Thursday, May 19, 2005

What about federalism?!

There seems to be a little debate about medical cannabis, but i think the college republicans are ignoring a crucial aspect: federalism.

I don't know about you guys but i like my federal government small and the drug war has led to anything but. Do you guys know about Ashcroft v. Raich? It has put forth the question, "Whether the Controlled Substances Act exceeds Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause as applied to the intrastate cultivation and possession of marijuana for purported personal 'medicinal' use or to the distribution of marijuana without charge for such use."

Personally, i don't care how opposed you guys are to smoking weed; but come on, are you going to let that be the excuse the government uses to completely disregard the commerce clause? It seems to me that a few people in the comments section agree with this William F. Buckley/libertarian take on the war on drugs.

And for the record, Victor, marijuana is not a pain killer. That's what opiates do. Marijuana is used as an appetite stimulant and to suppress nausea. That it actually works is a medical question which really isn't all that controversial anymore.


Collatine said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Collatine said...

Good points. I tend to support Republican notions regarding the 'federal' government (i.e., on national security, diplomacy, currency, and regulating interstate issues). I support Alexander Hamilton's beliefs that the Bill of Rights actually limits our inalienable rights (by numerating only a few and not others) as opposed to protecting us, but since we have them, the federal gov't does a nice job, I think, of protecting them.

I think nationwide health care, minumum wage, and welfare are huge mistakes. What locals need in Alaska is different from Chicago from Downstate Illinois, from Louisiana, from New York City... We are by nature a very diverse nation, and federalism inherently addresses this nature, if we let federalism work.

I prefer my government corruption closer to home, so I'm a "pro-state government" person. Just a few weeks ago, our state legislator spoke at our local Rotary club, asking our opinions regarding some tax legislation. I've never seen my federal legislators, unless I traveled to DC or if it's an election year; and they've never asked my opinion.

I live in Illinois, a state unfriendly to Republicans and Liberterians; however, aside from our overtly-corrupt (D) executive branch, I tend to support many Democrat initiatives (not the anti-business ones) here.

On the county/city level, I'm active in the community and my voice is definitely heard. It is quite annoying to have Federal officials, taking orders from bureaucrats in DC who have no clue about how real Americans in Fly-Over country live-nor do they care, trying to run our day-to-day lives. I want the federal government to protect my borders, and provide nice interstates, and maybe protect a couple nice parks. Otherwise I don't want what Dubya or Congress does to affect my life, with a few obvious exceptions.

The point of this unfocussed message is, I believe federalism should be enhanced, not diminished.

Nigel Tufnel said...

Good Point Marco. I've addressed the issue in this post back on the CR's blog. I agree that I'd also like to see federalism enhanced collatine, I think the Raich case presents the interesting issue of whether it should be done by the courts or legislature though.