Drug WarRant

While I’m still waiting for a complete transcript of the Raich v. Ashcroft oral arguments and for Randy Barnett to give us his reaction to his experience, the AP has put out some excerpts, transcribed by Alderson Reporting Company (they do all the transcripts for the Supreme Court). They show that even the best minds lose command of the English language.

JUSTICE RUTH BADER GINSBURG: “There is, in this record, a showing that, for at least one of the two plaintiffs, there were some 30-odd drugs taken. None of them worked. This was the only one that would. . If there were to be a prosecution of any of the plaintiffs in this case, would there be any defense?”

CLEMENT: “Well, Justice Ginsburg, I think we would take the position, based on our reading of the (2001) Oakland Cannabis case – and, obviously, different justices on this court read the opinion differently and had different views on the extent to which the medical-necessity defense was foreclosed by that opinion – I would imagine the federal government, in that case, if it took the unlikely step of bringing the prosecution in the first place, would be arguing that, on the authority of Oakland Cannabis, the medical-necessity defense was not available.”

Sorry, Paul. Not a very good answer. But then again, it’s kind of tough to come right out and say “We want the sick lady to die.”
Here’s one where I’m assuming a Justice got tongue-tied (unless it was a terrible transcription job):

JUSTICE STEPHEN BREYER: “You know, he grows heroin, cocaine, tomatoes that are going to have genomes in them that could, at some point, lead to tomato children that will eventually affect Boston. You know, we can – oil that’s never, in fact, being used, but we want an inventory of it, federally. You know, I can multiply the examples. And you can, too. So you’re going to get around all those examples by saying what?”

BARNETT: “By saying that it’s all going to depend on the regulatory scheme.”

Attack of the tomato children in Boston? I’m amazed that Barnett was actually able to answer.

In addition to keeping up the posts here, I’ll be one of a select group of guest bloggers at The Agitator, Radley Balko’s outstanding blog. There will be some cross-posting as my job will be be covering the Drug War as I guest blog alongside Jim Henley, Jacob Grier and Joshua Clayborn.
Radley will drop in from time to time, but he’ll be working on some other projects for the next 4-6 weeks.
I’ve already gotten started there and it should be fun. Remember, I’m not cutting back at Drug WarRant, so continue to spend your time here, but drop by The Agitator too.

Well, you wouldn’t know it from the early press…
Gina Holland’s AP pieces
“Court Questions Possible Abuse of Pot Laws” and “Wary Court considers Medical Marijuana” along with AP’s “Justices Appear Hesitant To Endorse Medical Marijuana” would certainly lead you to believe that Barnett faced a serious problem and that Clement had a cake-walk.
Reuters came out with a piece that seemed to have sealed the deal:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Several U.S. Supreme Court justices expressed reservations on Monday about allowing medical marijuana for sick patients whose doctors have recommended they smoke it for pain.

The justices appeared sympathetic to the federal government’s argument that it has the power to prosecute or take other action against patients who use home-grown marijuana in states with laws allowing medical use.

Some of the pieces would mention a single question of a Justice (out of context and without the answer given) as indication of the Justice’s view, when the Supreme Court Justices often probe with their questioning to bring out important points.
Of course, reality was a bit more complex than that.
Huge thanks are due to Lawrence Sulom’s Legal Theory Blog for a complete recap and analysis.
Once you read that, you realize that there was a good discussion — that the Justices were not as stupid as the AP reports would lead you to believe — and that we’ve got a barn-burner of a case going on here.
I’m going to need to soak it in a little more, but I’m sure I’ll comment more on the specifics later.

Update: Another reaction to the arguments from Timothy Lynch of the Cato Institute, who co-authored an amicus brief, is available at the Ashcroft v. Raich Federalism Blog. It’s a little more pessimistic overall regarding the degree to which the Justices went after Barnett.
Further Update: Marty Lederman at SCOTUS blog has decided to predict a unanimous vote in favor of the federal government. (Since I earlier called unanimous the other direction, at least one of us is likely to be wrong.)

Of course, remember that today is simply the oral arguments for Raich v. Ashcroft. We won’t have the results probably until July.
Again, I’d love to hear from anybody who attends the arguments, and I’ll report more tonight.
Here are the two questions I hope will be asked of Acting Solicitor General Paul Clement by the Justices:

1. If Congress has the power to regulate this activity, doesn’t that mean it has the power to define any activity it wishes as being under federal jursidiction? Can you list any activities that it would not be able to control?
2. How can you say that wholly intrastate non-commercial use of medical marijuana substantially affects interstate commerce in drugs, while the possession of a gun in a school zone does not substantially affect interstate commerce in guns? Or do you suggest we overturn Lopez?

This is, in part, where this case hangs. The respondents have given the government several ways to affirm the 9th Circuit decision without even overturning Wickard. However, the government’s case is pretty weak in that there’s no real way to justify supporting the government’s position without making a radical change in Supreme Court case law regarding the commerce clause.

“I can see the day comin’ when even your home garden’s gonna be against the law.”
-Bob Dylan

Good article by Fred Gardner in the weekend edition of Counterpunch: Ashcroft v. Raich: Medical Marijuana and the Supremes
One important point that Fred caught — something I had noticed in my first reading of the government’s brief, but hadn’t commented on:

Among the feds’ arguments is one usually left unspoken: prohibition serves the interests of the pharmaceutical corporations. As expressed in the Solicitor General’s brief, “Excepting drug activity for personal use or free distribution from the sweep of the CSA would discourage the consumption of lawful controlled substances.” It would also undercut “the incentives for research and development into new legitimate drugs.” That’s as close as the government has come to acknowledging that wider cannabis use would jeopardize drug-company profits.

And that’s where the compelling government interest truly lies. (There’s no other logical reason to explain why the government has acted in such a bizarre manner regarding medical marijuana.)
Fred Gardner also explains the Rehnquist part of the equation (and he will not be at the oral arguments):

The absence of Chief Justice Rehnquist (undergoing treatments for cancer) works to Raich’s advantage. As a young lawyer in the Nixon White House, Rehnquist helped write the Controlled Substances Act. His questions during the OCBC [U.S. v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative] oral argument were overtly hostile. And he’s considered results-oriented (fight the war on drugs) rather than principled (curtail the overarching commerce clause). Of course Rehnquist could still read the transcript and vote on the Raich case, even if he’s too sick to attend the oral argument. He could even write an opinion (or have his law clerks do so)… If there’s a 4-4 tie, the opinion of the 9th Circuit stands, but doesn’t become binding authority on the rest of the country.

Update: By the way, if anyone’s actually going to be attending the oral arguments on Monday morning, I’d love to hear from you.

With Thanksgiving over, the Christmas shopping season is in full swing (of course it started some time ago much to my annoyance, with Christmas displays going up in stores in September!).
I thought I’d give you my own suggestion for Christmas presents: buy hemp. It’s a really good idea for a number of reasons.

Now it is true that hemp products can be a little more expensive than other products, but here’s a few reasons why it’s worth it:

• Hemp products are quality products (the food products are more nutritious, clothing products are more durable, body products are more healthy, etc.)
• Hemp products are good for the environment
• When you give hemp products, you have the chance to educate others on the value of industrial hemp while giving them something they’ll really like.
• Every time you buy hemp products you’re sticking it to the DEA, which has unsuccessfully attempted to block many of them.
• You are contributing to the development of a potentially huge industry that could help to shape the country’s views on the cannabis plant.

To find a physical store near you that sells hemp products, you can try the Industrial Hemp Products Retail Stores Directory.
Of course, you can always just Google hemp products, or hemp foods, or hemp clothing and get tons of options. If you want to make sure they’re a responsible company, you can check to see if they’re one of the Hemp Industry Association member sites.
And here are a few online stores to check out: [Note: I am not personally recommending any of these sites unless I mention that I’ve gotten their products. I’m just providing these as options to explore. Also note: Any companies that wish to send me samples of their product in exchange for a review on this site are welcome to do so.]

• Ruth’s Hemp Foods – I love their SoftHemp shelled hemp seeds, and their hemp bars are quite good. (This one I can specifically vouch for)
• Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps sells hemp soaps and food items, and even has a nifty Gift Basket for only $49.95.
• Beautiful hemp stationery and note sets from Bar Harbor Hemporium
• Lots of fun hemp products at Botanical Earth, including bandannas, beanie hats, toiletries bags, back scrubs, guitar straps, dog collars, body scrubs, flying disks, shopping bags and more.
• Hemp flour, Hemp Nutts, hemp coffee and more from Hemp Nutts
• Johnny Hempseed has some cool hemp sandals. More great sandals at Barefoot Cobbler.
• Hemp Candles at Way Out Wax
• Hemp Particle Board, plus twine, rope and more at Hemp Traders
• Great hats, bags, scarves and more at Hemp Sisters
• Hemp Dip — a healthy alternative to tobacco – useful for those trying to quit (leaves you with fresh breath and does not promote tooth or gum decay).
• Check out these beautiful patterned napkins in hemp/cotton from Tribal Fiber.
• Get your Hemp Balm, the hip trip for lips, along with massage oils and liniments at The Merry Hempsters.
• The skin care collection at The Hempest looks delightful.
• Get some hemp yarn or fabric from Golden Hemp and make your own clothes.
• There are some nice fashions at Sweet Grass Fibers and beautiful women’s clothes at Earth Speaks and Sativa Hemp Wear.
• Clothing, wallets, backpacks, hats, body care products and lots more are at Spirit Stream Trading Co.

There’s also hammocks
diapers, bread, jeans, salad dressings, paper, hemp animals (hempies), pillowcases, and more.
Why not have your Christmas shopping make a statement? You’ll feel better about it.

This is a repeat from last year, but I think worth repeating (and I’ve updated the information at the end).
So as you relax with your family and turkey today, take a moment to read:
A story for Thanksgiving (Isidro and Teresa Aviles).

I am so sick of drug warriors telling us that marijuana is not medicine, and that it’s dangerous because it hasn’t gone through a certain set of approval hoops, including FDA approval. This, despite the fact that marijuana has been used safely for thousands of years, by millions of people without a single recorded case of a fatal overdose, or any indications of connections to mortality. And it is this “danger” from which we wish to protect terminally ill patients. (“Yes, if you stop smoking marijuana, you may die in a couple of months. However, if you continue to smoke marijuana, in 30-40 years, you might have taken in enough carcinogens to give you another disease, although there’s no proof of that, and we can’t have that. So, we’re going to have you die now.)
And then I read this article in the Christian Science Monitor: How drug-approval woes crept up on FDA. The article tells how the FDA is influenced by the pharmaceutical companies, and some of the disasters that make it through because of the greed and commercial interest. An example: Vioxx made it through FDA approval for a while before it got yanked. In the meantime, it’s estimated that 139,000 people had heart attacks and strokes from taking it and 55,000 people may have died.
Pharmaceutical companies don’t want medical marijuana to succeed because they can’t make money off something you can grow in your back yard. Pharmaceutical companies want the FDA to fast-track their synthetic drugs because those are money trees.
And we’re the ones who pay. And die.

Loretta at the US Marijuana Party Blog is reporting a sophisticated Denial of Service internet attack on a number of Canadian cannabis and activist websites. She notes that the timing is suspect as it coincides with planning efforts for a protest of Bush’s visit to Ottawa in a few days.
Interesting.

Be sure to check out the investigative report over at Grits for Breakfast on a “Gypsy Cop” (Part 1 and Part 2). This series really highlights how out-of-control drug task forces are in terms of accountability.
A system that allows this kind of abuse not only harms the people, but it undermines the reputation of and respect for good, honest, law enforcement officers out there.