should be allowed in the interest of expanding rights allowed under the Constitution.
Ask Michael Vick if the federal government will allow him to keep up his “family tradition” of dog fighting or restrict his rights to that.
You keep narrowly focusing the argument without acknowledging historical precedence or contradictory postions claimed by the Left.
The states, thanks to liberals, can no longer do what is in their interests. I have to laugh when you quote “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 the peopleâ€Â
Why the U.S. (thanks to Jimmy Carter) thinks that the federal government even has the right to decide policies of school boards elected by local and state citizens. There is no power that the federal government will reserve to states anymore if the feds want itLotS, it’s not about scientific proof about marijuana. Isn’t it about “consensus,” or so the Al Gore types claim on another issue. You can come up with whatever study that you want to “prove” whatever you want. My first hand observations, however, have been that people who use heavy drugs first tried marijuana. Once one high becomes commonplace, there is a tendency to move to the next step up.
Well, my html coding got messed up on that last part. Here it is again.
Why the U.S. (thanks to Jimmy Carter) thinks that the federal government even has the right to decide policies of school boards elected by local and state citizens. There is no power that the federal government will reserve to states anymore if the feds want it.
LotS, it’s not about scientific proof about marijuana. Isn’t it about “consensus,” or so the Al Gore types claim on another issue. You can come up with whatever study that you want to “prove” whatever you want. My first hand observations, however, have been that people who use heavy drugs first tried marijuana. Once one high becomes commonplace, there is a tendency to move to the next step up.
Woody. Actually, they weren’t dealing with the same constitution that existed prior to the civil war. The 15th amendment was a post civil war amendment. The constitution was amended using a legal process spelled out in… you guessed it, the constitution. Sadly, the federal government did not enforce it until many years later. That doesn’t change the fact that their was a constitutional basis for federal intervention in the Jim Crow south and that intervention was based on state imposed limits on constitutionally protected rights spelled out inn the 15th amendment to the constitution. Consumption of alcohol and dog fighting are not prohibited or protected by the constitution. Therefore, they are left up to the states. If not protected or prohibited by the states, they are left up to local government. Also…
– San Francisco couldn’t legalize treason because it specifically designated as a crime in the constitution.
– The constitution does not protect or ban the possession of alcohol. Neither does, I suspect, you state constitution. Therefore, your county is well within in rights to introduce an ordinance regulating it.
Lets simplify.
– Please lay out for me, a constitutional basis for federal regulation of medical marijuana.
Joe, the Constitution is occasionally amended and often radically interpreted, but it is still the same Constitution.
You say that it wasn’t enforced earlier, but it was enforced. It’s just that others later decided to give it a new interpretation. Separate but equal was constitutional until that was changed by the courts in the 1950’s.
The example of treason is one in which the feds do limit “rights,” which is what I said that they do. It doesn’t matter how it is done.
The feds involve themselves over alcohol through prohibition, ending prohibition, taxing alcohol, busting up stills, requiring that the product be kept to certain standards of sanitation and meet labeling requirement, etc. If the ACLU wasn’t so busy getting the Ten Commandments tossed out of public buildings, they would probably be working to get beer sold on Sundays.
Note that it is the feds who have taken Michael Vick to the Grand Jury for dog fighting after the local and state gave it a pass.
The feds do involve themselves in everyday life. They don’t allow the states to keep any powers that they want–which is just about everything.
I don’t have to lay out the constitutional basis for federal involvement in marijuana. They do it and no one, not even the ACLU, has come up with a supportable case to stop them. It seems that the burden is on you or marijuana supporters to explain why it is unconsitutional and to stop the feds. However, that issue has been addressed by courts and the feds are still allowed to do it and are doing it.
Believe me, it wasn’t people like me who encouraged the federal government to take over state duties and to extend its role as a nanny state. I don’t like it, but that’s the way it is for me, who thinks that one should be able to read and write to vote, and for you, who thinks that marijuana should be legal.
However, I accept it rather than encourage lawless resistance. You could always move.
Woody, no reputable empirical work ever claims to prove anything. A preponderance of evidence does, however, serve to confirm, or disconfirm a theory. That preponderance of evidence has nothing to do with consensus building. You may get consensus on a social issue – you will find agreement or disagreement on the results of an empirical study. When there is a preponderance of evidence, you can look like a darned fool arguing against it without amassing evidence to the contrary. No one is arguing the correlation between cannabis use and incidence of psychosis. The preponderance of evidence is there. What is NOT there is the direction of the causal chain. So, to state that smoking marijuana causes psychosis is way outside the evidence. Statements like, My first hand observations, however, have been that people who use heavy drugs first tried marijuana. Once one high becomes commonplace, there is a tendency to move to the next step up. are anecdotal at best, and irrelevant to the study cited.
If the case against Vick is federal, I don’t support it. I never said the federal government shouldn’t or couldn’t place limits on civil liberties. They can place limits on them if those limits are expressly allowed by the constitution. During prohibition the federal government had a constitutional basis for regulation of alcohol, the 18th amendment, which, as we all know, was subsequently repealed. I do not support additional federal regulation of alcohol unless, interstate commerce is specifically involved.
I’ve already acknowledged that the Supreme court has ruled in favor of the DEA’s right to raid dispensaries. I happen disagree with their interpretation of the law. I also noted that the most conservative justice, Scalia, dissented in the relevant case, because he felt the federal government was overreaching and that to rule in their favor amounts to what you have termed “judicial activism” in the face of a power clearly designated to the states. What I’m interested in is YOUR opinion. You have previously stated your distaste for judicial activism on these pages.
Do YOU think that in this case the court is in the case engaging in “judicial activism”? If yes, do you support judicial activism in this case.
Do YOU generally support a broad interpretation of the “commerce clause”?
That was my last post on this thread. Thank you a vigorous and civil debate Woody. I hope we can do it again. Also, hope you stocked up on enough liquor to get you through the rest of Sunday. Is that Minnesota, Utah or Texas?
Joe, I hate to say it, but I’ve just gotten too worn out on federal interference into state matters to raise any resistance to it. I just gripe.
I’ve always been for a limited central government to allow people at a local level to determine what is in their best interests. Unfortunately, Washington, D.C. has an insatiable appetite for power and control. Plus, politicians are afraid to lose votes by telling the populace that it’s not the job of the government to take care of them from cradle to grave–so, they continue to take more control of lives.
On the matter of marijuana laws specifically, I really would have to read the legal arguments presented from both sides. However, I generally find myself in agreement with Justice Scalia, who tends to favor following the original intent of laws rather than bend them. I do not accept the concept of a “living constitution.”
From a personal and moral approach, I do not favor legalization of drugs, and I recognize that liquor prohibition resulted in many positives with families and personal lives. I don’t smoke, drink, or use drugs. I’ve seen what it has done to others, and I have no interest in being tempted to ruin my life.
Democrats and Libertarians come together in favor of liberalizing drug laws. As a conservative, I would oppose drug use. However, I would not use the power of an armed federal goverment to do that. Leave more decisions up to the states, but also make the states responsible for consequences.
The commerce clause has been extended to ridiculous extremes, without my going into detail. This nation is a union of states, but the federal government no longer feels that it should answer to the states. (The state legislatures used to elect Senators.) At least we still have the Electoral College to represent the states, even though that gets attacked by whoever loses.
I enjoyed the discussion and must say that it’s one of the few in which someone didn’t tell me to have intercourse with myself.
Really excellent debate Joe, Woody and Listener. I’ve enjoyed reading it. Well done.
So that I get the last word, here it is: WORD
i love cannabis i smoke it so what it is my body my mind my right i am not hurting anyone i am not infringing on someone else’s right to live free why can’t people just get back to living there life and if they want to smoke up thats there right not the feds they are not in control of my body i am so i say fuck the dea and the drug war.