Medical marijuana: why the Supreme Court is full of shit
As I write this, I'm listening to two morons debating today's Supreme Court ruling on medical marijuana. On the one hand, the supporter of that ruling argues that marijuana is not medicine, so should not be legalized; on the other hand, the opponent argues that marijuana is. Who gives a shit?
The U.S. Constitution does not authorize the federal government to ban use of a drug, and doesn't even authorize the government to ban import or interstate commerce of the product: only to assess tariffs or "regulate" commerce. The only logical way to read the Constitution is as an explicit list of that which the government can do, rather than as a listing of what government cannot do -- that is, if it doesn't say the government can do something, the government cannot do it. I'll argue that point at some other time, but the clearest precedent is Prohibition: the federal government could not ban the production and sale of liquor (discriminating, of course, against non-Christians by allowing Christians to preserve eucharistic wine) without a constitutional amendment. I have seen no such amendment authorizing the government to ban the production and sale of marijuana, or, for the matter of that, of cocaine, LSD, methamphetamine, or anything else. Growing and smoking marijuana within a state does not fall under interstate commerce, and it is not "necessary" for the "general welfare" to forbid all individuals from smoking marijuana. The FDA doesn't really have a solid Constitutional basis, but in any case the authority to regulate is the authority only to make regular -- in measurement of weight, description of contents, etc. -- not to prohibit.
So the Supreme Court's only business regarding medical marijuana is to strike down federal narcotics laws themselves. Their action today is incomprehensible.
The U.S. Constitution does not authorize the federal government to ban use of a drug, and doesn't even authorize the government to ban import or interstate commerce of the product: only to assess tariffs or "regulate" commerce. The only logical way to read the Constitution is as an explicit list of that which the government can do, rather than as a listing of what government cannot do -- that is, if it doesn't say the government can do something, the government cannot do it. I'll argue that point at some other time, but the clearest precedent is Prohibition: the federal government could not ban the production and sale of liquor (discriminating, of course, against non-Christians by allowing Christians to preserve eucharistic wine) without a constitutional amendment. I have seen no such amendment authorizing the government to ban the production and sale of marijuana, or, for the matter of that, of cocaine, LSD, methamphetamine, or anything else. Growing and smoking marijuana within a state does not fall under interstate commerce, and it is not "necessary" for the "general welfare" to forbid all individuals from smoking marijuana. The FDA doesn't really have a solid Constitutional basis, but in any case the authority to regulate is the authority only to make regular -- in measurement of weight, description of contents, etc. -- not to prohibit.
So the Supreme Court's only business regarding medical marijuana is to strike down federal narcotics laws themselves. Their action today is incomprehensible.
posted by heavynettle at 18:22
4 Comments:
I know, I know--who'd have thought that Thomas would end up as the only libertarian (small ell or large ell) on the court? His comments against the majority are even more pointed than your own, e.g., he wonders when quilting bees will fall under the interstate commerce clause.
And to think the Republicans present themselves as ideolgical purists. What crackpots.
Aye, sage thrasher. Whenever I read the Constitution, I can only shake my head at how obvious it is that even our jurists don't seem to have done so. Sigh.
I have to add, since it slipped my mind at the time, that one of only two things that the federal government is explicitly forbidden from doing is compromising the sovereignty of any state. When a federal law makes criminal what a state law allows, wouldn't that be, you know, a violation of state sovereignty? There's still the 14th Amendment to allow for intervention when a citizen's rights are curtailed by a state law, but, well, whose rights are being violated by allowing some individuals to smoke marijuana?
Of course: the right of everybody else to smoke marijuana!
Every legislator who voted for antidrug legislation, and every president who enforced said legislation, is anti-American.
Forget the 14th amendment: there's also Art. IV, Sect. 2, Cl. 1.
Post a Comment
<< Home