social science - medical marijuana

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

For a state law to stand, the federal congress would have to pass a law allowing states to make such laws, otherwise the feds win. Don't blame the courts on this. They were just applying accepted rules to existing law. The federal congress could solve this, but they probably won't.

I disagree. Amendment X states:
"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 to the people."

IMO the Constitution already grants the state the right to make such a law since the Constitution does not specifically delegate such power to the United States. As long as it doesn't cross state lines I don't believe it is a federal issue. This is the foundation of the dissenting opinion filed by O'Connor, Rehnquist and Thomas with whom I concur.

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by C1ay

...IMO the Constitution already grants the state the right to make such a law since the Constitution does not specifically delegate such power to the United States. As long as it doesn't cross state lines I don't believe it is a federal issue...

C1ay- I wasn't making any philosophical point, other than we have a long list of court precedent. If a federal law exists, the states can make a law more stringent, but not less so. The proponents of medical marijuana could have argued that the federal law was onconstitutional (which is your argument) but I don't think they did that. If the case was made and accepted that the federal law has a basis (that is, is is for the common good) then the court is obligated by precedent to rule infavor of the more strict law.

I was only saying this is not a court issue. They are going by the rule of law and precedent. The federal congress could fix this, but I suspect we all have retired before that happens.

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

The federal congress could fix this, but I suspect we all have retired before that happens.

I believe that might require that some statesmen actually get elected to congress, something the congress has not seen in a long, long time

[UncleAl]

If you smoke marijuana you will get high and stupid. This enrages the State that views both as its privilege to withhold and impress, respectively. Smoking marijuana wil get you star chamber proceedings, mandatory sentencing, and recurrent homosexual rape during incarceration. The dangers of using marijuana are evident.

Take psychomeds. It's pretty much the same price/dose for cumulative crippling effects.

[Fishteacher73]

We have had previous experience here in the states with a "drug war" of sorts. We saw how well the 18th amendment worked. Basically it fueled the growth and stronghold of organized crime in the states. At least at that point the gov't realized they screwed up and repealed it.

The drug war has done nothing but fueled the black market, filled our criminal courts and prisons with non-violent offenders, and been applied in a financially and racially biased manner.

As C1ay has stated, it seems that as Americans have grown ignorant of their Constitutional rights, they have continually allowed the gov't to strip their rights under the guise of their own safety.

[bumab]

Originally Posted by Fishteacher73

As C1ay has stated, it seems that as Americans have grown ignorant of their Constitutional rights, they have continually allowed the gov't to strip their rights under the guise of their own safety.

The right to take drugs is really only half the issue. To many, it's stripped under the guise of protecting citizens from drug takers, who are all crazy maniacs bent on getting their next fix and will kill you and your children for your jewelry.

The simplistic thinking that leads to the "outlaw it, that will make it go away" is the heart of the issue. Legalization would make the price drop, reducing the need for criminal activity to get the next fix (if such a need exists at all). Legalization would reduce the seductive aura that drugs have for young folk, reducing the number of people trying out drugs. There would be a spike at the beginning as people suddenly used their new freedoms, but drug use would inevitably curtail.

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by C1ay

I believe that might require that some statesmen actually get elected to congress, something the congress has not seen in a long, long time

Agreed. I think John Quincy Adams might have been the last one.

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by bumab

The right to take drugs is really only half the issue. To many, it's stripped under the guise of protecting citizens from drug takers...The simplistic thinking that leads to the "outlaw it, that will make it go away" is the heart of the issue. Legalization would make the price drop, reducing the need for criminal activity to get the next fix (if such a need exists at all). Legalization would reduce the seductive aura that drugs have for young folk...

Interesting points, B-

I have been in favor of decriminalization of some drugs for quite a while. The drugs that are fundamenally safe (marijuana and opiates like heroin) are reasonable candidates. I have a greater concern about the drugs that are extraordinarily physically addicitive (cocaine) or can cause permanent damage (hallucinogens).

I even got a letter published in the Wall Street Journal in the early '80s advocating legalization of heroin and marijuana. I have never used either one, but the social benefits of legalization are several fold. Aside from reducing the seduction to young folks, it would also decrease burglary in most cities since the majority of burglary in large cities is to get cash to support drug habits. It would decrease the rate of HIV and hepatitis in the blood pool. It would remove billions of dollars from the pockets of criminals, particularly organized crime. It might even decrement the other social vices that feed off of the environments where drugs use is rampant, e.g., prostitution.

But the drugs that truly are dangerous remain problematic to me.

[bumab]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

I have a greater concern about the drugs that are extraordinarily physically addicitive (cocaine) or can cause permanent damage (hallucinogens)....

But the drugs that truly are dangerous remain problematic to me.

Good point- I was mainly thinking of marijuana and opiates as well.

[Turtle]

___As I understand it, marijuana is only habit forming, not addicting. For a good read on the concept of victimless crime I recommend the book Ain't Nobody's Bussiness If You Do; The author escapes my memory at the moment.
___Besides the glaucoma, pain, & nausea mentioned, marijuana is found effective in some with clinical depression, anxiety disorders, as well as bolemics. The marijuana based drug Marinol is also finding effective use in the treatment of autism.
___If you please, according to his journals, George Washington grew marijuana not only for the textile applications (rope etc.), but for medicinal purposes as well.

Addendum:Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do : The Absurdity of Consensual Crimes in Our Free Country by Peter McWilliams