Pubdate: Wed, 15 Dec 2004
Source: Sun News (Myrtle Beach, SC)
Copyright: 2004 Sun Publishing Co.
Contact:  http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/sunnews/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/987
Author: Sheldon Richman
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Cannabis - Medicinal)
Note: apparent 150 word limit on LTEs

FEDERAL ROLE IN MEDICATION WRONG

Medicine by regulation is better than medicine by referendum. U.S.
Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer said that during last week's
arguments over the much-watched medical-marijuana case. Breyer, in
other words, prefers that any change in the government's prohibition
of marijuana use be accomplished by an appeal to the federal
drug-enforcement authorities rather than by a public vote in the
states, such as occurred in California.

But he is really saying that medical oppression by an elite is better
than medical oppression by the mob. Are those our only choices? Why
must we have medical oppression at all? Why not medicine by free
individual choice? That this is not on the table shows how far our
society has moved from its individualist foundations.

The case Ashcroft v. Raich has two dimensions, procedural and
substantive. It is important to consider them separately. People who
approve of medical marijuana - that is, empowering doctors to
prescribe marijuana to certain sick people - tend to favor letting the
states partially nullify the federal drug ban. And people who
disapprove of medical marijuana tend to favor having the U.S.
government veto such state nullification. But a mix and match is
sensible. One can oppose the federal government's effort to stop
states from enacting medical-marijuana laws while also opposing those
laws.

The founders of the United States understood the threat to liberty
from concentrated political power, so they tried to divide power not
only among the three branches of the national government, but also
between the national and state governments. Back then, people saw
their respective states as sovereign and never would have assented to
a scheme in which the states became mere administrative subdivisions
of the national government. As a result, the Congress was delegated a
few defined powers, and the states retained other powers by default.
(See the 10th Amendment.) Unfortunately, the eminently sensible
division of powers, called federalism but mislabeled states' rights,
acquired a bad name primarily because of the violations of blacks'
rights after the Civil War.

Since the New Deal, federalism has essentially been abolished by the
Supreme Court's permissive attitude toward Congress and the
Constitution's commerce clause. Until recently, Congress could get
away with passing any law as long as it claimed authority under that
clause. That has begun to change.

Now the court has to contend with Raich and state medical marijuana.
Here's the rub: Most people who say they like federalism want no part
of anything that looks like a loosening of marijuana laws. Those who
embrace medical marijuana dislike states' rights in most other cases.

Here's what ought to happen: The court should endorse federalism and
stop the Bush administration from interfering with the states on
medical marijuana. It should also recognize that the federal
government has no constitutional authority to regulate drugs. The
Constitution had to be amended before the federal government could
prohibit alcohol in the 1920s. Why then has it been able to ban drugs
without an amendment?

Once the feds are disarmed in the war on drug makers and consumers,
the states should repeal their own laws against production, sale and
possession. All prescription laws should also be repealed. Then we
will have real individual freedom and self-responsibility.
Self-medication is as inalienable a right as self-education. Medical
marijuana does not advance liberty. It only empowers doctors. The idea
that government should decide whether marijuana is medicine or not and
whether doctors should be permitted to give it to sick people ought to
be offensive to any self-responsible American.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Derek