Send comments, tips,
and suggestions to:
pete@drugwarrant.com
Join us on Pete’s couch.
If I wanted to win the hearts and minds of farmers in Latin America and Afghanistan, I probably wouldn’t start by destroying their fields and removing their only hope of feeding their families.Guitherisms

 

DrugWarRant.com, the longest running single-issue blog devoted to drug policy, is published by the Prohibition Isn’t Free Foundation

January 2010
M T W T F S S
« Dec   Feb »
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Archives

What feds might do to counter states legalizing pot

We are now in the position where marijuana legalization has been discussed in state legislatures, and California is seriously likely to be voting on legalization this year.

And the federal government, with all it has invested in the drug war, can do little about it. California has the full and absolute right to eliminate any of its criminal laws or penalties that it wishes, as does every other state. Sure, federal law trumps state law, but that only means that the separate federal prohibition against marijuana remains — a prohibition that the state is in no way obligated to enforce.

Sure, the federal government could, in this day of massive federal police power (something anathema to our founders), enforce federal marijuana laws on their own, but such an act would be extraordinarily costly (financially and politically) and quite futile.

So if states start falling to legalization and the feds want to sabotage it, what are they likely to do?

Let’s take a look back in history.

In 1984, the federal government wanted to institute a 21-year-old minimum drinking age, despite the fact that states were all over the place on the minimum age. They couldn’t require the states to do it. So they bribed them.

The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 used a tricky little device: “a state not enforcing the minimum age would be subjected to a ten percent decrease in its annual federal highway apportionment.”

By the way, the Supreme Court upheld the power of the feds to bribe states this way in South Dakota v. Dole.

And it wasn’t the first time this was done.

10 years earlier, Congress passed the Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act requiring a national 55 mile per hour speed limit. Again, they didn’t have the power to do it, so the way the pulled it off was to make it a requirement for a state to receive highway funds (that was later repealed).

And in 1998, the exact same technique was used to make .08 blood alcohol a national standard for determining drunk driving.

So what might we see in the future? My guess is an attempt to pass a national Per Se Drugged Driving Standard and enforce it through (you guessed it), withholding highway funds to states who don’t play along.

What is a “Per Se” drugged driving standard?

“Per se” is a latin phrase meaning “by itself” or “inherently.” In drugged driving law, it means that any detectable amount of a controlled substance is automatically evidence of “drugged driving,” which can result in fines, loss of driver’s license or prison. It is a despicable, dishonest law, particularly as it relates to marijuana, since detectable amounts of marijuana remain in your system for quite some time.

You end up punishing people for non-existent offenses, and create a perverse system of incentives. For example, if someone smoked pot yesterday and wants to drive today, from a legal perspective they might as well toke up right before driving. Either way, if caught, it’s considered drugged driving. The people most likely to be deterred by “per se” standards are those who would have been responsible anyway. It’s touted as a way to increase driving safety, but it does no such thing.

Current drug czar Kerlikowske has jumped on the drugged driving bandwagon big time, particularly with his repeated dishonest use of National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) data. He’s willing to buck his administration’s own scientists in order to promote the idea that drugged driving is some kind of epidemic.

Robert DuPontAnd in December, Kerlikowske gave a special Guest Blog spot to Robert DuPont. DuPont is a long-time prohibitionist who has made a fortune off drug testing. He is also, through his Orwellian-named Institute for Behavior and Health, one of the primary advocates of “per se” drugged driving laws, touted at his StopDruggedDriving.org website [Side note: that site was originally DruggedDriving.org, but they must have decided that might be misinterpreted, so they added the StopDruggedDriving url and pointed it to the original site.]

Their description of the advantages of “per se” is priceless.

The benefit of a per se standard is that prosecutors do not have to meet more complex standards of guilt.

Yeah, don’t you hate it when you actually have to prove a crime in order to jail someone. It’s so much easier when you can just per se so that everyone’s automatically guilty. There must be some other creative ways we can help prosecutors out. Maybe we could make it so that if you’re black, you’re per se guilty of murder. Think of all the work we could save!

In addition, with the per se standard drivers know that they must abstain from use of illegal drugs before getting behind the wheel of a car or face the risk of a Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) conviction.

No. With the per se standard drivers have no idea how long they must have abstained from marijuana use prior to driving, and since the time is likely to be longer than any normal person could go without driving, the law will be ignored by most, leading to the outcome of being able to selectively prosecute certain “types” of people using per se laws to pile on charges.

So what is the likelihood of a nationally persuaded “per se” drugged driving law? Hard to say. The Drug War Chronicle in 2004 noted an attempt to do so then in Congress, but it got some significant opposition (states can be unhappy when given mandates like this). Maybe it wouldn’t fly, and yet DuPont’s website claims that almost 1/3 of states have already adopted such laws on their own.

But if some states start legalizing pot, this could easily come up again. The feds wouldn’t be able to use the bribery approach to stop the states from legalizing pot, because potential tax revenue from legal pot would likely be more than any lost highway funds. But with states legalizing pot, the feds could easily raise the fear of a sudden epidemic of drugged drivers. (When raising the minimum drinking age to 21, all the arguments were about road safety, even though non-drivers under 21 were prohibited from drinking as well.)

All they’d need is some poster child — little Timmy and his mother, on their way to see Timmy’s father returning from Afghanistan, are killed in an auto accident and the driver of the other car tests positive for drugs (it won’t matter that the driver was also drunk). From that point on, facts, statistics, and science will no longer matter.

This is why it is important for us to counter drugged driving stories whenever we can (especially including the lazy, incompetent reporting of the Ashley III Halseys out there), and point out the dishonesty and lack of practical value inherent in “per se” laws.

And if all else fails, we’ll just have to join them.

Perhaps we can push for the introduction of per se cellphone driving laws. Makes as much sense. It’s tough now for law enforcement to know if the driver was actually talking on their cellphone when driving through that school zone, or if they were texting while driving. Let’s make it easy. Possession or ownership of a cellphone is per se evidence of driving while texting (enhanced penalties for possession of a Blackberry).

See how that flies.

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to Reddit Post to StumbleUpon

45 comments to What feds might do to counter states legalizing pot

  • DdC

    Hey, maybe that’s why they call it Fascism? What feds might do to counter states legalizing pot? Before Grave Duffis was run out by Aunld’s GOPerverts he submitted to Klintoon’s Smoke a Joint, Lose Your License, blackmailed by Fed Hwy. funds. AMA Calls For Ending Nixon’s Lie? Noooo, rescheduling so Barthwell and Bayer can sell their spray. No need for we the people to grow plants. No medical value to the Pharmaceuticals growing it in your garden. No medical value then how can the US Government Patent Medical Pot? Free Market? Banning burlap making up 98% of the eradications. Free Market with a Monopoly on Marijuana Growing & Research?

  • Ian

    While per se drugged driving laws are annoying, could they ever counter state legalization? California currently does not have a per se law, but if it were required to (assuming tax cannabis act passes), I doubt it would have much effect on the demise of marijuana prohibition. While certainly a horrifying concept, I doubt it will deter many smokers (few things do). It would allow prosecutors another way of locking people up without having to actually prove that anything bad happened, which is horrible for the state of freedom in this country. However it wont give them a way to prosecute the average recreational user, unless they spent an inordinate time pulling people over and drug testing them. I would hope that this would not fly with constituents, and that prosecutors seeking to advance their careers, would know that targeting cannabis consumers in a state that legalized it would be a poor choice.

  • Kant

    So just a thought. Couldn’t a per se law be ruled unconstitutional as a violation of the 5th amendment? protection of double jeopardy specifically.

    Especially in the case of cannabis where metabolites are stored in fat for weeks. Could it be argued that any successive arrest are prosecuting, even if unknowingly, the same action/event?

  • Ian, Well they certainly wouldn’t counter state legalization, if by that you mean negate. But it would be a way of trying to assert control at the federal level. And it could have a seriously negative effect on individuals in legalized states — current smokers would hardly be deterred, but the casual law abiding recreational smoker could find the per se laws daunting (enough to lose a job, a driver’s license, etc.) It would fit the sado-moralistic approach of many legislators.

  • Cliff

    The prohibitionists are proposing something which will open more cans of worms than they realize. Alcohol testing, even blood testing, is relatively simple and results are available quickly. Drug testing, OTOH needs more time (unless the cheapie dip sticks are used and they still need a confirmation test for positive tests).

    Will you be able to get a GCM (gas chromatagraph) or MSA (mass spectrum analyzer) test if you test positive? Will you be held during this time for the confirmation test?

    How will the chain of custody work and will you be observed while you dispense the sample from your wiener or will they hold you down and take blood? (that in itself is full of potential injury and lawsuits if not done correctly)

    What drugs will be tested for? If it’s only for illegal drugs, then there are a whole bunch of people who will be able to drive around on Oxycontin and Morphine and other drugs which impair way worse than Cannabis.

    Finally, who pays? We already know who will benefit.

  • Paul

    The true problem here, of course, is the enormous power and money that has accumulated in Washington. The money for the highway fund they threaten to withhold comes from YOU.

    Since the federal government’s share of the pie has been growing, your share and your state’s share have been shrinking. Money that you used to send to your state government now goes to the federal government, which it uses to bribe or arm-twist the states into doing what it wants.

    How anyone can believe that high taxes and spending coming out of Washington will be a good thing for themselves or the country at large is beyond me. More money to Washington just means more power to an increasingly disconnected set of rulers thousands of miles away. They neither understand nor care about your local problems or desires. They’re just in it for the power and the opportunity to line their pockets.

    Never vote to tax yourself, and have the common courtesy not to vote to tax your neighbor. If everyone were to wake up at the same time with that epiphany, we could laugh away the entire bloated mess in Washington: taxes, corruption, waste, wars, and drug laws all.

  • Just me

    Paul; You hit the nail right on the head ! You and everyone else should check out the web site I provided above.

    In the end, we must reclaim our country from these crooks in washington. As I have said before , with out us, they are nothing, and they know it. Thats why they lie ,cheat, change the rules to suit their agendas.

    Tyranny is upon us and wars are all around us. We either stand and fight or we lay down and die.

  • DdC

    Wallmart St is running Washington

    Finally – a drug free workforce!
    One In Five High Schools Piss Taste Students

    Urine Testing Company

    After his resignation, Turner joined with Robert DuPont and former head of NIDA, Peter Bensinger, to corner the market on urine testing. They contracted as advisors to 250 of the largest corporations to develop drug diversion, detection, and urine testing programs.

    Soon after Turner left office, Nancy Reagan recommended that no corporation be permitted to do business with the Federal government without having a urine purity policy in place to show their loyalty.

    Just as G. Gordon Liddy went into high-tech corporate security after his disgrace, Carlton Turner became a rich man in what has now become a huge growth industry: urine-testing.

    This kind of business denies the basic rights of privacy, self-incrimination (Fifth Amendment) rights, unreasonable search and seizure, and the presumption of innocence (until proven guilty).

    Submission to the humiliation of having your most private body parts and functions observed by a hired voyeur is now the test of eligibility for private employment, or to contract for a living wage.

    Turner’s new money-making scheme demands that all other Americans relinquish their fundamental right to privacy and self-respect.

    Companies that drug test

    “The majority’s holding disrespects the will of California’s voters who, when they enacted the Compassionate Use Act, surely never intended that persons who availed themselves of its provisions would thereby disqualify themselves from employment.”
    – Dissenting Justice Kennard
    California Supreme Court’s decision in Ross v. Ragingwire

    Cannabis and Driving

    “If I instituted drug testing at Cypress,
    I would get a brick through my windshield,
    and I would deserve it.”
    –T.J. Rogers,
    President, Cypress Semiconductor

  • BruceM

    I think the feds would be much bolder than that. I think they’d withhold ALL state funds – including medicare, medicaid, etc, from any state that does not (a) have a marijuana prohibition law on its books and (b) enforces it zealously and in good faith.

    Why do you think they’d only limit it to drugged driving? That’s already illegal anyway, regardless of marijuana legalization. DUI/DWI doesn’t only apply to alcohol. It’s illegal to drive while intoxicated on marijuana in all 50 states at this very moment, and has been for decades. That’s not even something I vehemently disagree with (only with how it’s enforced so subjectively, among other issues).

  • claygooding

    I wonder how the feds and our government would react to an event like the Nam war protest in the 70’s? How would they react when a million or so people showed up in DC protesting and marching for legalization,poorly I’d imagine. Another Tinnamen Square incident possibly only right here in the land of the free.
    I still believe that we need to flush our congress,change them out and continue changing them until we get control of our own country back. Change out the good with the bad,just to show them what the meaning of “change we can believe in” means.

  • Willy Wonka

    Legalize and break up drug task forces and seizure of property? Not in this economy.

  • kaptinemo

    Willy, it may actually come to that.

    Consider: as has been pointed out here, the government hasn’t actually been running solely on taxpayer’s dollars but on loans from foreign governments through the mask of the Federal Reserve. This is the source of the National Debt. Tax revenues only go to paying the interest on those loans, not the principal. Said foreign governments have grown increasingly antsy about the precipitous drop in the dollar’s value. They’ve gotten so worried that they’ve started to talk amongst themselves about abandoning it. If they do that, it’ll make 1929 look like kindergarten.

    This is in no small part why Obama is making the (initially) symbolic move of freezing Federal spending, and will have to make cuts in Fed spending soon, in order to placate those foreign creditors. The likelihood of the Feds being able to strong-arm the States into compliance with any anti-reform schema becomes much less likely.

    Since the Feds are already strapped, they have even less ability to ram Fed suzerainty down State throats. And this does not take into consideration the growing, nascent movements in many States to keep what revenues they can generate at home where they’re so desperately needed, rather than forwarding them to Warshington. The cyclic unemployment insurance debacle, in which millions of people are repeatedly forced to live on the knife’s edge thanks to political games at the Imperial Capitol with funding UI, is a perfect example of why State legislatures are becoming increasingly less enamored of sending money to DC. As things tighten economically, there will be louder calls for keeping that money close to home.

    In short, what we may be witnessing is a kind of economic decentralization, with the attendant decentralization of many social services as well, devolving to the local level once more after several decades of increasing centralization. That will also entail a change in public attitude regarding what Warshington wants to to do. And that will make ramming idiotic schemes such as anti-reform measures down local throats a bit harder to accomplish than before.

  • Just me

    Clay; they will just ignore it like they do all protests today. They lable you, marginalize you, demonize you, ignore you because they think we are beneath them. So protest all you want, they do as they please.

    You can ask for freedom…but thats all your doing ..asking.

  • permanentilt

    Agree with Kaptin.

    A couple weeks ago I saw the Governator on 60 minutes viciously complaining about how the federal govt. owes them $Millions and stopping just short of blaming them for California’s financial crisis.

    If the Federal government were to start withholding money from California, could we not then see Cali withholding all federal income taxes?!?!

    Decentralization may eventually be the only option for democracy!

  • claygooding

    I admit that the protests in the 70’s did more harm than good. It scared Nixon so bad he declared war on the hippies,hippies=pot smokers and war protesters,and of course,his daughter getting busted with pot at a Myrtle Beach party did not sit too well with him either.
    On the economic issues Kap commented on,agreed,if China were to call in its loans to us right now,we would all be learning Chinese.And they will,when they think they can enforce the collection. That is why,if there is any common sense left in Washington,not counting the guy that cleans the floors,this next budget planning session may well be where we see that the war on drugs is over.
    It and a several other money pits that we can never fill.

  • ezrydn

    Chemically active THC and chemically depleted THC should show some sort of different marker. At least, it’d seem so. I’m not a chemist so I don’t know.

    I wonder why the PT industry never went after the “active” marker instead of the “trash” marker? Surely, a distinction can be made.

    It’s like someone saying “You have an enpty beer bottle in your trashcan so you must be drunk.”

  • I don’t know what kind of research and testing would be required to come to a measurable analysis of actual impairment for marijuana.

    But I’d be willing to bet that the federal government, which would have to agree to such research since they control the only legal supply, is not very interested — any such research would, by its nature, also indicate a “safe” level of THC in the body, where driving is not affected, and the government doesn’t want any research telling people there is a safe level, regardless of how cautious that level is.

  • wes

    Has anyone seen this video? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3zou4F00Ic . Its a 5 minute clip from Speed TV, and they have a pot smoker drive an obstacle course twice, once not high, then he gets high and repeats the course. He does well on both occasions, driving around cones, etc but he actually drives a little better after he smoked a spliff.

    I think the conversation needs to shift to how smoking pot affects driving, rather than the assumption that it is somehow equivalent to drunk driving. Of course there will be no problems driving simply with THC in your system, but driving while high is another thing altogether. I’d like to see a lot of scientific trials with this, instead of ad-hoc ‘oh well its a drug so it must completely impair someone.’

  • Maria

    Again, and like always, what they are counting on is fear. All of their power is fear.

    Unless I am misunderstanding the ‘per se’ definition this has really made me nervous. I probably smoke the equivalent of two joints a year. A year. Damned good, beautiful flavorful but infrequent. The same way that I enjoy Port or rare and lovely wines.

    But knowing how long trace THC stays in my system I’d be considered a ‘per se’ drugged driver for much of the year. If I got into an accident I could be a drugged driver statistic. God forbid if the accident turned out to be my fault because even without drugs we all have the potential to make a shitty road decision.

    ‘Per se’ is insane. There is no other way to say it. And it terrifies me enough not to smoke again.

    That is what they are counting on. And this utterly pisses me off

  • permanentilt

    True enough Wes, the silly thing is that we have to blanketly accept the notion that even driving while stoned at all is dangerous.

    My brother and I once attempted to figure out how many times we had driven high in our lives. He gets high all day every day, basically (but he goes to school, has a job, and tours with a band) and me smoking nearly every day in high school and college, often smoking before leaving to run errands or go out for the night.

    He put his number at around 10,000, I put mine at around 4k. Between the two of us we have been in many accidents. Most completely sober, I have been in a couple alcohol related, and he was in a major one that was pharmaceutical related. Neither of us, however, have EVER been in an accident while stoned!

    Purely anecdotal, sure, but when I bring this up around my friends, they too think back and realize, sometimes to their own amazement, that they have never been in a marijuana related accident either. A couple had been in accidents that weren’t their fault.

    Now I am not saying that marijuana makes you drive better, I am sure that there are probably some people who would lose too much focus to drive while high, but to insinuate that marijuana poses a danger to our roads is purely philosophical, and political. I would like to see actual STUDIES!

  • claygooding

    Agree with Pete on unlikelihood of any studies showing any driving efficiency while stoned,they can’t afford having any data that shows any better driving ability stoned than drunk.
    Since anyone that has done both knows,stoned drivers would be a safer option than drunk drivers on our roads and streets. Of course the prohibitionists will scream that we don’t need to add stoned drivers too the drunk drivers already out there,acting as if it isn’t already happening.
    They act the same way about stopping marijuana,like they are going to stop something that is going to happen,except it already has.

  • Servetus

    Several problems remain for any fed who would cut highway funding to legitimize their cannabis dogma.

    First, any such act would interfere with states that allow marijuana for medical use, which is something Obama has said the feds won’t do.

    Also, cutting highway funding would reduce construction jobs in the midst of a deep jobs recession, further hindering economic recovery; something else I think the Obama administration would avoid. Absent Obama and the recession, the situation would be different.

    Unfortunately, the Robert DuPonts of the world are too deeply vested in prohibitionism to let it die. Not only is their reputation and access to political power on the line, but in DuPont’s case, profits are at stake.

    Even if some states legalize marijuana in the coming elections, I think legalization in those states will continue to be attacked by prohibitionists who choose to employ the same kind of obstructive legislative tactics presently used by the anti-abortionists to fight Roe v. Wade in state legislatures. Laws that indirectly obstruct de facto drug legalization, that seek to create Catch-22 situations, or that somehow demean the drug user in the eyes of the law, will be all that’s left for those who seek to maintain prohibition on life support.

  • BruceM

    America will collapse with the Controlled Substances Act intact up to the very last minute of its fall.

    But that’s only a year or two away.

    At this point I’m convinced we’ll be better off without a centralized government. It’s too much of a cesspool of waste and corruption. The 50 states (well, those that are not bankrupt themselves) will be left as their own sovereigns. Frankly I think the collapse of the federal government will happen far more smoothly than most would think.

  • kaptinemo

    “Even if some states legalize marijuana in the coming elections, I think legalization in those states will continue to be attacked by prohibitionists who choose to employ the same kind of obstructive legislative tactics presently used by the anti-abortionists to fight Roe v. Wade in state legislatures. Laws that indirectly obstruct de facto drug legalization, that seek to create Catch-22 situations, or that somehow demean the drug user in the eyes of the law, will be all that’s left for those who seek to maintain prohibition on life support.”

    Wherein the preparation of a PR campaign to call to the public’s attention the personal gains that prohibs have in continuing prohibition comes into play.

    For years, reformers have taken it on the chin with regards to being publicly castigated by prohibs in the media (and in Congress, no less!). I am reminded of what happened in the late 1990’s during Congressional testimony when MPP’s representatives were likened to murderers and child molesters. The reformers sought to keep the proceedings on an adult level, but some of the Congresscritters like Mad Mark Souder immediately descended to schoolyard bully mode.

    Now that we’re making headway, we can expect more such treatment from the opposition. But, also, with the economy the way it is, and with more States passing MMJ laws, and more discussion than ever before in the media about legalization, it’s payback time. It’s time to bring to the public’s attention just who is using the sainted children as human shields to protect their meal-tickets. It’s figurative trench warfare, and that means rhetorical knives and .45’s in close quarters. It means taking no prisoners. it means giving the opposition a taste of their own medicine.

    Now, we should see what the reform ‘leadership’ is actually made of. For this last battle is for the biggest prize of all, and it will require all-out warfare, not parties in the Playboy Mansion.

  • RichieRich

    The demise of real justice and the perverson of the law can be traced directly to the insane decisions by the Supreme Court(s) that Interstate Commerce comprises everything that MIGHT POSSIBLY cross a state line, even though no proof is needed to show that it actually was, or would be. Assuming that Congress can stop ANY state activity ( like growing and consuming cannabis wholly within a states borders, WITH a doctors recommendation; see Raich v. Ashcroft et al ) by merely saying that it MIGHT affect commerce, even illegal commerce, IF it crossed a state line is the worst legal refuge possible.

    the Constitution has a whole and seperate amendment just for everything else not covered…the 10th….which says that anything not specifically mentioned in the Constitution is left to the STATES> But then they strip that away with the Interstate commerce act, which gives them total power to regulate conduct WITHIN the states…it is unreal…just unreal.

  • the simple reality (and it is all really quite simple when you throw out the emotionalizing and whimpering) is that there are a hell of a lot more drivers out there using a hell of lot more and different substances that *may* impair driving than ever before.

    the reality looks like this:

    more drug users

    more different type of potentially impairing drugs in use

    more vehicles

    more drivers

    more miles traveled

    yet (insert drum roll here):

    LOWER rates of both accidents and fatalities over the past two decades.

  • When and if CA or any state legalizes marijuana, I think the federal response will in large part be determined by who is president at the time. It may involve what we saw in CA under the Bush administration, which was the feds trying to show the people in CA who’s boss. In other words, doing what they can to undermine the local law. Or it may involve what we’re seeing now, a hands-off, ignore-the-issue response from the feds. I don’t see the feds resorting to bribery in this particular case. That’s far too subtle a response when the future of our children is involved. Remember how important it is to send the right message to the children?

    Regardless, the issue will eventually be left to the courts to decide, as the feds will NOT change the CSA or reschedule marijuana any time soon. It will be an issue decided by the Supreme Court, and the feds may or may not abide by their decision. In the end, the ones that will end up profiting the most will be the lawyers.

  • BruceM

    RichieRich: you nailed it. The abuse (that word doesn’t even come close to describing it) of the commerce clause truly began the downfall of the Constitution. Enumerated powers are incompatible with unlimited powers. “Regulate” means to make regular. I don’t even believe the commerce clause gives the federal government the authority to BAN commerce in anything, even if it crosses state lines twenty times a day.

    But the one thing the Republicans and Democrats agree on (with the sole exception of Ron Paul) is that the commerce clause should continue to let them do whatever the fuck they want to do. And Americans expect their government to coddle them, nanny them, and protect their children from all dangers, real and imaginary. That can’t be done without laws based on “interstate commerce.” Look at the federal criminal codes. Look at title 18 of the US Code. What’s funny is that they sometimes stick the phrase “in or affecting interstate commerce” in there just to remind judges that congress believes it’s power to, say, ban a parent from taking a child from the custodial parent without permission (i.e. kidnapping) is based on the commerce clause, regardless of whether any state lines were actually crossed.

    How can a felon possess a firearm “in or affecting interstate commerce”? Even a felon crossing state lines with a firearm doesn’t actually affect interstate commerce. Maybe if a felon orders a firearm from an out of state store and has it shipped across state lines, maybe then i’d concede interstate commerce was affected. Ugh, nothing infuriates me more.

  • Social comments and analytics for this post…

    This post was mentioned on Twitter by DrugWarRant: What feds might end up doing to fight back against states legalizing pot. http://zwg5r.th8.us

  • DdC

    The I.O.M. report was a compilation of previous reports with more than enough evidence to reschedule cannabis from its bogus #1 status. The IOM report was forwarded to the HHS dept. while Shalala was in charge. She trashed it. Then Tommy Thompson left it on the shelf. Where it remains. They have no intention of removing something keeping competition out and profits perpetuating prohibition coming in. Hey, maybe that’s why they call it Fascism?

    D.E.A. Confirms Grounds To Remove Marijuana From Sched#1 10/14/01

    Drug Czar Manipulating Data in a Report to Congress 10/14/01

    Hemp, Hemp, Hooray? No Way, Says DEA

    The Drug War Gravy Train By Daniel Forbes

    “Arbitrary and capricious” is legal language that was used by DEA Administrative Law Judge Francis Young in 1988 to conclude that DEA was obligated under the Controlled Substances Act to reschedule marijuana as a prescription medicine. DEA Chief Administrator Robert Bonner proceeded to arbitrarily and capriciously disregard Judge Young’s well researched and reasoned decision, which the Act allowed him to do.

    The Effect of Controlled Substances Scheduling on Research 10/11/01

    DEA Judge Young (USA), after careful consideration of many testimonials and reports, concluded that cannabis is less dangerous than most of the vegetables that we eat today. Everything can be dangerous – in water one can drown, in air fires can spread rapidly, excessive sunshine burns, excessive food bloats, sporting and leisure activities are often dangerous. THE GREATEST DANGERS OF CANNABIS ARE THE DANGERS OF ARREST, OF LACK OF QUALITY CONTROL, AND OF THE SUPPLY BEING MIXED WITH THAT OF DRUGS.

  • claygooding

    I wonder if another petition for removal from schedul1 would have a better chance with all the new states that are using marijuana as a medicine?

  • ezrydn

    After last week, Obama wouldn’t seem to have a lot of support from the Johnny and the Supremes. As we saw, his backhanded comment (something he’s known for) drew a response from “the Bench.”

  • Just me

    BruceM
    February 1st, 2010 at 12:54 pm

    I have to agree, we would be better off without,or at the very least, a strictly controlled central government.

    If people look very close , if it werent for our cenral government, the people and the states would have much more resources(money) to take care of our selves. We dont need them to take our money then use it as they see fit for us(or themselves). Who better to decide what our state needs or for that matter our families need.

    Also fraud, greed/corruption is all our central government knows now. we dont need that. Im not saying state government doesnt have these things but it is much easier for the people to watch state government than it is to watch federal government.

    There are many fighting to see this collapse happen. Not to ruin our way of life , but to bring it back to its roots of liberty for free people. I for one am for a very small central government ,for defense and alike, but very controlled to keep from whats happening now from ever happening again.

  • BruceM

    Just Me: I think we can sum it up by simply saying that it’s better to be screwed, abused, violated, and fleeced by one government rather than two.

  • Just me

    BruceM
    February 1st, 2010 at 2:13 pm

    What I ,as a regular guy, see these days is government using, bending or making law suit their agendas to keep their power supreme and keep their boot on our necks.

    I see the Constitution as a static document, not a living thing to be changed. If you see it as a thing to be changed, then theres no reason to have it. Our founding fathers made it to try keep people free from tyranny. Many in government see this a an obsticle to their agenda therefore try make it seen as such, a living thing to be changed.

    I say no. If they say this is so then all laws could be twisted to fit OUR daily life as living documents but, you dont see this, they would lose control again. They want it all thier way for their power.

    Central government needs to be controlled like that of a pitbull on a leash. Dangerous to any crimnial or neighbor that would violate our borders but strictly under our(states) control. Right now it is off its leash and threating all around it.

  • Just me

    LOL…now to mention the dog(our government) has had puppies and they are outof control too.

  • Just me

    BruceM
    February 2nd, 2010 at 12:49 am

    In short yes. It is also easier to fight one srewing government than two.

  • […] What feds might do to counter states legalizing pot You end up punishing people for non-existent offenses, and create a perverse system of incentives. For example, if someone smoked pot yesterday and wants to drive today, from a legal perspective they might as well toke up right before driving. Either way, if caught, it’s considered drugged driving. The people most likely to be deterred by “per se” standards are those who would have been responsible anyway. It’s touted as a way to increase driving safety, but it does no such thing. […]

  • BruceM

    I agree the constitution is not meant to be constantly reinterpreted to suit the whims of the now. I do believe some sections of the constitution, like what “cruel and unusual punishment” means, were meant to change by the times, though, as it’s inherently subjective and undefined. It’s a tough distinction sometimes. But “interstate commerce” only means one thing, and that meaning does not change over time.

    I see the biggest problem as the rich being able to buy laws to harm their competition. Happens all the time. Big companies can afford to buy legislation that basically outlaws their competition (you know, for the children). How did healthcare insurance ever get an exemption from antitrust laws? They bought it.

    We could solve the entire healthcare crisis right now by merely making the helathcare companies subject to the antitrust/anti-collusion/anti-price-setting laws like all other companies. Then they’d actually have to compete against each other with better rates, better coverage, and less wrongful denial of coverage. They should be paying out 90 cents on the dollar, not keeping 90 cents on the dollar (and they’d still make a profit).

    We could fix the entire healthcare problem with a one-sentence statute.

    It’s things like that which show how corrupt the government is. And it’s become anti-capitalistic. I think it would be a lot harder if big companies had to buy of 50 legislatures instead of only one, and state legislatures would inherently favor in-state companies who can keep paying them off on a closer, more frequent basis. So I wouldn’t imagine too many companies would be able to buy 50 laws that outlaw their competition, or otherwise give them an unfair, uncompetitive advantage.

    Cracks me up when we (especially Republicans) say they are capitalists. They HATE capitalism. It means they have to compete. The illusion of capitalism is far more preferable to them.

  • hey zag you should send me that plans too! message them to me on okvw

  • This posting is right to the point.

    I’ll be stopping back to check outmore in the future.

  • Xbox Kinect has more distinctive technology using the controller-free Kinect, so that it is all the more frustrating that Microsoft’s own games felt more derivative than the third-party Dance Central. Even worse , the most awe-inspiring Kinect game introduced this week, Child of Eden, wasn’t playable, and contains no release date announced.