PrismPauls thread “what’s up with the 9th and 10th amendments” http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...?showtopic=3756 got me to thinking about enacting Federal laws, specifically those about marijuana prohibition. So I looked around and could come up with nothing substantial except for this:

http://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_a2.html



So my question is this: Under what authority could the Federal government enact a law to prohibit any substance from use by the American people when it is not empowered to do so by the Constitution?

My understanding of this is that the Federal Government does NOT have any laws on the books concerning USE of prohibited substances. They do have laws on TRAFFICKING (buying, selling, transporting) those substances, which makes sense if you think of it as "inter-state commerce". Otherwise, it's left up to the locals to handle it. And the locals have those laws on the books through either local needs or because the Feds gave 'em incentives (like the ones used to force the legal drinking age up to 21).

Am I missing something? Do you have an example to consider?

amf wrote:


Yes, in fact this is one of many!

http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17927.shtml

There is no constitutional basis for the war on drugs AT ALL. Lets remember, the prohibition of alcohol took nothing less than a Constitutional Amendment. Why? If it is within the scope of the federal government, they should have just been able to pass a law on it, without touching the Constitution. The fact is, prohibiting drugs, whether alcohol or any other drug, is in no way a power given to the federal government. Unfortunately, we are at the point where powers are not really given TO the federal government. They are taken BY the federal government. Unfrotuntely, this is not the only case where War on Drugs, Inc. defecates on the Constitution. How do random drug tests not violate the 4th Amendment?



This does not say ANYTHING about the police. This says that this right cannot be violated by ANYONE.

Why are "We the people" letting this happen?

Ok, I'll grant that the Feds are persecuting marajuana users in some places (and not in others; don't think they'll be heading to the inner city to hunt down users any time soon).

What do the courts who interpret the consistitution say? Do we have any Supreme Court decisions yet concerning "use without intent to sell" cases? Like I said, selling it can become a Fed thing, because of their ability to regulate commerce. Going after users seems like a tough case to make (and I don't take someone from the DEA as being the final word on case law in this area).

A case from the Federal 9th Circut decided in November has the cannabis crowd excited.

It was a gun case brought by a guy who was arrested for possession of 5 machine guns. The thing is, all the federal control over machine guns (like marijuana) is claimed under the commerce clause. The government is attempting to control ownership and usage by private citizens by controlling the commerce of the item. Unfortunately for the federal government, it seems that said gun owner machined and assembled all the parts for his guns himself so no part over which the feds claim control, ever traveled in "interstate commerce."

Proponents of medical marijuana are saying this would be controlling rule for homegrown or at least, grown on the state ganja.

Bye bye federal control!

The case is United States v. Stewart 02-10318

Britain has never had a constitution - legally there is no law that the UK Gov can't pass - it isn't even possible for a government to pass a law that binds the subsequent governments. Yet it is a thriving democracy...It works because the citizens of Britain expect democracy and have a tradition of fighting until they get it....(although the EU may change all this).

But my point is that no democratic govenment in the world worries about passing a law that violates its own constitution, because, at the end of the day, a constitution is just some words written down by some people once upon a time.

Governments worry about the reaction of the people they govern - so in a country used to oppressive regime, governments quite happily 'rewrite' (i.e. ignore) the constitution at need. General Musharaf of Pakistan rewrote his country's constitution to ensure that he could take over if ever people voted in a government he didn't like.

The reason this doesn't happen in the US is because its inhabitants are used to democracy and would riot if they didn't get it - but the constitution will always be amended as governments see fit.

I find this very interesting! It seems that the U.S. government is breaking the very laws that they have enacted against marijuana possession, use, distribution and transportation.

“Diagnosed with a rare bone disorder at the age of 10, he is one of seven people in the United States who receives medical marijuana from the government”.
http://www.bocaratonnews.com/index.php?src...ry=LOCAL%20NEWS

At the same time, they are trying to prohibit the display of anti-prohibition ads while promoting prohibition propaganda.

“Local transit agencies allowing medical-marijuana and other kinds of drug-reform advertisements would be denied federal funding under a bill passed Monday by the House of Representatives”. http://www.oaklandtribune.com/Stories/0,14...1823837,00.html

While all of this is going on, Steve Kubby is seeking refugee status in Canada for the same set of circumstances that the U.S. government is providing medical marijuana to a few of the many citizens in need.

“Vancouver, Canada -- A 57-year-old American who claimed refugee status in Canada because he feared persecution at home for smoking marijuana to fight a rare cancer has lost his bid to stay in this country”.
http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17952.shtml

I just don’t get it! Under the “laws” isn’t it illegal for "anyone" to possess, use, distribute marijuana for any reason within the United States?

Very intriguing discussion here. I haven't heard of the drug war being discussed from a constitutional perspective before. Gathering from what the earlier posters have stated, the government is grabbing at straws in order to regulate things which the 9th and 10th amendments left to the states. They got to farmers by stating that crops constituted "interestate commerce" and to personal property by using RICO and the various racketeering laws, under which, your land can be confiscated.

How could they regulate drugs? Interstate commerce?......racketeering?.....RICO???, national security? Whether or not they are valid reasons is a whole other discussion.

Somewhat off topic, but for those interested MPP Executive Director Rob Kampia will discuss the need to change U.S. marijuana laws today Saturday, Dec. 13, on "Jesse Ventura's America," on the MSNBC cable network. Also scheduled to appear are Tom Riley, spokesman for the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, and Stanton Levenson, one of the attorneys representing actor/comedian Tommy Chong, who is now serving a federal prison term for distributing marijuana paraphernalia. It airs nationally at 7 p.m. Eastern time, 4 p.m. Pacific. Maybe this might shed some light related to this topic.

It seems as though some of the judges on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals may have read this thread. Probably not, but look at what they just did in Raich v. Ashcroft:

"Yesterday, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a victory for states' rights, ruled unconstitutional federal prosecutions of medical marijuana patients in states that have approved laws allowing such use of the drug.
If patients are authorized by a doctor under state laws, and aren't transporting marijuana across state lines or selling it, their growing, possession or use of marijuana is not "drug trafficking," Judge Harry Pregerson wrote for the majority.
His ruling sends the case back to the California district judge who declined to protect two patients from federal prosecution.
Quoting from a previous court decision, Pregerson's ruling notes: "It is particularly important that in the field of criminal law enforcement, where state power is pre-eminent, national authority be limited to those areas in which interstate commerce is truly affected. ... The police power is, essentially, reserved to the states."

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/loca...82_pot17m0.html


If this is appealed or goes to the Supreme Court (which I’m sure it will), I just don’t see how it could be overturned. Any thoughts?

I also find it very interesting that this has had little if any coverage in the mainstream media. This is a big decision for the rights of the states and of the people, it should be front page news all over the country!

Actually the funny thing about almost all the laws on the books now about Illegal Drugs come from one thing....any hands on what it is, nah I'll just tell you. Racism, aside from Cocaine which was found to have side effects that were considered dangerous to it's users, almost all of the other drugs were made illegal to keep those (pardon the language) damn niggers,spics,chinamen, and injuns (said in a heavy southern drawl) from going crazy and raping poor innocent white girls. And the Hemp plant itself was made illegal for another reason after WWII, Hearst wanted his pulp paper business to thrive, so out went industrial hemp (which by the way has a very low level of THC, so low that you'd die from smoke inhalation before you ever got high off of it) simply because W.R. Hearst decided to push that it was contributing to "reefer madness."

We got rid of Jim Crow, except for the drug laws.

CamiBlack wrote:


Actually, although correct, that is only part of the story. W.R. Hearst was a huge bigot, especially towards Mexicans because he lost a bunch of land to Pancho Villa. He got together with Harry Anslinger (the first so called "drug czar"), Dupont and various drug companies to outlaw "hemp", not "marijuana". All of these companies stood to lose huge profits if the hemp industry were allowed to flourish. He used the "Reefer Madness" campaign to sell newspapers and was quite successful. He merely used his hate for Mexicans as a means to an end to curb the threat that the hemp industry was sure to pose. The "Reefer Madness" and "crazy Mexican" angle was merely a means to an end.

Here's a little more detail on the subject (some of the Hearst and Anslinger quotes in this article are quite laughable but people actually believed this crap and sadly, many still do):

http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/200...anaIllegal.html


It will be quite interesting to see what happens in the near future in regards to the recent 9th Circuit ruling. Will the Supreme Court uphold the ruling, or will they overturn it? I don't see how they can overturn it, but if they do, I can't wait to see what part of the Constitution or precedent they use! I'll bet the feds are going nuts right about now!