In her 6/13/05 op-ed The medical pot hysteria Cathy Young raises provocative question
" Last week in Gonzales v. Raich, the Supreme Court ruled that federal drug laws supersede the laws several states have passed in recent years legalizing the production and use of marijuana for medicinal purposes. Apparently, the actions of a sick woman in California growing pot in her basement for her medical needs affect ''interstate commerce," which means that the Constitution says it's all right to bring in the feds. The ruling is bad legal reasoning; commentators such as Boston University law professor Randy Barnett, who argued the case before the Supreme Court last November, point out that it directly contradicts several of the court's decisions in recent years narrowing the scope of federal powers. It is also bad moral reasoning. Whether you use personal autonomy or compassion as your standard, denying seriously ill men and women access to a drug that could help them is repugnant.
Young further questions the logic.
"This isn't a conservative-versus-liberal, Republican-versus-Democrat issue: Both parties are drug war parties. (It was the Clinton administration in the 1990s that decided to use federal authority to thwart new state laws legalizing medical marijuana: In 1996, Clinton approved a plan to subject doctors who prescribe the drug to federal prosecution.) It's hard to tell which side is more guilty of hypocrisy. What happened to the conservatives' commitment to the principles of states' rights and limited government? What happened to liberals' concern for the rights of defendants and to the right to privacy? The libertarian solution to this problem is to legalize or at least decriminalize drug use, at least for adults."
Cathy , there is only one logical reason to make marijuana illegal for chronic-pain sufferers use, they can grow their own. Drug companies can't control the it. It is very obvious why Conservative Republicans to Liberal Democrats can agree on this, they work for the drug companies.
Recent Comments