The federal government cannot legalize marijuana (updated)

… but what it can do is get out of the way and let the states experiment if they choose.

But the entire federal government with its President and all his federal agencies and armed forces, along with the entire House of Representatives and Senate, even if they all worked together for the first time in history to use all the power at their command… they could not legalize marijuana.

And yet, I continue to hear people call HR 2306 (Barney Frank’s bill: the Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2011) a bill that would legalize marijuana. Even people in Congress. (After the jump I’ve included the rather convoluted letter I got from my Representative Adam Kinzinger.)

So people like my Representative say they’re opposed to HR 2306 because they oppose legalization. But that’s not true, since HR 2306 cannot, by itself, legalize marijuana.

What these people actually oppose is the ability of free citizens in other places to use their Constitutional power to have their state government reflect their interests.

I wrote a letter to my Congressmen (You can read it here) supporting HR 2306. In the letter, I specifically noted that HR 2306 does not legalize marijuana.

The first letter I’ve gotten back was from small-government Republican Adam Kinzinger.

I’m not sure why he felt the need to address HR 2943 or Prop 19…

Note the bizarre dance he does around the Commerce Clause and the Controlled Substances Act in the fourth paragraph (he almost seems unaware that he wants it both ways at once).

Thank you for taking the time to contact me to share your views on the legalization of marijuana. By hearing your thoughts and concerns on the issues, I am better able to represent you in Congress.

On June 18, 2009, Congressman Barney Frank (MA) introduced the
Personal Use of Marijuana by Responsible Adults Act of 2009 (H.R. 2943) to prohibit the imposition of any penalty under an Act of Congress for the possession of marijuana for personal use as well as the transfer of marijuana between adults so long as the transfer is not for profit. Under H.R. 2943, possession of 100 grams or less of marijuana would be deemed as personal use. This bill did not reach the House floor for a vote in the 111th Congress.

Congressman Frank introduced similar legislation, the Ending
Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2011 (H.R. 2306), on June 23, 2011 to limit the application of federal laws to the distribution and consumption of marijuana and permit states to develop their own regulations of marijuana. This bill was referred to the House Judiciary Committee and House Energy and Commerce Committee where it awaits further review.

Currently, a number of states have legalized the use of marijuana for medical purposes. Most recently, in November 2010, the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010 (Proposition 19) to legalize the personal use and possession of marijuana was put on the California statewide ballot. California voters, however, rejected this measure. If Proposition 19 had passed, the sale of marijuana would have remained illegal under the Controlled Substances Act and Congress would still have had the power to regulate and criminalize intrastate cannabis production under the Commerce Clause in the U.S. Constitution. As your representative, I understand and welcome reasonable, civil debate on this serious issue. However, I do not support the legalization of marijuana.

To function as the founders intended, our republic requires the active participation of informed voters. As your elected representative, I respect and value your feedback on the legalization of marijuana regardless of whether we agree or disagree. As a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, please be assured that I will keep your views in mind as my colleagues and I consider H.R. 2306 and similar marijuana-related legislation in the 112th Congress.

Update: I feel that I need to clarify the post – this is a bit of a rant about federal Congressional Representatives opposing HR 2306 because they’re opposed to legalization. And passing HR 2306 wouldn’t, by itself, legalize. The states would still have all their laws.

I’m not saying that it’s pointless for the federal government to eliminate their prohibition; on the contrary, it’s essential for that to happen in order for states to legalize without fear of federal interference.

Yes, I supposed there are ways that the federal government could force the states to legalize marijuana, so my hyperbole was a bit over the top, but that wasn’t the real point I was making.

The point still stands that HR 2306 does not legalize marijuana (but is important toward legalizing marijuana).

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

47 Responses to The federal government cannot legalize marijuana (updated)

  1. Gary Floyd says:

    That is the same cookie cutter response I get from most of my reps (the ones that do respond). They dont see that if we dont get a response on this what else is going on that the elite are out of touch with.

    • Windy says:

      I get the same kinds of responses from my so-called representatives in congress. Here is the latest example from one of my Senators:

      Thank you for contacting me regarding the federal regulation of marijuana. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.

      As you may know, the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) of 1970 restricts the production of all varieties of Cannabis sativa. Under the federal system of government the Controlled Substances Act is not pre-empted by state medical marijuana laws; similarly, state medical marijuana laws are not pre-empted by the Controlled Substances Act. States can statutorily create a medical use exception for botanical cannabis and its derivatives under their own, state-level controlled substance laws. At the same time, federal agents can investigate, arrest, and prosecute medical marijuana patients, caregivers, and providers in accordance with the federal Controlled Substances Act. President Obama has indicated that he does not support the use of limited federal resources to investigate and prosecute medical marijuana users who are in compliance with their applicable state laws.

      In 1998, Washington State voters approved a ballot initiative legalizing the personal use of marijuana for certain medical patients. These are patients who meet all qualifying criteria, possess no more marijuana than is necessary for their own personal medical use (but no more than a 60-day supply), and present valid documentation to investigating law enforcement officers. A bill concerning the medical use of cannabis (SB 5073) was passed in the Washington State legislature on April 22, 2011. On April 29, 2011, Governor Gregoire partially vetoed the legislation, striking several provisions that would have licensed and regulated medical marijuana dispensaries and established a patient registry.

      For more information on Washington State laws that govern medical marijuana, I recommend that you contact your state representative or state senator by calling the Washington State Legislative Hotline at 800-562-6000 or through the legislature’s website at

      As you may know, Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) introduced the Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2011, in the House of Representatives on June 23, 2011. This legislation was referred to numerous House Committees and is awaiting further consideration. If enacted, this bill would limit the application of federal laws concerning the distribution and consumption of marijuana. At this time, this legislation does not have a companion bill in the U.S. Senate. I will be sure to keep your thoughts in mind if I have the opportunity to consider this or similar legislation in the Senate.

      Thank you again for contacting me to share your thoughts on this matter. You may also be interested in signing up for periodic updates for Washington State residents. If you are interested in subscribing to this update, please visit my website at Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of further assistance.

      Maria Cantwell
      United States Senator

      I received this exact response on both 8/11 and 8/22 due to 2 completely different emails I sent to all 3 members of congress concerning this subject, the other two didn’t respond at all.

      • Bailey says:

        Cantwell is up for re-election. I’d love to be one of Washington voters to says if she won’t support states rights, she won’t get my vote. Anyone else in Washington State agree?

        • Windy says:

          Yeah, ME! Actually, I wouldn’t ever vote for her, even if she did support the 10th Amendment. Neither would I ever vote for Murray or Larsen. If there are no libertarians on the ballot, I leave those races unvoted.

      • Windy says:

        Received this one yesterday, it is actually different, but only partly:

        Thank you for contacting me regarding the United States policy and laws regarding illegal drugs. I appreciate hearing from you on this matter.

        I believe that it is essential to provide individuals with educational information about the ramifications of drug use and abuse. In fiscal year 2009, the government spent $14.1 billion dollars on the Office of National Drug Control Policy, which works with government agencies to increase awareness of drug abuse around the country.

        You may be aware that Washington State, like many other states, is experiencing serious problems related to illegal drug trafficking and tremendous growth in use of Methamphetamines. Our approach to these problems must be multi-faceted and include stronger federal criminal laws relating to drug trafficking, increased assistance to local law enforcement, and expanded prevention initiatives such as drug and mental health courts, drug testing, and treatment. I agree that we need to focus on developing and implementing drug treatment alternatives to prison programs for non-violent offenders and juveniles, as well as expanded drug abuse education and prevention efforts in our schools and communities.

        It may also interest you to know that the Senate recently passed the Saving Kids From Dangerous Drugs Act of 2010 and the Combat Methamphetamine Enhancement Act of 2009, both of which I supported which will work toward not only strengthening our existing drug laws but also increasing education and prevention as a means to combat the drug epidemic in our country. Both of these bills are currently pending before the House of Representatives.

        During my tenure in the United States Senate, I have supported a balanced approach of strong enforcement and punishment measures combined with expanded opportunities for treatment, education, and rehabilitation. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to continue this work for the people of the State of Washington.

        Thank you again for contacting me to share your thoughts on this matter. You may also be interested in signing up for periodic updates for Washington State residents. If you are interested in subscribing to this update, please visit my website at Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of further assistance.

        Maria Cantwell
        United States Senator

        She’s actually proud of the 2009 and 2010 drug laws passed by the Senate. Time to rid our State of this statist “drug worrier” who’s more concerned with the money she receives from the Big Pharma and other anti-legalization industries than with the freedom of her constituents.

        • Bailey says:

          “In fiscal year 2009, the government spent $14.1 billion dollars on the Office of National Drug Control Policy, which works with government agencies to increase awareness of drug abuse around the country.” Sen. Cantwell is very confused about drug policy.

          I live in Olympia, I’d be happy to pen some letters to the local papers, and friends, reminding them that elected officials should understand the issues their legislating. Drop me an e-mail if you agree, “mbaileyh @ gmail .com”

    • Christy says:

      Republican Presidential Candidate Rick Perry on California’s Prop. 19:

      “It ought not be the federal government’s job telling them they can’t do it,” Perry said in that November interview. “I totally and completely disagree with the concept of legalizing marijuana, but it ought to be California’s decision.”

  2. divadab says:

    Notice how the gutless wonders in Congress always say “I do not support the legalization if marijuana”. This is what our “representative” said when asked. When further asked for reasons, he provided none. NONE! Just like President gutless.

    They don’t need to give no stinking reasons to us little people. And when they do give reasons, they are all lies.

    Don’t these idiots realize they are perpetuating and increasing utter disrespect for government as unjust, corrupt, and in contravention of its highest law, the Constitution? And are furthering a prohibition regime which would have put most of the Founders in jail for growing hemp? (not to mention seizing their farms, shooting their dogs, humiliating their wives in front of their families, placing their children with paid strangers, and locking them up for more time than killers).

    The institutional corruption of this sclerotic regime of profiteers, mercenaries, and hirelings is sinking the country.

    • TINMA says:

      What really astonishes me is the fact that these politicians say they dont support legalization in response to the emails we send, when in fact…it doesnt matter what they support or dont support…its not supposed to be their choice….its our wishes they are supposed to be serving.

      They are there to do the will of the people. To not support the will of the people means we have no say in government at all and they are not there on our behalf.

      Most people miss these facts. Everytime I see a response like this on any issue, its more proof to me that our governmenmt IS lawless and IS NOT interested in what the people want done.

  3. dt says:

    Who says it’s not even theoretically possible for the federal government to preempt state drug laws and mandate legalization? They might be able to do it under the Commerce Clause. Still, it’s a good point that none of the current bills would do that. Just devolve the power to the states and let us have our laboratory.

    It’s terrible how the representative just gives a conclusory statement that he doesn’t support legalization and doesn’t even try to explain it. Everything else he wrote is just filler. What an ass…

    • darkcycle says:

      It’s still against the law in all fifty, dt. Even if congress were to nullify all federal drug laws, it wouldn’t change State laws.

      • Duncan20903 says:

        The POTUS has the power to pardon anyone convicted of a State crime as well as Federal. The only way he could be stopped would be to be impeached and convicted. If Congress is in agreement that isn’t going to happen. I’m more likely to be named Mr. Universe but even that is within the realm of the possible.

        The reality is the States have far, far more power over the Feds than vice versa. No doubt less than in the years before the Civil War but that’s almost exclusively powers that were held by individual States. Collectively the various States own the Federal government.

      • dt says:

        Yeah it’s against the law in all fifty, but in theory the federal government could kick all those laws to the curb using the Commerce Clause and the Supremacy Clause. Declaring that there shall be a national cannabis industry would be a straightforward regulation of interstate commerce. Federal law is the supreme law of the land (Supremacy Clause), so contradictory state laws would be “preempted.” I’ll post a link to an article about this when I’m at my computer.

        Alternatively, if the Feds just deleted their cannabis laws rather than enacting a new law preempting the states, power to regulate cannabis would go to the states.

      • Windy says:

        No, it wouldn’t change State laws, but HALF the battle would be won, and half is better than none. Once the federal government is out of the way on this issue it will be up to the people in each State to get their legislature to legalize drugs, or do it themselves by citizen initiative. It’s a lot easier to change a State law than to change a federal law.

  4. Duncan20903 says:


    “To function as the founders intended, our republic requires that “the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.”

    ~ THOMAS JEFFERSON, letter to William Stephens Smith, November 13, 1787.—The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Julian P. Boyd, vol. 12, p. 356 (1955).

    Well, Thomas Jefferson said that, and IIRC he was one of the Founders, at least if Congressman Blowhard is actually referring to those 56 old white men in 1776 Philadelphia. For all we know The Founders could be the Congressman’s garage band or his favorite titty bar.

    Ironically, I’ll bet if you sent that TJ quote as a response to Congressman Blowhard that there would be a significant increase in the number of Federal agents who you’ve met face to face. You might even get the chance to meet a Federal Judge and a United States Attorney.

    “Plures efficimur quotiens metimur a vobis; semen est sanguis Christianorum.”*


    (*We multiply whenever we are mown down by you; the blood of Christians is seed.)

    • malc says:

      “To function as the founders intended, our republic requires that “the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.”

      ~ THOMAS JEFFERSON, letter to William Stephens Smith, November 13, 1787.—The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Julian P. Boyd, vol. 12, p. 356 (1955).

      Thanks Duncan; if you don’t mind, it’ll be appearing soon on a thread near you!

    • Pete says:

      Note: Even though Bartleby has it that way, I seriously doubt that Thomas Jefferson misused the spelling of “its” and put an apostrophe in there that doesn’t belong.

      • OfficialSpellCheck says:

        “Every dog has its day therefor the jury has reached its decision.”

      • Duncan20903 says:

        You are a flippin’ English teacher, aren’t you? 😀 I didn’t even notice that mistake. It was just the first link to come up when I Googled the quote. Copy, paste, done.

        I do believe that you are almost certainly correct considering that Mr. J is in the elite 1% of people with regard to mastery of the English language and I guess it really wasn’t possible for Mr. J to make a typo. Bartleby isn’t alone, there are a lot of places reproducing the quote like that, not that that proves anything except that copy & paste is a popular function.

        Malcolm it gives me a warm fuzzy whenever someone thinks any of my stuff is worth repeating, even stuff that I’m repeating. A few months ago I actually found a few paragraphs that I had written pulled out of context and posted by some asshole sitting on the other side of the table and it still gave me a warm fuzzy that he picked my blatherings to steal to make his point.

        When I’m writing about prohibition I specifically disclaim any possible personal copyright protections and assign any such protections should they exist to the public domain for use. Of course this quote was a long time in the public domain before I first copied and pasted it.

        But please do redact that apostrophe. I agree with Pete that it’s very unlikely that TJ included it when he wrote the sentence back in 1787. I am kind of shocked that you hadn’t heard that line before.

        • Pete says:

          No, I’m not an English teacher, but part of my job is to proof all College publications and posters, so I have a real eye for mistakes (at least in other people’s work). One of my pet peeves is the misuse of homophones (its/it’s, you’re/your, they’re/there/their, too/to/two, ad/add, Columbia/Colombia etc.) particularly in this day where spell-check makes it easy to be lazy about learning spelling (and spell-check won’t catch those errors).

          It’s also why I appreciate it when people point out accidental spelling errors in my posts when I make them, so I can get them fixed.

          I try to suppress my proofing efforts when reading comments (except when it’s Thomas Jefferson doing the commenting).

        • darkcycle says:

          Pete, you and my wife would get along just fine. She’s a TEACHER of English teachers! She has a tattoo of a red pencil with the words “Spell good or Die” on her hip.

    • TINMA says:

      LOL , we argue and apostrophe in the face of what what we know to be right.

      Government just loves to twist words to mean what they want even though we all know what the true meaning is.

      Its like when Clinton argued what the definition of the word ‘is’ is, even in the face of the truth.Its all bullshit.

      • Duncan20903 says:

        Ah, but the crux of the biscuit is the apostrophe…

        The Crux of the Biscuit is the Apostrophe

        by Kurt – Son of the ROXY
        Mar 8, 2010 05:47 AM

        …the particular passage which is being referred to happens on the the end of ‘stinkfoot’, and takes place in the context of a man having a conversation with his dog.

        the dog asks the man, what is his conceptual continuity.

        so the dog is posing a philosophical question to the man about what the man thinks the nature of reality is, or at least his understanding of it.

        the dog is basically asking, what is reality?

        well, what is an apostrophe?

        an apostrophe is a symbol. its an idea. and what is anything else for that matter? what am i to you, but an idea within your mind.

        and so, the apostrophe, being a symbol of defined purpose but undefined potential, becomes a more accurate symbol to represent whatever we currently call ‘reality’.

        basically saying that the crux of the ‘biscuit’, i.e. reality itself, is more accurately represented by a symbol such as an ‘apostrophe’.

        meaning… words are limited, language is limited…

        ideas and concepts are limitless…

        the apostrophe is a symbol that represents something that is not clearly defined.

        i mean, if you find an apostrophe inside of a word, you know that it means ‘symbol for conjoining two words together’ or ‘symbol to represent plurality, or ownership’… and that makes well enough sense.

        but say you have an apostrophe out on the page by itself… what does it mean then?

        it is a vague symbol that can mean anything…and it does.

        being able to move beyond that and see, that what binds reality together is something that goes beyond conventional comprehension.

        just try to imagine what an apostrophe means by itself. —-> ‘ <—-

        (an apostrophe, out of context)

        basically, the apostrophe by itself goes beyond logic. it still means SOMETHING, but without context, it is impossible to define.

        it is only within the CONTEXT of language can the purpose of the apostrophe be understood and decoded.

        the way we observe things and learn about reality is by looking at context. our understanding of everything is based on the context in which it is being observed.

        basically, an apostrophe is dependent upon context to be understood… but an apostrophe is not dependent upon context to EXIST.

        and reality is the same way… reality is dependant upon context in order to be understood, but it is not dependent upon context in order to EXIST.

        and so, in this way, the apostrophe is an accurate symbol for whatever we might call this existence…

        …and so, the crux of the biscuit is the apostrophe.

        …and now it’s time to quietly contemplate our navels.

  5. Francis says:

    True, Congress lacks the constitutional authority to make marijuana legal nationwide. Of course, a lack of constitutional authority didn’t stop them from making marijuana ILLEGAL nationwide. (OTOH, I wouldn’t mind seeing the Supreme Court take this opportunity to breathe some life back into the 9th Amendment… A boy can dream, can’t he?)

    • Francis says:

      Cannabis is significantly safer than and causes far less societal harm than alcohol, a substance responsible for X billion dollars in annual costs. Accordingly, Congress find that making cannabis available nationwide as a safer legal alternative to alcohol would have a substantial positive effect on (wait for it) … “interstate commerce.” Problem solved!

      • dt says:

        Exactly, but the connection to interstate commerce wouldn’t be a stretch. All they need to say is something like “Congress finds that the creation of a legal cannabis industry would benefit interstate commerce.” Under the Supremacy Clause that kind of bill would preempt the state prohibitions, legalizing marijuana nationally. 

        Although the federal government can do that, it’s beyond the window of political possibilities right now. Just getting the Feds to butt out would be a big accomplishment.

  6. Duncan20903 says:

    It’s amazing how much mileage that the Know Nothings are getting from Prop 19 over that 3.5% loss. I recall telling people this very thing would happen if they opposed Prop 19 but it’s actually much worse than I thought it would be. I’d still like to know what happened to the million bucks Mr. Soros kicked in with less than a week before the ballot. IIRC at the time Mr. Lee said that there wasn’t enough time to spend it effectively so most would be rolled over and used for the 2012 campaign. Perhaps I’m recalling that incorrectly.

    Dear Ann Landers,

    I was so mad at Richard Lee the other day that I was spitting nails. But after getting the emotions beaten down and subdued I’ve decided that Ockham’s Razor requires that the reason for his abandoning re-legalization of cannabis is because of something to which we’re not privy.

    It’s beyond absurd to declare that the the effort to re-legalize cannabis in California has stalled out because fundraising hasn’t been there a little under 14 months prior to Election Day. For god’s sake Ann, since when don’t us potheads leave things until the last minute?

    That means either the DoJ, the IRS, or possibly the Tie-Dye mob has made it clear to Mr. Lee that he needs to keep his hands off the idea. While it could be Mr. Lee is simply declining to compete with the other proposed ballot initiatives in order to not split the vote that idea just doesn’t work for me because of the absurdity of declaring re-legalization dead in California.

    Do you think I need to worry that I’m turning into a conspiracy nutcake? I really am starting to worry that I need a check up from the neck up. Christ, I’m sitting here writing a letter to a dead woman. I must have gone over the edge without realizing.



    • Paul Armentano says:


      My recollection is that the last-minute Soros funding technically went to DPA, a Prop. 19 coalition partner, to be used for the campaign. It did not directly to the campaign itself or Rich Lee. I know that much of this funding was used to purchase wrap-around advertising in the Los Angeles Times, which was a very expensive buy. Keep in mind this is my recollection as one who worked on this effort, but I certainly have no first-hand knowledge of the specific financing.

  7. darkcycle says:

    Richard lee has been run into the ground by detractors from both sides over Prop 19. I wouldn’t blame him for washing his hands of the entire effort. BTW, I’ve met Richard and spoken with him. I simply do not believe that there was any subterfuge in drafting or writing Prop. 19. They wrote the bill they thought could meet these needs: It needed to be fair and at the same time, appeal to the non-cannabis consuming community. It also had to be written so it not only would pass, but stand up to the legal requirements and survive any court challenge.
    In any attempt at an initiative, we need to realize that every body’s wants will NOT be met. That isn’t what we’re trying to do here, we’re trying to meet the NEEDS. Everybody is going to find something they don’t like…we need to keep the goal foremost.
    Mr. Lee clearly does NOT need that Million from Soros. Mr. Lee’s needs are met, he’s very well off.

    • Duncan20903 says:

      Prop 19 may not have not had the best choice of language in some places but I thought they did an excellent job hitting everything that needed hitting. Hindsight tells me they should have included specific language denying any modification of the CUA but it wasn’t until I saw the criticism of the ding dongs who believed that it did or could have been interpreted to do so. California’s Constitutional protection of citizen initiated ballot laws is so strong and unambiguous there’s just no way that such an interpretation would have won the day in any California Appeals Court without language specifically stating that the new initiative was in fact intended to modify the previous ballot initiative. In other States perhaps such a risk would be arguable. California is the only State that makes ballot initiatives so sacrosanct and the judiciary is amazingly respectful of the State’s laws. I swear I’ve never read an opinion from a California Appellate Court that tried to stretch the opinion of the Justices into fraudulently interpreting a law to what they wanted, not what the law says.

      Now California isn’t totally pristine. As AG, Jerry Brown sure read the words in the Medical Marijuana Program Act that the legislature must have written in invisible ink before issuing the nonsense opinion that the MMP requires dispensaries to organize as non profits. Only an adherent of the Humpty Dumpty School of Sophistry could claim that the language in the MMP implemented that restriction. “Nothing in this bill authorizes people to make a profit” is not identical in meaning to “this bill forbids people to make a profit from transfers of cannabis for consideration.” That line merely preserved the legislatures right to impose such a restriction in the future without seeing the issue litigated to death based on the assertion that the MMP did in fact authorize people to make a profit.

      (hmm, maybe this like/dislike thing is going to be more interesting than I had thought possible)

      • Windy says:

        In WA the legislature may alter a citizen initiative two years after it has been passed by a vote of the people. They have only refrained from doing so with one single initiative in my adult life, the one that legalized abortion in WA back in 1970 or 71 (which passed with an overwhelming majority, IIRC). But every one since has been turned over or altered by the legislature in ways that do not benefit the people’s desires, especially concerning the ones dealing with reduction of taxes and fees.

    • Duncan20903 says:

      When people argue that all Mr. Lee was interested was making money I pointed out that win, lose, or draw Mr. Lee would wake up a wealthy man the day after Election Day 2010.

      He really does drive me nuts with that basic, patient propelled wheelchair. The man certainly could afford a designer electric powered set of wheels all tricked out, hydraulics, spinning rims, climate control, sound system, infrared proximity detector etc.

  8. JDV says:

    “Congress would still have had the power to regulate and criminalize intrastate cannabis production under the Commerce Clause in the U.S. Constitution.”

    And the supreme court has ruled that production which is neither commercial nor interstate can be prohibited as interstate commerce. Insane.

  9. Josh says:

    Why does Pete Guither want to end the war on drugs

  10. Josh says:

    Someone please reply quickly. Im writing something for school and had question about motivates the author so I want to know why he write what he writes.

    • Pete says:

      Josh, I want to end the war on drugs because I believe it to be destructive to our society. The violence caused by the war on drugs seriously disturbs me and I worry about all the good people having their lives ruined through arrest, prison, and enforcement intimidation. I’m also a patriotic American who believes strongly in the founding principles expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. The war on drugs perverts these important and fundamental rights and unbalances the critical power relationship between the government and the people.

      These are some of the reasons I want to end the war on drugs, and the more I study the subject, the more important it becomes to me.

    • darkcycle says:

      Josh, I want to end the War on Drugs for the same reasons but I would add that the prohibition of drugs is at it’s heart a racist policy that disproportionally affects the poor and people of color. Also, I firmly believe that addiction is an illness, and that no illness of any sort was ever cured, or even helped by throwing the sick person in jail. I believe the prohibition of drugs is the major driver of the Black Market and because of that, is the major source of income for organized crime and therefore a major driver of violent crime in our society. I believe that police enforcement of the drug laws in this country does not reduce the violence associated with the Black Market, it adds to it. I believe in the fundamental right of a human being to consume what ever he wants, as long as he harms no one. And in the right of patients to choose the medicine that works for them, and not have safe compounds denied to the public merely because the pharmaceutical companies can’t profit from them. And there’s more…so much more. I have a son, and I don’t want his future permanently ruined because he got unlucky and got busted. Aw jeez..I’ll stop now.

    • thelbert says:

      to promote the general welfare is one of the main goals of the constitution. i think we could use a little general welfare right now. ending the wasteful war on drug users would benefit mankind in ways we can’t imagine.

    • Duncan20903 says:


      Josh, here’s an example of something some people will do to others for money, and specific crimes that are easier to get away with in an environment of prohibition vs an environment of market regulation:

      Kalispell [Montana] man gets 100 years for role in murder of medical marijuana patient

      Some people who dont know any better will argue that this murder was caused by the State’s medicinal cannabis patient protection law. While they may be correct about this *specific incident* it’s hardly likely that the perpetrator of this act would have been an altar boy signing in the church choir on Sunday and helping diminutive elderly women negotiate busy traffic intersections had Montana never passed it’s medicinal cannabis patient protection law. He may well have gotten away with similar crimes scot free had the victims grow not been legal. It doesn’t appear that anyone who knew this victim called the police but in many convictions for this sort of crime in states with similar medicinal cannabis patient protection laws some pretty vicious predators have been sent to prison because others involved with the grow weren’t worrying about finding themselves guests at The Greybar for reporting the crime.

      It can hardly be argued that society is better off making it easier for such people to commit such crimes.

  11. Christy says:

    As they say the Lord works in mysterious ways. He may not be the best friend of the ACLU but ironically our savoir may be in Prez Candidate Rick Perry. In is book Fed Up! he agrees that states should be allowed to legalize marijuana if that’s what they want. I wish someone like Ron Paul would ask Perry during a debate if he would support HR 2306.

  12. claygooding says:

    Welcome to the couch Josh,,,hope you find something to write it about but part of your answer is that 99% of the sitters on this couch are anti-WoD,,that’s why we are here..

    We come here to learn,blow off steam and stir up shit.

  13. Pingback: Federal Government

  14. Gary Floyd says:

    As a retired solider and county sheriff’s deputey, I have seen first hand the destruction of socsities and personal freedoms. Now that the police departments have tthe right to search your home home without a warrant if they (sic. officers, thugs) so decide because you might be hiding evidence. We have laws that contridicte each other. We have lawyers making law (i.e. memos that magically becaome law or make things legal). Ihave also seen whole villages destroyed in other countries for the sake of laws in our own. I took an oath and in that oath I remember something about defending this country against all enemies forgein and domestic. Fighting a war doesn’t always mean you have to use violence on your enemy. I fight by informing people, trying to change assinine laws, always ask the first base question of any new canididate or law. One day the hippies maybe right and the whole of hummanity will get along until then we all need to take a toke eat some cheetos and use the bombs of war for something other than blowing the hell out of a plant because they can’t see the profit margain yet.

  15. Duncan20903 says:

    Mr. Bush the lesser also said he supported State’s rights on the issue of medicinal cannabis, but we found the Federal government vigorously pursuing the Oakland Cannabis Buyer’s Cooperative in front of the SCOTUS in 2001. Yes, Mr. Clinton’s administration filed the initial civil suit which led to that case being heard by the SCOTUS. He certainly could have ordered the appeal dropped and let California manage it’s own affairs.

    Recently I was pondering the Michigan election laws because a dispensary owner offered in incentive of less than $10 for her patients to register to vote. Someone proffered the asserted that politicians are forever promising things of value if people will vote from them on Election Day. I found that very amusing because the only thing that politicians give people to get them to vote in their favor is their word, and there’s nothing in the world more worthless than a promise from a politician. Well, at least one made to the general public. I assert that anyone with an IQ that exceeds the average room temperature would give due thought to moving out of the U.S. if Mr. Perry were elected POTUS.

    The greatest threat to American security is the rising national debt.” – Governor Gary Johnson

    When Governor Johnson left office in New Mexico due to term limits New Mecico had a surplus in excess of $1 billion. Governor Johnson is a vocal supporter of actually ending the war on some drugs and not only supports medicinal cannabis patient protection laws, he’s been a medicinal cannabis patient.

    Projected Deficit

    The Republican governor [Rick Perry] last week emphasized his opposition to increasing taxes and using reserve funds to balance the budget, in a meeting with about 70 House lawmakers. The state faces a projected deficit of $15 billion to $27 billion for the two-year spending cycle that begins in September.

    Mr. Perry talks the talk, but he doesn’t walk the walk. It’s much more accurate to say that he slithers the slither.

    Fool me once, shame on, shame on you. Fool me, you can’t get fooled again.

Comments are closed.