During tonight's Democratic presidential primary debate, the candidates were asked a question: if you knew where Osama Bin Laden was and had 20 minutes to act and you knew that you could take him out with a missile strike but innocent people would die along with Osama Bin Lade, would you fire the missiles? The first candidate to speak was Kucinich, who predictably said no. Then Hillary spoke, and did she ever! Hillary's response was something along the lines of 'it depends on how many people would die and blah blah blah'. The very fact that she equivocated for even a half a second adter all her BS about how our current Shrub-in-Chief went after Saddam instead of Osama tells me everything I need to know about her. As for me, if I knew that Osama was somewhere in downtown Karachi or Islamabad, I'd nuke the whole damn city to make sure I got that murderous son of a bitch. Pakistan ain't going after him, so they are as guilty as the Taliban was in Afghanistan. You know where the big towel headed murderer is, you get him. Sorry for the loss of innocent lives. You nuke him and then apologize. And if you can do it with less than a nuke and you are equivocating on the number of lives lost??? You have to be F**KING KIDDING ME! I am guessing this torpedoes her chances of winning the Democratic primary. If not, the Republicans just won the general election. That is a sound bite for the ages
Who won? Obama didn't screw up, so I guess he won. Kucinich defined himself as even more of an "kooky-niche" candidate, but hey -what else is new? Obviously he is not running to win, just to make a point. Richardson was my clear favorite and if there are enough conservative Dems out there, he might still be able to get back in the hunt in spite of his reportedly poor performance on "Meet the Press". The rest of the field was not even noticeable. Including Edwards.
Sunday, June 3, 2007
Friday, June 1, 2007
My law school exit paper - GET WISE; LEGALIZE!!!
At Ave Maria School of Law, all students are required to take a class in their final semester called Law Ethics and Public Policy. Most of the class is spent listening to a blowhard uber-religious-right professor Safranek talk about why gay marriage is the death of America, blah blah blah... Our grade for the class is based on writing a law, giving the public policy reasons for supporting that law, explaining why it has a reasonable chance of passing, and showing a strategy for its enactment. For me, the law is to change our treatment of marijuana from conditional prohibition (except for medical purposes) to have it be treated the same as alcohol - 21 and over, sold behind the counter (like cigarettes), and tax and regulate it. I worked on California proposition 215 back in 1996 for medical marijuana. Since then, I have become convinced that the war on drugs absolutely needs to end. It is the wrong way to deal with the issue of drug use. While I would prefer ending all major drug restrictions, from cannabis to crack to insulin to asthma meds, I wrote this paper because the evidence is easiest to support and because I knew it would piss of Safranek. I leave out the text of the law, as it is some 50 + pages. However, the arguments section of the paper I include below:
PART I - INTRODUCTION
In 2002, shortly after graduating from the University of California, Santa Cruz, I gathered a group of four like-minded individuals, liberals and libertarians, and authored a ballot initiative for the State of California to legalize cannabis (derogatorily referred to by many as marijuana): for adult recreational use; and for commercial manufacture; and for sale at various retail locations using a licensing system already in place, using where possible, the more restrictive of the access restrictions of hard liquor and tobacco; with full regulatory mechanisms in place. The group that authored this initiative is still intact and has discussed pushing for ballot access in either the 2010 or 2012 election. The text of the initiative follows in PART V.
Part II of this paper discusses the public policy benefits of enacting the California Cannabis Legalization and Taxation Initiative, including promoting respect for the law, respect for the individual, public health, national security, public safety, and the bloated state budget. Part III examines how likely this law is to be passed in California, including the opinion of the California Secretary of State, California leadership on ballot issues like this topic, and the voting history on this and similar issues (medical marijuana) by the public of California and neighboring (and politically similar) Nevada. Part IV examines the three ways in which the federal government could get out of the war on cannabis users in California if this initiative is passed, including the FDA, Congress, and the Supreme Court. Part V is the text of the initiative, edited as described above.
PART II - POLICY GOALS FURTHERED BY ENACTING THIS LAW
The legalization of cannabis will promote respect for law. The legalization of cannabis will promote respect for the individual. The legalization and taxation of cannabis will promote public health. The legalization of cannabis will promote national security. The legalization and taxation of cannabis will aid the fiscal condition of California.
Promoting Respect For the Law
Cannabis has been known to be used by many of our nation's leadership. Current President George W. Bush, former President Bill Clinton, former Vice President and former and possible future Presidential Candidate Al Gore, former Speaker of the House of Representatives and potential Presidential Candidate Newt Gingrich, and current Presidential Candidate Barak Obama have all admitted to or strongly implied past cannabis use, with only Bill Clinton claiming to have not inhaled (who did NOT have sex with that woman Monica Lewinski). Yet in spite of each of them publicly admitting to committing a federal felony and at least a misdemeanor in some State, not one of them has been punished for doing so. According to the Office of National Drug Control Policy's marijuana facts web page (http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/drugfact/marijuana/index.html), "[t]here were a total of 1,846,351 state and local arrests for drug abuse violations in the United States during 2005. Of the drug arrests, 4.9% were for marijuana sale/manufacturing and 37.7% were for marijuana possession." Multiplying 1,846,351 by 37.7% = 696,074 persons arrested in one year for simple possession of cannabis. Somehow George, Bill, Al, Newt, and Barak must have missed detection.
Seeing that 700,000 people per year face arrest and possible incarceration per year for use of cannabis raises the question of how many Americans use cannabis? Looking again at the ONDCP,
Legalization of cannabis would aid the overall respect for law. Rather than purchasing a sack of doobie from the guy in the trench coat on the street corner, cannabis consumers will be able to go to Walgreen's ask the sales clerk for a pack of Marlboro Greens, pay a tax, and go home without fear of arrest. Public use would still be prohibited under the initiative, just as it is currently illegal to openly consume beer in public. Private facilities, including restaurants and bars already are barred from allowing customers to smoke cigarettes and the same would be true of cannabis consumption. Driving under the influence, possession in a school area, sales to a minor or allowing a minor to possess would all remain illegal and penalties should be strictly enforced, just as with alcohol and tobacco. These are valid public safety concerns and if consumption itself is legal, the additional respect for law will make it likely that people will follow these laws approximately to the extent that the public follows them with regard to alcohol and tobacco.
Promoting Respect for the Individual
The prohibition of cannabis use is a violation of the natural law. Prohibition is nanny government having to tell each person how to live their personal life. While this argument goes far beyond mere cannabis legalization, it is a fundamental right of all human beings to consume(eat, drink, smoke, inject) whatever they wish, so long as they accept the natural consequences of doing so. This would include accepting the legal consequences of how they behave while under the influence of whatever they chose to ingest. Perhaps the only exception to this rule would be if a persons improper consumption could actually harm the public health, such as improperly taking antibiotics which can lead to drug resistant bacteria.
Promoting Public Health
Many of the arguments over the years against the legalization of cannabis have been based on the idea that marijuana is a gateway drug. The only way in which cannabis becomes a "gateway" drug is because of its illegal nature. People who use cannabis often have to resort to rather unsavory characters to get access to their intoxicant of choice. These people will make it clear that they also have opiates, cocaine, and hallucinogens available. To the extent that there is a gateway effect of cannabis, it is caused by the legal status of cannabis and not by cannabis itself. As for the fact that most people who use hard drugs used cannabis first (ONDCP), I would be interested in a study of how many used caffeine before hard drugs. Or what about nicotine?
Not a single person has died as a direct result of cannabis use. In all of history, not a single person has had a cause of death of cannabis overdose. And shockingly, not only does cannabis not cause cancer, one major study has shown that cannabis might help prevent lung cancer!
The largest study of its kind has unexpectedly concluded that smoking marijuana, even regularly and heavily, does not lead to lung cancer.
Legalization of cannabis will result in proper studies being done do show what areas cannabis really is a good medicine. For those Americans on a tight budget, growing your own medicine is certainly going to be cheaper than whatever Big Pharma wants to charge. The NIDA is saying cannabis has a cancer-protective effect. Just wait until real health professionals (rather than partisan government hacks) get to look at this.
As a final point on the increased health benefits to the public that will result from the legalization of cannabis, the street-corner-guy... the one who shorts the ounce by a gram, causing a few bullets to fly, he also sometimes 'cuts' the product with something else. While it is less common with cannabis than with other drugs, spiked products are found on the street on a daily basis. With cannabis, the more common issue is the strength of the drug. The local dealer might normally get 3%TCH cannabis. Then one day, the supply changes. The customer doesn't realize that now he is getting 12%TCH cannabis. Thinking that he is smoking the same joint he always smokes, he actually ingests 4 times as much. Allowing cannabis to be sold in packaged, labeled, and regulated containers means that the consumer can know that he is getting the 3%THC joint he wants. Or, he can use the stronger cannabis and smoke less. Either way, knowing what you are taking is better than the status quo.
Promoting National Security
In the aftermath of the September 11th, 2001 attack on our country, the federal government began running repeated advertisements about the link between drugs and terrorists. Specifically, they ran one ad many times over the course of many months that claimed that when you purchase a joint, you are not helping that 'aging hippie', but instead, that your profit is going to support Osama Bin Laden. Other ads claimed that the profits from marijuana sales encouraged Latin American drug cartels that slaughter innocent families. If the profits of cannabis consumption are indeed going to Osama Bin Laden and murderous drug cartels, then the legalization of cannabis would deprive these despicable people of a source of their funding and would divert those funds toward legitimate American businesses.
Promoting Public Safety
The legalization of cannabis will lead to less violence on the street. The legalization of cannabis will lead to less non-fatal overdoses (There has never been a recorded fatal overdose of cannabis). The legalization of cannabis will lead to less prison overcrowding and therefore less violent prisoners being released on parole due to that overcrowding. The legalization of cannabis will cause hundreds of thousands of people who definitely will be put back in society (simple possession) to not have to live among thieves, murderers, rapists, and the like where they currently earn graduate degrees in how to be criminal.
Helping With the Budget
The initiative proposed here will tax the sale of cannabis as a source of revenue to aid drug awareness. While this is a health issue, it is also a state budget issue. Millions of dollars will be saved in the state budget by using cannabis taxation as a source of funding for drug awareness programs. In addition, the decreased law enforcement costs, including the astounding cost of incarceration of cannabis users will save significant dollars and allow police to properly prioritize. Catching murderers is more important than jailing the local pothead. And with jail overcrowding and ridiculous overcrowding measures such as releasing prisoners early on a FIFO basis, violent felons are a major beneficiary of continued cannabis prohibition.
Legalization of cannabis will have significant benefits for many areas of public policy, including promoting respect for the law, respect for the individual, public health, national security, and the bloated state budget. Get wise. Legalize.
PART III - EVIDENCE IN FAVOR OF ENACTABILITY
When the group I worked with was writing the text of the initiative, we got help on parts of it from the California Secretary of State. The Secretary of State is obliged under law to aid in the drafting of an initiative. They are required to charge unless they believe that the subject in question has a reasonable chance of passage. They did not charge us for the help. Therefore, it was the determination of the Secretary of State of California that the Cannabis Legalization and Taxation Initiative has a reasonable chance of passing. As will be seen in the rest of this section, there is good reason to agree with the Secretary of State on this:
California was the first state in the country to implement a medical marijuana law. I worked on the ballot initiative for that law, Proposition 215 in 1996. Since then, Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington have joined on. Ten other states, plus the District of Columbia have symbolic medical marijuana laws on the books as well. The D.C. area voted 69% in favor of actual legalization of medical marijuana (instead of just symbolic), however the vote count was never made formal because of an act of Congress.
Quite interesting is the case of Nevada, California's libertarian neighbor. In 2002, Question 9 posed a marijuana regulation measure on the ballot. It failed 69%-31%. In 2006, Question 7 again posed a marijuana regulation measure for the voters. It too failed, but this time, by 56%-44%. In only four years, the public shifted 13%. If it were to shift another 13% in four years, in 2010 the vote would pass by an overwhelming 57%-43%. However, historically, the libertarian Western US ballot initiative trends succeed first in California. Proposition 13 in 1976 began the property tax revolution. Proposition 215, as noted above, was the beginning of a large trend across the country over the last 11 years. Nevada will get over the hump. After the California Cannabis Legalization and Taxation Initiative.
Considering the decision by the California Secretary of State to not charge for helping with the drafting of the text of this law, and considering California's historical leadership in the Western United States on ballot initiatives, including the success and copying by other states of Proposition 13 and 215, and considering California's leadership on cannabis issues in general (Prop 215), and considering the neighboring (and politically similar) Nevada's recent trends on legalization, there is strong reason to believe that the successful enactment of this initiative is not just possible but probable at some point in the next 10 years.
PART IV - REMOVING THE FEDERAL IMPEDIMENT TO IMPLEMENTABILITY
There are three ways that the federal government can exit the war on cannabis users. The head of the FDA could reclassify cannabis from its current schedule 1 rating. Congress could pass a law legalizing marijuana. The Supreme Court could determine that the federal law is unconstitutional.
While a law change could force the FDA head to keep cannabis at schedule 1 if he were to so order the move, this would require the President and Congress to act, just like any other law. He can make the change by fiat tomorrow. No politician needs to stick his neck on the line to voters. An unelected official can take care of the job. All that needs to be done is lobby hard enough. Seriously, there is absolutely no reason why cannabis is a schedule 1 drug. It does have some addictive properties, however, since 94 million people have used it in our country, but only 6% of the population used cannabis last month, then it can't be all that addictive. It certainly is not physically addictive. As for whether there is known medical use, I cite to the NIDA (a federal agency) study mentioned above. Keeping cannabis at schedule 1 can only be interpreted as the government saying that prevention of lung cancer is not a valid medical use. The FDA should reschedule cannabis immediately.
The second way that the federal government could exit the war on cannabis users is through explicit federal legislation. The recent Republican meltdown in 2006 was in large part due to the Republican party abandoning its principals of small government and federalism. Most of the current Republican presidential candidate field has gone out of its way to point out how they are more small-government and federalist than the next guy. If the Republicans win the 2008 presidential elections, it may well be a candidate who would show respect for federalism and decide to not interfere with California's decision. If Democrats get elected, they may be persuadable on the issue. So long as they see it as a right granted by government, legalization of cannabis does not contradict Democratic values - especially if they can tax and regulate it.
The Supreme Court, in Gonzales v. Raich, 545 US 1 (2005) pretty much torpedoed any serious consideration of using the high court to overturn cannabis prohibition. However, there is a slight hope. When the court looked at whether the FDA should regulate tobacco, it acknowledged our country's experience with the 18th and 21st amendment shed some light on what our country finds acceptable in terms of Congress interfering in matters of tobacco. This argument should be explored further. The 18th and 21st Amendments show explicitly what Congressional power limits are on areas of intoxicants and consumables. Specifically, the 21st Amendment allows Congress to prohibit "The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use there in of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof". This last clause... "in violation of the laws thereof..." This really should shed a whole lot of light on what limits the constitution imposes on Congress. This argument should not be presented to the current Court. The Raich case showed that the Court is not yet ready to adopt this line of logic. O'Connor and Rehnquist were both in the dissent, so even if Alito and Roberts were to join with Thomas (the third dissenter), at least two more justices would likely have to change before there would be any chance at a majority. In all likelihood, the Supreme Court is not the best method for removing the federal government's interference in the implementation of this initiative.
Overall, the prospects of getting the federal government to recognize California's right under the 9th and 10th Amendments to set its own cannabis policy are dim but not as non-existent as the Raich decision would make one believe. The FDA can change the situation immediately, either completely removing marijuana from the list of scheduled substances or reducing it to a lower schedule, thereby allowing medical marijuana. Congress and the President can change the law. Also, there are still valid arguments to make to the Supreme Court. While none of these appear extremely likely in the near future, there is at least some chance that the FDA might realize that a substance that even NIDA says can help protect against lung cancer does not "have no known medical purpose."
PART I - INTRODUCTION
In 2002, shortly after graduating from the University of California, Santa Cruz, I gathered a group of four like-minded individuals, liberals and libertarians, and authored a ballot initiative for the State of California to legalize cannabis (derogatorily referred to by many as marijuana): for adult recreational use; and for commercial manufacture; and for sale at various retail locations using a licensing system already in place, using where possible, the more restrictive of the access restrictions of hard liquor and tobacco; with full regulatory mechanisms in place. The group that authored this initiative is still intact and has discussed pushing for ballot access in either the 2010 or 2012 election. The text of the initiative follows in PART V.
Part II of this paper discusses the public policy benefits of enacting the California Cannabis Legalization and Taxation Initiative, including promoting respect for the law, respect for the individual, public health, national security, public safety, and the bloated state budget. Part III examines how likely this law is to be passed in California, including the opinion of the California Secretary of State, California leadership on ballot issues like this topic, and the voting history on this and similar issues (medical marijuana) by the public of California and neighboring (and politically similar) Nevada. Part IV examines the three ways in which the federal government could get out of the war on cannabis users in California if this initiative is passed, including the FDA, Congress, and the Supreme Court. Part V is the text of the initiative, edited as described above.
PART II - POLICY GOALS FURTHERED BY ENACTING THIS LAW
The legalization of cannabis will promote respect for law. The legalization of cannabis will promote respect for the individual. The legalization and taxation of cannabis will promote public health. The legalization of cannabis will promote national security. The legalization and taxation of cannabis will aid the fiscal condition of California.
Promoting Respect For the Law
Cannabis has been known to be used by many of our nation's leadership. Current President George W. Bush, former President Bill Clinton, former Vice President and former and possible future Presidential Candidate Al Gore, former Speaker of the House of Representatives and potential Presidential Candidate Newt Gingrich, and current Presidential Candidate Barak Obama have all admitted to or strongly implied past cannabis use, with only Bill Clinton claiming to have not inhaled (who did NOT have sex with that woman Monica Lewinski). Yet in spite of each of them publicly admitting to committing a federal felony and at least a misdemeanor in some State, not one of them has been punished for doing so. According to the Office of National Drug Control Policy's marijuana facts web page (http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/drugfact/marijuana/index.html), "[t]here were a total of 1,846,351 state and local arrests for drug abuse violations in the United States during 2005. Of the drug arrests, 4.9% were for marijuana sale/manufacturing and 37.7% were for marijuana possession." Multiplying 1,846,351 by 37.7% = 696,074 persons arrested in one year for simple possession of cannabis. Somehow George, Bill, Al, Newt, and Barak must have missed detection.
Seeing that 700,000 people per year face arrest and possible incarceration per year for use of cannabis raises the question of how many Americans use cannabis? Looking again at the ONDCP,
Marijuana is the most commonly used illicit drug. According to the 2005 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), an estimated 97.5 million Americans aged 12 or older tried marijuana at least once in their lifetimes, representing 40.1% of the U.S. population in that age group. The number of past year marijuana users in 2005 was approximately 25.4 million (10.4% of the population aged 12 or older) and the number of past month marijuana users was 14.6 million (6.0%).If 40% of Americans have been willing to use cannabis at some time, and 10.4% have been willing to use cannabis in the past year, in violation of the law with approximately 700,000 people facing arrest and incarceration for cannabis use, keeping cannabis illegal is clearly promoting disrespect for the law. For those who do not grow their own (an additional disrespecting of the law), they are getting it from someone else, involving some form of illegal transaction, often with users buying from someone who might ask them if they would like a little smack or blow to go with the ganja. People follow habits and keeping cannabis illegal gets 97.5 million people used to breaking the law.
Legalization of cannabis would aid the overall respect for law. Rather than purchasing a sack of doobie from the guy in the trench coat on the street corner, cannabis consumers will be able to go to Walgreen's ask the sales clerk for a pack of Marlboro Greens, pay a tax, and go home without fear of arrest. Public use would still be prohibited under the initiative, just as it is currently illegal to openly consume beer in public. Private facilities, including restaurants and bars already are barred from allowing customers to smoke cigarettes and the same would be true of cannabis consumption. Driving under the influence, possession in a school area, sales to a minor or allowing a minor to possess would all remain illegal and penalties should be strictly enforced, just as with alcohol and tobacco. These are valid public safety concerns and if consumption itself is legal, the additional respect for law will make it likely that people will follow these laws approximately to the extent that the public follows them with regard to alcohol and tobacco.
Promoting Respect for the Individual
The prohibition of cannabis use is a violation of the natural law. Prohibition is nanny government having to tell each person how to live their personal life. While this argument goes far beyond mere cannabis legalization, it is a fundamental right of all human beings to consume(eat, drink, smoke, inject) whatever they wish, so long as they accept the natural consequences of doing so. This would include accepting the legal consequences of how they behave while under the influence of whatever they chose to ingest. Perhaps the only exception to this rule would be if a persons improper consumption could actually harm the public health, such as improperly taking antibiotics which can lead to drug resistant bacteria.
Promoting Public Health
Many of the arguments over the years against the legalization of cannabis have been based on the idea that marijuana is a gateway drug. The only way in which cannabis becomes a "gateway" drug is because of its illegal nature. People who use cannabis often have to resort to rather unsavory characters to get access to their intoxicant of choice. These people will make it clear that they also have opiates, cocaine, and hallucinogens available. To the extent that there is a gateway effect of cannabis, it is caused by the legal status of cannabis and not by cannabis itself. As for the fact that most people who use hard drugs used cannabis first (ONDCP), I would be interested in a study of how many used caffeine before hard drugs. Or what about nicotine?
Not a single person has died as a direct result of cannabis use. In all of history, not a single person has had a cause of death of cannabis overdose. And shockingly, not only does cannabis not cause cancer, one major study has shown that cannabis might help prevent lung cancer!
The largest study of its kind has unexpectedly concluded that smoking marijuana, even regularly and heavily, does not lead to lung cancer.
The new findings "were against our expectations," said Donald Tashkin of the University of California at Los Angeles, a pulmonologist who has studied marijuana for 30 years.Currently, cannabis is listed as a schedule 1 drug, meaning that it has high of dependency and no known medical use. BULL. This study was paid for by the National Institute for Drug Abuse (NIDA), a pro-drug war government agency. NIDA publicly opposed California Proposition 215, the medical marijuana initiative in 1996 that I worked on. If NIDA is saying that cannabis has a cancer-protective effect, is it really reasonable for the FDA to interfere with and prevent studies on medical cannabis because of its schedule 1 status?
"We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use," he said. "What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729_pf.html
Legalization of cannabis will result in proper studies being done do show what areas cannabis really is a good medicine. For those Americans on a tight budget, growing your own medicine is certainly going to be cheaper than whatever Big Pharma wants to charge. The NIDA is saying cannabis has a cancer-protective effect. Just wait until real health professionals (rather than partisan government hacks) get to look at this.
As a final point on the increased health benefits to the public that will result from the legalization of cannabis, the street-corner-guy... the one who shorts the ounce by a gram, causing a few bullets to fly, he also sometimes 'cuts' the product with something else. While it is less common with cannabis than with other drugs, spiked products are found on the street on a daily basis. With cannabis, the more common issue is the strength of the drug. The local dealer might normally get 3%TCH cannabis. Then one day, the supply changes. The customer doesn't realize that now he is getting 12%TCH cannabis. Thinking that he is smoking the same joint he always smokes, he actually ingests 4 times as much. Allowing cannabis to be sold in packaged, labeled, and regulated containers means that the consumer can know that he is getting the 3%THC joint he wants. Or, he can use the stronger cannabis and smoke less. Either way, knowing what you are taking is better than the status quo.
Promoting National Security
In the aftermath of the September 11th, 2001 attack on our country, the federal government began running repeated advertisements about the link between drugs and terrorists. Specifically, they ran one ad many times over the course of many months that claimed that when you purchase a joint, you are not helping that 'aging hippie', but instead, that your profit is going to support Osama Bin Laden. Other ads claimed that the profits from marijuana sales encouraged Latin American drug cartels that slaughter innocent families. If the profits of cannabis consumption are indeed going to Osama Bin Laden and murderous drug cartels, then the legalization of cannabis would deprive these despicable people of a source of their funding and would divert those funds toward legitimate American businesses.
Promoting Public Safety
The legalization of cannabis will lead to less violence on the street. The legalization of cannabis will lead to less non-fatal overdoses (There has never been a recorded fatal overdose of cannabis). The legalization of cannabis will lead to less prison overcrowding and therefore less violent prisoners being released on parole due to that overcrowding. The legalization of cannabis will cause hundreds of thousands of people who definitely will be put back in society (simple possession) to not have to live among thieves, murderers, rapists, and the like where they currently earn graduate degrees in how to be criminal.
Helping With the Budget
The initiative proposed here will tax the sale of cannabis as a source of revenue to aid drug awareness. While this is a health issue, it is also a state budget issue. Millions of dollars will be saved in the state budget by using cannabis taxation as a source of funding for drug awareness programs. In addition, the decreased law enforcement costs, including the astounding cost of incarceration of cannabis users will save significant dollars and allow police to properly prioritize. Catching murderers is more important than jailing the local pothead. And with jail overcrowding and ridiculous overcrowding measures such as releasing prisoners early on a FIFO basis, violent felons are a major beneficiary of continued cannabis prohibition.
Legalization of cannabis will have significant benefits for many areas of public policy, including promoting respect for the law, respect for the individual, public health, national security, and the bloated state budget. Get wise. Legalize.
PART III - EVIDENCE IN FAVOR OF ENACTABILITY
When the group I worked with was writing the text of the initiative, we got help on parts of it from the California Secretary of State. The Secretary of State is obliged under law to aid in the drafting of an initiative. They are required to charge unless they believe that the subject in question has a reasonable chance of passage. They did not charge us for the help. Therefore, it was the determination of the Secretary of State of California that the Cannabis Legalization and Taxation Initiative has a reasonable chance of passing. As will be seen in the rest of this section, there is good reason to agree with the Secretary of State on this:
California was the first state in the country to implement a medical marijuana law. I worked on the ballot initiative for that law, Proposition 215 in 1996. Since then, Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington have joined on. Ten other states, plus the District of Columbia have symbolic medical marijuana laws on the books as well. The D.C. area voted 69% in favor of actual legalization of medical marijuana (instead of just symbolic), however the vote count was never made formal because of an act of Congress.
Quite interesting is the case of Nevada, California's libertarian neighbor. In 2002, Question 9 posed a marijuana regulation measure on the ballot. It failed 69%-31%. In 2006, Question 7 again posed a marijuana regulation measure for the voters. It too failed, but this time, by 56%-44%. In only four years, the public shifted 13%. If it were to shift another 13% in four years, in 2010 the vote would pass by an overwhelming 57%-43%. However, historically, the libertarian Western US ballot initiative trends succeed first in California. Proposition 13 in 1976 began the property tax revolution. Proposition 215, as noted above, was the beginning of a large trend across the country over the last 11 years. Nevada will get over the hump. After the California Cannabis Legalization and Taxation Initiative.
Considering the decision by the California Secretary of State to not charge for helping with the drafting of the text of this law, and considering California's historical leadership in the Western United States on ballot initiatives, including the success and copying by other states of Proposition 13 and 215, and considering California's leadership on cannabis issues in general (Prop 215), and considering the neighboring (and politically similar) Nevada's recent trends on legalization, there is strong reason to believe that the successful enactment of this initiative is not just possible but probable at some point in the next 10 years.
PART IV - REMOVING THE FEDERAL IMPEDIMENT TO IMPLEMENTABILITY
There are three ways that the federal government can exit the war on cannabis users. The head of the FDA could reclassify cannabis from its current schedule 1 rating. Congress could pass a law legalizing marijuana. The Supreme Court could determine that the federal law is unconstitutional.
While a law change could force the FDA head to keep cannabis at schedule 1 if he were to so order the move, this would require the President and Congress to act, just like any other law. He can make the change by fiat tomorrow. No politician needs to stick his neck on the line to voters. An unelected official can take care of the job. All that needs to be done is lobby hard enough. Seriously, there is absolutely no reason why cannabis is a schedule 1 drug. It does have some addictive properties, however, since 94 million people have used it in our country, but only 6% of the population used cannabis last month, then it can't be all that addictive. It certainly is not physically addictive. As for whether there is known medical use, I cite to the NIDA (a federal agency) study mentioned above. Keeping cannabis at schedule 1 can only be interpreted as the government saying that prevention of lung cancer is not a valid medical use. The FDA should reschedule cannabis immediately.
The second way that the federal government could exit the war on cannabis users is through explicit federal legislation. The recent Republican meltdown in 2006 was in large part due to the Republican party abandoning its principals of small government and federalism. Most of the current Republican presidential candidate field has gone out of its way to point out how they are more small-government and federalist than the next guy. If the Republicans win the 2008 presidential elections, it may well be a candidate who would show respect for federalism and decide to not interfere with California's decision. If Democrats get elected, they may be persuadable on the issue. So long as they see it as a right granted by government, legalization of cannabis does not contradict Democratic values - especially if they can tax and regulate it.
The Supreme Court, in Gonzales v. Raich, 545 US 1 (2005) pretty much torpedoed any serious consideration of using the high court to overturn cannabis prohibition. However, there is a slight hope. When the court looked at whether the FDA should regulate tobacco, it acknowledged our country's experience with the 18th and 21st amendment shed some light on what our country finds acceptable in terms of Congress interfering in matters of tobacco. This argument should be explored further. The 18th and 21st Amendments show explicitly what Congressional power limits are on areas of intoxicants and consumables. Specifically, the 21st Amendment allows Congress to prohibit "The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use there in of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof". This last clause... "in violation of the laws thereof..." This really should shed a whole lot of light on what limits the constitution imposes on Congress. This argument should not be presented to the current Court. The Raich case showed that the Court is not yet ready to adopt this line of logic. O'Connor and Rehnquist were both in the dissent, so even if Alito and Roberts were to join with Thomas (the third dissenter), at least two more justices would likely have to change before there would be any chance at a majority. In all likelihood, the Supreme Court is not the best method for removing the federal government's interference in the implementation of this initiative.
Overall, the prospects of getting the federal government to recognize California's right under the 9th and 10th Amendments to set its own cannabis policy are dim but not as non-existent as the Raich decision would make one believe. The FDA can change the situation immediately, either completely removing marijuana from the list of scheduled substances or reducing it to a lower schedule, thereby allowing medical marijuana. Congress and the President can change the law. Also, there are still valid arguments to make to the Supreme Court. While none of these appear extremely likely in the near future, there is at least some chance that the FDA might realize that a substance that even NIDA says can help protect against lung cancer does not "have no known medical purpose."
Sunday, May 20, 2007
Ron Paul vs. Rudy Giuliani
I must disclose here that Republican Ron Paul of Texas is my presidential candidate of choice (Fred Thompson is a clear 2nd; Newt Gingrich is a distant 3rd; no one else rates above zero).
Normally I can't stand Pat Buchanan. However, for this point only, his discussion of THE exchange between Rudy Giuliani and Ron Paul in last week's Repub. presidential debate was precise, accurate, and insightful. I call it THE exchange because the rest of the debate was bland to say the least and the 5 minutes or so in this exchange was the only thing noteworthy in the entire debate and was the only discussion covered by any media or bloggers. I include a link to Buchanan's article and to a YouTube video of the exchange. I suggest watching the video before reading the article. When you look at the video link (cut&paste), scroll down a bit to the comment that has the polling info. Likewise, when you read the article, note the 'who won the debate' polling numbers.
Normally I can't stand Pat Buchanan. However, for this point only, his discussion of THE exchange between Rudy Giuliani and Ron Paul in last week's Repub. presidential debate was precise, accurate, and insightful. I call it THE exchange because the rest of the debate was bland to say the least and the 5 minutes or so in this exchange was the only thing noteworthy in the entire debate and was the only discussion covered by any media or bloggers. I include a link to Buchanan's article and to a YouTube video of the exchange. I suggest watching the video before reading the article. When you look at the video link (cut&paste), scroll down a bit to the comment that has the polling info. Likewise, when you read the article, note the 'who won the debate' polling numbers.
The video can be viewed here: (you might have to cut&paste the link)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x29172
Thursday, May 10, 2007
IRAQ
Okay, I have avoided the issue long enough. Time to talk IRAQ. The way I see it: Bush did NOT lie. That said, we should not have gone. That said, since we did create the instability there, we have a moral obligation to stay until the outcome is clearer than it is today.
BUSH DID NOT LIE!
I can not stand to hear everyone saying that our Shrub in Chief lied. Bush is a shrub. He has about the same intellect. Without having seen any 'scientific' tests, I believe I can say that Bush is the stupidest president we have ever had. At the time we decided to go to war, every government in the world 'knew' Saddam had WMD's. The Brits said it. The French said it (I read the French daily, LeMonde). Heck, even the Russians said it. You want to ask Iran? They were on the receiving end of it. At the time of the invasion, NO ONE said that Saddam didn't have WMDs. Not even Saddam claimed to have disposed of the WMDs everyone knew he had. Putting it simply, either we missed the WMDs because they were shipped out of Iraq either before or shortly after the invasion, or everyone was mistaken. Notice that word. MISTAKEN. A false statement made by a person who reasonably believes that statement to be true is not a liar. That person is mistaken. Bush made a mistake. He did not tell a lie.
WE SHOULD NOT HAVE GONE
The question at that time about the war was whether the WMDs justified us invading a sovereign country. We should not have done so. The number of American soldiers who have died in Iraq, while astonishingly LOW for a war, is an unacceptable loss of life for a situation where neither our national security nor our borders were at risk. Had Saddam been in actual possession of WMDs **and** was making threats of 'anthraxing' Washington D.C., war would have been justified. But the mere possession of WMDs without making unjustified threats against others is not a sufficient justification for war. While Saddam did make unjustified threats against others, those threats were decades old by the time we went in to remove Saddam. He invaded Iran and Kuwait. Both of these invasions were long over by 2003. Had we deposed Saddam in the first Gulf War, it would have probably been justified. Had we done so within a few years of that war, it might have been justified. Over a decade later? With no military provocation? No. War should be a last resort and should only be used once all other options are eliminated AND where the issue is one of truly national security. Sorry Big Oil. If Saddam or Hugo nationalizes your oil field and takes it over, dont buy another field from him. Dont go running to the President and Congress asking for a declaraion of war.
BUT SINCE WE ARE THERE...
Unfortunately, we are in Iraq. We overthrew a government that was not threatening us and was not engaging in terratorial conquest. Now we have a mess on our hands. Bombing and occupying foreign countries doesn't usually create a peaceful local population. But since we are there, and we caused the mess, it is our responsibility to clean the mess up if it is possible to do so. If we fail to do so, here is what will happen and what we will be responsible for. First, no I do not believe that Al Qaeda or Al Qauda In Iraq will take over. But there will be massive carnage. There will be mass evacuations. There will be a MAJOR humanitarian crisis (think Mogadishu). If we cut and run, the civilian casualties will be astronomical. Whomever eventually establishes some sort of control will undoubtedly be as bad as Saddam was. Summary executions. Rape chambers. Execution by drawing and quartering. Seriously, without a major military power there until the new government is on solid ground will guaruntee that Iraq will be run by a dictator, not Mohatma Ghandi. We put the civilians in Iraq in the position of having this happen to them if we do not succeed. Therefore, it is on our heads when we cut and run.
I am not saying that we should stay in Iraq indefinitely. Actually, in some ways I am, simply because the word 'indefinitely' means that we wouldn't have a date certain for defeat. But if 'indefintely' is taken to mean that there are no limits to our involvement either in terms of length of stay or level of involvement, then we should not be there 'indefintely'. These limits, at least in terms of a specific date, are counterproductive.
But if we frame it differently, a new option arises. What we need to do is stay until either defeat or victory is certain. The biggest military mistake, other than going in in the first place, was the number of troops we sent over. I have always endorsed the 'Colin Powell Doctrine' of [if you are going to go in with the military, go in with overwhelming force]. Dont go halfway. That is what we did. We sent over a force that was overwhelming to Saddam and his wimpy army. What we did not do was send over a force that would overwhelm the Islamo-fascist insurgency. We have started to do that now. In January, President Shrub ordered an extra 20,000 troops to Iraq, known as the surge. Since then, deaths in Iraq have been dropping substantially, and security is being established. It is not a quick thing to do, crushing an insurgency. 20,000 troops is not enough. We should double, or more the troops that we have there now. Im thinking something along the lines of another 150,000 - 200,000 troops.
Will this cause an increase in the number of American deaths in Iraq. Yes, at least in the short term. But it would crush the insurgency right quick and in the long run would save American lives. As for the Iraqis dying on a daily basis, when we send the troops there, the insurgents will focus more on us than on the sectarian violence, saving MANY times the number of innocent Iraqis than the number of Americans. To heck with many times. It will be on the orders of magnitude, the number of lives saved. As for the number of American deaths, even in the short run, the deaths will never even come close to those sustained on a daily basis in WWII. If for some reason, this approach is wrong, and the insurgents are still able to get the upper hand, well... then it is time to be going. If we are not able to make the situation better, that is the definite time to leave.
Should we stay in Iraq indefinitely? No. What we should do is send a quarter million extra troops to secure Iraq, train the Iraqi army and police forces, and then get out. If the quarter million troops can't get the job done, then we have no reason to stay.
CONCLUSION
Summing up, Bush did not lie. He was mistaken about WMDs. That said, WMDs without beligerant aggression is not a just cause for war. We should not have gone. But we did go.
Everyone knows that taking a baseball bat into a china shop means you might have to buy something you didn't plan on buying. We went into the china shop and swung our baseball bat at everything in sight. We broke it. We bought it. Get the damn job done, no matter the short term cost, if it is at all possible. We are moving in the right direction with the surge, but we need to multiply it times 10. But if the job cannot be done, even with overwhelming force, then we are wasting our time and it is time to go. Even the china shop owner knows there is nothing to be done when a bum breaks everything.
We took our baseball bat to Iraq. Are we a bum? Or are we going to pull out our credit card and take responsibility for our actions?
VISA 4099 XXXX XXXX XXXX. Date 03/2003.
Signed, George W. Bush and the American Public.
BUSH DID NOT LIE!
I can not stand to hear everyone saying that our Shrub in Chief lied. Bush is a shrub. He has about the same intellect. Without having seen any 'scientific' tests, I believe I can say that Bush is the stupidest president we have ever had. At the time we decided to go to war, every government in the world 'knew' Saddam had WMD's. The Brits said it. The French said it (I read the French daily, LeMonde). Heck, even the Russians said it. You want to ask Iran? They were on the receiving end of it. At the time of the invasion, NO ONE said that Saddam didn't have WMDs. Not even Saddam claimed to have disposed of the WMDs everyone knew he had. Putting it simply, either we missed the WMDs because they were shipped out of Iraq either before or shortly after the invasion, or everyone was mistaken. Notice that word. MISTAKEN. A false statement made by a person who reasonably believes that statement to be true is not a liar. That person is mistaken. Bush made a mistake. He did not tell a lie.
WE SHOULD NOT HAVE GONE
The question at that time about the war was whether the WMDs justified us invading a sovereign country. We should not have done so. The number of American soldiers who have died in Iraq, while astonishingly LOW for a war, is an unacceptable loss of life for a situation where neither our national security nor our borders were at risk. Had Saddam been in actual possession of WMDs **and** was making threats of 'anthraxing' Washington D.C., war would have been justified. But the mere possession of WMDs without making unjustified threats against others is not a sufficient justification for war. While Saddam did make unjustified threats against others, those threats were decades old by the time we went in to remove Saddam. He invaded Iran and Kuwait. Both of these invasions were long over by 2003. Had we deposed Saddam in the first Gulf War, it would have probably been justified. Had we done so within a few years of that war, it might have been justified. Over a decade later? With no military provocation? No. War should be a last resort and should only be used once all other options are eliminated AND where the issue is one of truly national security. Sorry Big Oil. If Saddam or Hugo nationalizes your oil field and takes it over, dont buy another field from him. Dont go running to the President and Congress asking for a declaraion of war.
BUT SINCE WE ARE THERE...
Unfortunately, we are in Iraq. We overthrew a government that was not threatening us and was not engaging in terratorial conquest. Now we have a mess on our hands. Bombing and occupying foreign countries doesn't usually create a peaceful local population. But since we are there, and we caused the mess, it is our responsibility to clean the mess up if it is possible to do so. If we fail to do so, here is what will happen and what we will be responsible for. First, no I do not believe that Al Qaeda or Al Qauda In Iraq will take over. But there will be massive carnage. There will be mass evacuations. There will be a MAJOR humanitarian crisis (think Mogadishu). If we cut and run, the civilian casualties will be astronomical. Whomever eventually establishes some sort of control will undoubtedly be as bad as Saddam was. Summary executions. Rape chambers. Execution by drawing and quartering. Seriously, without a major military power there until the new government is on solid ground will guaruntee that Iraq will be run by a dictator, not Mohatma Ghandi. We put the civilians in Iraq in the position of having this happen to them if we do not succeed. Therefore, it is on our heads when we cut and run.
I am not saying that we should stay in Iraq indefinitely. Actually, in some ways I am, simply because the word 'indefinitely' means that we wouldn't have a date certain for defeat. But if 'indefintely' is taken to mean that there are no limits to our involvement either in terms of length of stay or level of involvement, then we should not be there 'indefintely'. These limits, at least in terms of a specific date, are counterproductive.
But if we frame it differently, a new option arises. What we need to do is stay until either defeat or victory is certain. The biggest military mistake, other than going in in the first place, was the number of troops we sent over. I have always endorsed the 'Colin Powell Doctrine' of [if you are going to go in with the military, go in with overwhelming force]. Dont go halfway. That is what we did. We sent over a force that was overwhelming to Saddam and his wimpy army. What we did not do was send over a force that would overwhelm the Islamo-fascist insurgency. We have started to do that now. In January, President Shrub ordered an extra 20,000 troops to Iraq, known as the surge. Since then, deaths in Iraq have been dropping substantially, and security is being established. It is not a quick thing to do, crushing an insurgency. 20,000 troops is not enough. We should double, or more the troops that we have there now. Im thinking something along the lines of another 150,000 - 200,000 troops.
Will this cause an increase in the number of American deaths in Iraq. Yes, at least in the short term. But it would crush the insurgency right quick and in the long run would save American lives. As for the Iraqis dying on a daily basis, when we send the troops there, the insurgents will focus more on us than on the sectarian violence, saving MANY times the number of innocent Iraqis than the number of Americans. To heck with many times. It will be on the orders of magnitude, the number of lives saved. As for the number of American deaths, even in the short run, the deaths will never even come close to those sustained on a daily basis in WWII. If for some reason, this approach is wrong, and the insurgents are still able to get the upper hand, well... then it is time to be going. If we are not able to make the situation better, that is the definite time to leave.
Should we stay in Iraq indefinitely? No. What we should do is send a quarter million extra troops to secure Iraq, train the Iraqi army and police forces, and then get out. If the quarter million troops can't get the job done, then we have no reason to stay.
CONCLUSION
Summing up, Bush did not lie. He was mistaken about WMDs. That said, WMDs without beligerant aggression is not a just cause for war. We should not have gone. But we did go.
Everyone knows that taking a baseball bat into a china shop means you might have to buy something you didn't plan on buying. We went into the china shop and swung our baseball bat at everything in sight. We broke it. We bought it. Get the damn job done, no matter the short term cost, if it is at all possible. We are moving in the right direction with the surge, but we need to multiply it times 10. But if the job cannot be done, even with overwhelming force, then we are wasting our time and it is time to go. Even the china shop owner knows there is nothing to be done when a bum breaks everything.
We took our baseball bat to Iraq. Are we a bum? Or are we going to pull out our credit card and take responsibility for our actions?
VISA 4099 XXXX XXXX XXXX. Date 03/2003.
Signed, George W. Bush and the American Public.
Friday, May 4, 2007
Last night's Republican debate
Last night, 9 candidates faced off in a debate hosted by Chris Matthews in seeking the Republican Presidential nomination. The reaction by the blogosphere has caught me by surprise. Especially the reactions at Cato and Reason. As a lifelong Libertarian, I have my ears tuned for hearing the word in the press. Unfortunately, the press has a long tradition of ignoring the libertarian philosophy.
Last night, I saw what seemed to me like a transition happening. There was the traditional potshot taken by the media elite when Chris Matthews exclaimed, "Oh God!" after Rep Ron Paul mentioned his belief in Constitutional prinicipals. However, other than that one snide comment, I have never seen so many public figures reach out to the libertarian american public.
On one memorable interaction, Chris Matthews asked if anyone had a more libertarian perspective on a topic. As if my jaw hadn't already hit the floor, to hear Sen. Sam Brownback respond to that and try to claim a libertarian perspective was utterly mind-bending. I missed the next few statements made in the debate after that one. I was too busy trying to clean out the wax from my ears so I woundn't mishear the debate participants again. If even religious conservative Brownback is trying to claim the libertarian mantle, then maybe there is a chance that we could get a good President - especially if the Dems choose Hillary.
Don't get me wrong here. I am not all that optimistic. In spite of the "Radicals" book, and the recent trend of the WSJ and the conservative blogs to talk about economic freedom, I still hear them all screaming loud and clear that your bedroom is fair game. Same with your library reading lists. Do any of these candidates feel that California should be able to implement medical marijuana without having federal agents rush through doors, gunz-a-blazin, killing innocent people? I haven't heard much there yet. I am seriously hoping Fred Thomson or Newt Gingrich (in that order) get into the race.
Monday, April 16, 2007
Could the Va. Tech massacre have been avoided?
The tragic massacre today has, as of now, claimed an estimated 33 lives. Could this have been avoided or minimized? Quite possibly. In a press conference, at about 8PM, it was made clear that weapons are banned from campus. Obviously the shooter didn't care much about this rule. Unfortunately for all of us, the students in the classrooms where this homicidal maniac went out in his blaze of self-centered evilness followed this rule. What if one of them had been armed? We're not talking about grade school students here. These students are all over 18 years of age. Allowing persons who so desire to carry arms increases safety for not only those who carry weapons, but for all of us who choose not to. If one of those students or faculty had been a proud NRA member and been carrying for protection, who knows how many lives could have been saved. Okay, the massacre probably would not have been avoided entirely. The maniac would have caught people by surprise and certainly would have "succeeded" in killing a few innocent people. But a situation where someone is trying to shoot at so many adults in a society with as much gun know-how as ours should have had someone shoot back. While this lesson might not apply so easily at grade schools, in colleges there should be no anti-weapon laws. Pass "shall-issue" laws for concealed weapons permits. Then people like this nut and the guy in the Salt Lake City mall shooting wouldnt be able to reload and keep on killing. For all of you anti-gun nuts, of the 32 innocent people who died, I put, because I feel generous to you, only 27 of those deaths on your heads. Nice going Va. Tech.
Saturday, April 7, 2007
In the light of our experience with the 18th Amendment...
There is something I have been upset about... I went back and re-read the Gonzales v. Raich 545 U.S. 1 (2005) decision. The court decided in that case that Californians who use cannabis for medical reasons are not immune from federal law, and that the alphabet soup of federal drug fanatics is not in excess of the powers granted to Congress under the Commerce Clause. However, there is an argument I have had rolling around in my head for quite some time that it appears went undiscussed by the court. I have not been able to find copies of the briefs submitted in that case, so I do not know if the argument was made, but I would love to see the court discuss this:
When reading the US Constitution, it is best to assume that every word is there for a reason. The document is a short one and to use it as a governing document, every word must have meaning. Likewise, because the Amendment process is so difficult, every Amendment must have meaning as well. It is so difficult to get 2/3 of the House, 2/3 of the Senate and 3/4 of the States to agree on a specific set of language to add to the Constitution that if a mere law were capable of doing the job, no one in his right mind would go through the amendment process.
So what does this have to do with the Raich decision and Congressional powers under the Commerce Clause to have a bunch of alphabet soup federal drug fanatic enforcement regimes? Everything. The 18th Amendment to the Constitution outlaws alcohol at the Constitutional level. Specifically, the substantive parts of the 18th Amendment reads (Sec 3 is omitted, as it is procedural in nature):
Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.
Section 2. The Congress and the several states shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
It authorized the Congress and the several states to prohibit the manufacture, sale, and transportation of intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes.
Why did they pass this as a constitutional amendment if they could have passed a law? The answer is that they could not. Prior to the 18th Amendment, the federal government had no power to prohibit alcohol. The prohibitionists needed the 18th Amendment in order to make criminals out of all who consumed alcohol.
The 21st Amendment was enacted in 1933(again omitting the procedural sec 3):
Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
Section 2. The transportation or importation into any state, territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.
Section 1 repeals the 18th Amendment. The effect of this is that any powers granted to Congress by the 18th Amendment are also revoked. This means that since Congress did not, prior to the 18th Amendment, have the power to prohibit alcohol on a nationwide scale, following the 21st Amendment, it would again lack any such power unless otherwise granted by another Amendment passed since the 18th Amendment.
Some of this power is restored in Section 2. This section makes sure that Congress has the power to prohibit the transportation of liquors between state borders where such transportation would violate the laws of the states among whom the liquors are transported. Congress and the States restored the power to the States to regulate alcohol and put Congress in a position to support the policy decisions made by the several States. This is an explicit decision to allow federally enforced federalism. Let the States make the policies, not the federal government.
What it does not say is equally important. The 18th Amendment granted two important powers to the federal government that were not restored by Section 2 of the 21st Amendment after being repealed by Section 1: the power to prohibit the manufacture or sale of intoxicating liquors within a State in violation of the laws within that State, and the power to prohibit "the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes" within a State where that State has decided to make these things legal or between two States where such conduct is legal in both States.
Another major issue is just what is an intoxicating liquor that Congress has the power to regulate under Section 2 of the 21st Amendment? The Supreme Court has given some limited insight into this on discussing the validity of the FDA regulating tobacco:
In fact, HEW Secretary Celebrezze urged Congress not to amend the FDCA to cover "smoking products" because, in light of the findings in the Surgeon General's report, such a "provision might well completely outlaw at least cigarettes. This would be contrary to what, we understand, is intended or what, in the light of our experience with the 18th amendment, would be acceptable to the American people."
FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 146 (U.S. 2000)
What this indicates is that the government and the Supreme Court have acknowledged that the 21st Amendment's repeal of the 18th Amendment and regranting of some authority regranted less authority to Congress than had been present while the 18th Amendment was in place and that this limited authority does not go so far as to allow Congress the power to ban cigarettes (perhaps they could ban the transportation of butts into a State that outlaws them?).
This understanding of the 18th Amendment should be transposed by the Court onto other products than just tobacco. At a minimum, it should also be read onto the medical use of the cannabis plant if not all drugs or even all consumables. Whether the federal government can regulate purity or not, I do not have an answer. However, at a minimum, the constitutionality of the complete ban on Schedule 1 drugs is dubious. It is my belief that the proper readings of the 18th and 21st Amendments to the Constitution require an overturning of Raich and should probably overturn that bane of cases, Wickard v. Filburn(where the Court found that Congress had the power to prevent the growing of wheat for personal consumption because it could have an effect on interstate commerce). While this might only be overturning the actual outcome of Wickard, as it would be on other grounds, it would at long last begin to chip away at the Roosevelt court's blatant disregard for stare decisis and the Constitution itself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)