Concordia res Parvae Crescunt
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 28:29 — 26.1MB)
Paul Armentano, Deputy Director of NORML – the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws discusses the unconstitutional nature of the war on marijuana, the history of marijuana prohibition in the U.S., the commerce clause as a federal excuse to regulate and prohibit various activities, 13 states that are directly resisting unconstitutional federal laws, a rare 10th amendment victory in the Supreme Court, the growth of taxes on marijuana into outright federal control and prohibition, a state-level strategy to rein in the federal government, and his new book, Marijuana is Safer – So Why are We Driving People to Drink?
Mentioned in this Show:
Michael Boldin [send him email] is the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center. He was raised in Milwaukee, WI, and currently resides in Los Angeles, CA. Follow him on twitter - @michaelboldin, on LinkedIn, and on Facebook.
If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,
Testing:
Just wondering whether this comment format supports blockquotes. I've never tried it before at this forum. Let's see.
Michael wrote:
From my reading of the constitution, there are only 3 crimes mentioned - treason, piracy, and counterfeiting. That would preclude any federal involvement in drug issues even if someone were being harmed. It’s a state or personal issue, pure and simple.
Bryce wrote:
If a person does it in one’s own home, not harming another person, then why should that be any of the Fed’s business?
Hmmm. I'm not even sure that it should be the fed's business if someone else IS being harmed.
I don't see anything wrong with a state declaring a substance to be illegal within its own borders, and to prevent interstate trafficking of such substances. But simply declaring something to be illegal does not necessarily mean that state law enforcement is going to aggressively pursue private users. Some states still have anti-sodomy laws on the books, but they don't go after and raid the homes of known sodomites based on the existence of these laws.
In my state the so-called "war on drugs" isn't really used to go after pot smokers per se, it is utilized to go after hard core drug traffickers, people who make and distribute meth, etc. The average (casual) pot smoker is left to himself to do what he pleases in the privacy of his own home. But if he gets out on the public streets and highways while using, endangering the lives of the common citizenry, well now, that's a whole 'nother story.
Terry, you make a really important point with this:
"I’m not even sure that it should be the fed’s business if someone else IS being harmed. "
From my reading of the constitution, there are only 3 crimes mentioned - treason, piracy, and counterfeiting. That would preclude any federal involvement in drug issues even if someone were being harmed. It's a state or personal issue, pure and simple.
Michael wrote:
That’s for them to decide - on a state level, or locally. And that’s how the founders wanted it.
A brilliant system, in my opinion.
We most definitely agree on those two points; it is for the states or local communities to decide, and it is a brilliant system, albeit so simple it's almost stupid.
The reversal of the onus of proof in drug-possession cases is incompatible with the rule of law and is therefore unconstitutional in all jurisdictions.
More: http://is.gd/ccxry6 .
Read Nigro v. U.S.,276 U.S. 332 (1928) where the Supremes held,
"...In interpreting the Act, we must assume that it is a taxing measure, for otherwise it would be no law at all. If it is a mere act for the purpose of regulating and restraining the purchase of the opiate and other drugs, it is beyond the power of Congress, and must be regarded as invalid."
Nothing has occured to Article I of the Constitution since 1928 that would alter, increase, expand or further advance the power of Congress.
Guess not. Carry on.
Testing:
Just wondering whether this comment format supports blockquotes. I've never tried it before at this forum. Let's see.
Michael wrote:
From my reading of the constitution, there are only 3 crimes mentioned - treason, piracy, and counterfeiting. That would preclude any federal involvement in drug issues even if someone were being harmed. It’s a state or personal issue, pure and simple.
"From my reading of the constitution, there are only 3 crimes mentioned - treason, piracy, and counterfeiting"
why I can see some far reaching idiotic federal prosecutor try to make a case that Pot stolen from boat owner to boat owner is piracy?
Bryce wrote:
If a person does it in one’s own home, not harming another person, then why should that be any of the Fed’s business?
Hmmm. I'm not even sure that it should be the fed's business if someone else IS being harmed.
I don't see anything wrong with a state declaring a substance to be illegal within its own borders, and to prevent interstate trafficking of such substances. But simply declaring something to be illegal does not necessarily mean that state law enforcement is going to aggressively pursue private users. Some states still have anti-sodomy laws on the books, but they don't go after and raid the homes of known sodomites based on the existence of these laws.
In my state the so-called "war on drugs" isn't really used to go after pot smokers per se, it is utilized to go after hard core drug traffickers, people who make and distribute meth, etc. The average (casual) pot smoker is left to himself to do what he pleases in the privacy of his own home. But if he gets out on the public streets and highways while using, endangering the lives of the common citizenry, well now, that's a whole 'nother story.
Terry, you make a really important point with this:
"I’m not even sure that it should be the fed’s business if someone else IS being harmed. "
From my reading of the constitution, there are only 3 crimes mentioned - treason, piracy, and counterfeiting. That would preclude any federal involvement in drug issues even if someone were being harmed. It's a state or personal issue, pure and simple.
Don't be so sure that the police in your state are not using drug laws differently for urban minorities than for suburbanites, or just peope they don't like. That is what is happening in New York State. In the state at large personal possession of a small amount is a minor infraction, but in New York City the police are using a law that says that cannabis in public view is a misdemeanor. What they do is they tell some poor black kid to empty his pockets. The kid doesn't know he can refuse. Once the baggie of cannabis is displayed "in public view" they are arrested on a misdemeanor charge. As long as these laws are on the books, we are all vunerable. You also have to consider that personal users have to get their cannabis from somewhere. It is really unequal justice to leave the people who create the demand alone, while going after the people who provide the supply. After all, if it were legal, they would be no different than the licquor store owner (trafficker) or shop that sells tobacco products (pusher). Decriminalization, whether actual or de facto does nothing to reduce the violence or diversion of money to gangs from cannabis sales.
Laws on Marijuana should be put on the same level as fireworks, Some prohibit, some allow. But allow local governments to choose what direction they want to go.
Research needs to be done on the percentage of federal funding that States receive to pursue pot growers in the name of "the war on drugs" and it needs to be cut off.
I'm with you there, Jeff. If a person does it in one's own home, not harming another person, then why should that be any of the Fed's business?
It shouldn't, if you read the constitution.
"... it is for the states or local communities to decide."
Yeah, the more local it gets, the better. It seems to me that in many cases, it should go as local as one's own home. I see little need for government, however small or localized, to interfere with one's activities conducted in one's home.
Michael wrote:
That’s for them to decide - on a state level, or locally. And that’s how the founders wanted it.
A brilliant system, in my opinion.
We most definitely agree on those two points; it is for the states or local communities to decide, and it is a brilliant system, albeit so simple it's almost stupid.
I agree that the federal government has no business (not to mention no constitutional authority for) "regulating" marijuana. On the other hand I think it's a really tough sell, this idea that marijuana is safe to use and ought to be legalized. The only people who are ever going to believe that are people already predisposed to believe it.
Something was mentioned in the interview about marijuana being a 'natural herb.' The implication apparently being that since it grows naturally, it should not be regulated in any way by any entity. A cousin of mine once argued with me that since God put marijuana on the earth, then obviously he intended that we should smoke it. My answer to that line of argument was simply this: God also put poison wild berries on the earth, does that mean he intended that we should eat them? If so you'll pardon me for acting in direct defiance of God's supposed will for his moral creatures.
My whole point with this post is obviously this: these kinds of arguments/justifications are just silly and ultimately undermine the intentions of those who fall back on them. They ought to be avoided like the plague in my humble opinion. That is, if your ultimate intention is to change anyone's mind about the illegitimate federal "war on drugs."
Terry - thanks for your perspective. While I disagree with some of your point of view, I think we're definitely on the same side on the most important part here - the Constitution.
Like you said - the federal government has no business, and more importantly, no constitutional authority, to be involved in this issue. period.
Every day that the federal war on drugs continues is another day of injustice - another day of massive constitutional violations.
Now, if a state wanted to make a plant, or another substance illegal, that would be an entirely different debate. Personally, I'm happy that my state of California is moving closer to full decriminalization or marijuana, but realize that this same kind of position may not be in the best interest, desires, or beliefs of people in other states.
That's for them to decide - on a state level, or locally. And that's how the founders wanted it.
A brilliant system, in my opinion.
Wow, you have to admit that makes pretty good sense!
the war on drugs is a joke,and has been a joke since it's inception,all it really is nothing but money for states,counties,and cities to waste,all the while our countries infrastructure is deteriorating.
It's about time our government get their act together and fix whats really broken,our country,befor it becomes a third world toilet.
Hey there ThomKane,
Indeed, liberty is not a left or right concept. The out-of-control federal government threatens those from any political affiliation.
Regardless of what one personally thinks is right to put in their body, I think we can all agree that the Feds have no constitutional mandate to decide for us.
I really enjoyed chatting with - and learning from - Paul Armentano. What was most striking to me is the commerce clause issue, which keeps coming up whether it's agriculture, gun rights....or weed.
The feds continually use and twist this simple clause as an excuse to expand their own power - at the expense of your liberty.
I'm glad this issue is being discussed here. Shows us that the 10th amendment isn't something just for the left or the right!
Great interview - and it starts out on the right path too. Something that most don't even consider, "where in the constitution do they get the authority to wage this war on drugs"
Where in the Constitution? That should be the question for everything the federal government does.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Subscribe to entries
Subscribe to comments
All content © 2012 by Tenth Amendment Center
[...] 3. The War On Drugs Is A War On You. [...]
[...] Paul Armentano: The Unconstitutional War on Pot [...]