[Peace-discuss] Re: [Discuss] War on drugs

[John W.]

On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 11:11 AM, E. Wayne Johnson <ewj at pigs.ag> wrote:

 From my reading of the law John W. so graciously provided,
> the decision in Gonzales v. Reich was based upon interstate commerce
> claims,
> as ridiculous as the influence of 5 marijuana plants in California grown
> for
> personal consumption might be, considering that the US consumption of
> cannibis exceeds 20 million pounds per year (estimated).  The court
> compared it to the
> growing of wheat for personal consumption during WWII which was previously
> determined to be within the bounds of federal authority.
>

Yes.  Once the Supreme Court finally figured out that the interstate
commerce clause could be interpreted broadly, it's been used for just about
everything ever since.  On the positive side, it was the interstate commerce
clause that was used to find most of the Jim Crow laws unconstitutional, and
just about all of the civil rights legislation of the 1960s - laws against
racial discrimination on buses, at lunch counters, in hotels, etc., even if
they could be presumed to have only one customer per year from out of state
- constitutional.

The law always cuts both ways, depending on who's doing the legislating at
the moment.  In my study of the law, I've watched (well, read) as the
Supreme Court has reversed itself more times than I can count.

Would you want nine, or even five, "strict constructionists" like Antonin
Scalia and Clarence "Uncle" Thomas and the late William Rehnquist on the
S.C.?  Not me.  I'd much rather have justices like William O. Douglass and
William Brennan and Thurgood Marshall, liberal interpreters of the
constitution who were interested in expanding the rights of the American
people.

Ultimately government boils down to personal integrity, compassion or the
lack thereof, empathy or the lack thereof - no matter which branch of
government you're talking about.  If there's no integrity and compassion,
there's no good government.



>  John W. wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 9:54 PM, E. Wayne Johnson <ewj at pigs.ag> wrote:
>
>  Au contraire, I really do disagree with you about the concept of
>> constitutionality being based solely in the Supreme Court.
>>
>
> You mean, a law can be unconstitutional in your own mind?  :-)
>
> *Why not?  I am of full age and I can read, and I can decide what is good
> and what is not good.*
>
>
>
>
>> Although the Supreme Court can determine constitutionality and it is
>> temporally the decision of the court that
>> establishes ultimate decisions in controversial cases, the Supreme Court
>> is by no means the sole determinate
>> of constitutionality provided that people are indeed able to read.
>>
>
> Who else is, then?  The people?  It's a fine theory.  But try using that
> argument in a court of law.
>
> The point is that we can read the constitution and decide during the
> preparation of laws whether or not they
> are constitutional.  Recently in Urbana, one of the city council members
> suggested that the city pass
> an unconstitutional ordinance that would restrict free speech.  Fortunately
> it was pointed out that such
> an action would be unconstitutional.  Amazingly, the alderman had the
> imperious gall to suggest that
> the action should be passed even though it was unconstitutional, and be
> left for the courts to sort out
> if anyone should challenge it.   Liberty did carry the day, but fundamental
> liberty and the constitution was
> challenged.
>
> I will read the other items you attached.
>
>
>
>
>> It becomes an issue of money political winds and willingness to pursue
>> that actually brings an unconstitutional law to the courts,
>> sometimes nobody seems to care nobody wants to bother asking the question.
>>
>
> Well, why would anyone need to pursue it in the courts at all, since you
> say that there's some other means of determining constitutionality?
>
>
>
>
>> Absolutely you are correct on the concept of amendments being
>> constitutional, which was my point.
>> If interstate commerce was sufficient authority to the Feds for
>> Prohibition, why then did the government
>> find it necessary to make an indisputable amendment?
>>
>> Since the constitutional amendment was necessary
>> for the prohibition of alcohol consumption, why not for THC?
>>
>> Why did  the Californians play dead on their law and allow themselves to
>> be coerced?
>> Did they lack the resources and fortitude to make the challenge?
>>
>
> It's never that simple in our ridiculously complex system of checks and
> balances - both federal and state laws, which frequently overlap or
> contradict one another, and three branches of government in each.
>
> There's plenty of information available if you Google it.  Try "California
> medical marijuana federal enforcement", and make yourself a legal expert
> like me.  :-)  Here's one particularly illustrative article (which may
> illustrate also why I never went into the practice of law):
>
> http://writ.news.findlaw.com/amar/20071109.html
>
>
>   The Clash Between Federal Drug Law and California's "Medical Marijuana"
> Law: How Two Interesting Recent Events Illustrate Their Interplay  By
> VIKRAM DAVID AMAR <http://writ.news.findlaw.com/amar>  Friday, Nov. 09,
> 2007
>
> Two news items during the past couple of weeks in California highlight the
> complicated legal and political tangle that is American federalism - the
> relationship between federal and state governments -- today. Both incidents
> involve the interplay between, on one hand, California's (now decade-old)
> decision to decriminalize marijuana use for medicinal purposes, and, on the
> other hand, the continuing illegality under federal law of all marijuana
> cultivation, possession, distribution and use, for any purpose.
>
> The two events present radically different facts: One involves an alleged
> criminal conspiracy that is far-flung and linked to violence, whereas the
> other involves a civil lawsuit brought by a seemingly productive employee
> against his employer. Yet the two episodes, taken separately and together,
> nicely illustrate key aspects of the ongoing tug-of-war between so-called
> "states' rights" and federal supremacy.
>
> *The First Episode: The Criminal Charges Against Two Entrepreneurial
> Brothers*
>
> On October 30, federal drug agents executed numerous search warrants
> against Winslow and Abraham Norton, two young brothers (Winslow is 26 and
> Abraham 23) who are alleged to have sold an estimated $49 million of
> marijuana at various locations in the Bay Area during the past three years.
> The Nortons' medical marijuana dispensary was registered and given a permit
> to operate under the regime prompted by California's Compassionate Use Act
> ("the Act"), a 1996 initiative measure adopted statewide by voters that
> decriminalizes, under state law, marijuana cultivation, distribution, and
> use in those instances where a physician has given a written or oral
> recommendation or approval to a patient to use marijuana.
>
> Under the Act and subsequent implementing legislation, an Alameda County
> Sheriff's Deputy regularly visited the Nortons' facilities to ensure that
> only those persons with physician recommendations were being given the drug.
>
>
> According to press accounts, the Nortons paid state and federal income
> taxes on (at least some) of their income, rewarded their workers well and
> gave them benefits, and even contributed charitably to the community.
>
> Nonetheless, the Nortons appear to have been flagrantly violating the
> federal Controlled Substances Act, which designates marijuana as an illegal
> contraband substance whose manufacture, distribution and use is prohibited
> in virtually all instances.
>
> *The Constitutional Reason Federal Law Trumps **California** Law Here*
>
> How, some people in California are asking, can the feds impose their will
> on the people of California, who have chosen a different answer than has
> Congress to the controversial and vexing question of whether marijuana use
> should ever be allowed?
>
> The answer is short and sweet: The Supremacy Clause of the U.S.
> Constitution makes validly-enacted federal statutes the "Supreme" law of the
> land, along with the U.S. Constitution itself. So, as long as the Controlled
> Substances Act is within Congress' constitutional powers to enact (as the
> Supreme Court held it was a few years ago, in *Gonzales v. Raich*<http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=03-1454>),
> Californians can have no state-conferred immunity to be free from federal
> restraints and prosecution.
>
> Readers who don't easily see why federal statutes *ought* to be supreme
> over - and not constrained by - inconsistent state laws may want to consider
> the example of Southern resistance to federal civil rights laws in the 1950s
> and 1960s. There too, proponents of local authority argued that the national
> legislative policy adopted by Congress in Washington DC - in that instance,
> that racial discrimination in employment and housing should be barred -
> should not be imposed on states and localities that had reached a different
> resolution as to how they believed the races ought to interact. In that
> setting, federal law won out. So too here.
>
> Consider another example in which federal supremacy seems quite intuitive
> and attractive. Suppose Congress outlawed use of a particular environmental
> pollutant that many considered dangerous. If a majority of voters in any one
> state nonetheless wanted to allow persons within the state to use that
> pollutant, then those voters could decriminalize use of the pollutant under
> state law, but could not prevent the federal government from punishing those
> within the state who emit the dangerous chemical.
>
> *Is Federal Supremacy Regarding Civil Rights and Pollution Meaningfully
> Different from Federal Supremacy Regarding Marijuana? *
>
> One way to attempt to distinguish the civil rights and pollution examples
> from example taken from the marijuana setting would be to point out that
> unless there is federal enforcement in the civil rights and environmental
> law areas, innocent victims who happen to live in the permissive state may
> suffer. In other words, there are spillover effects from a state's decision
> to go its own way concerning racial discrimination and pollution - effects
> that may harm individuals both in that state *and* in other states.
>
> But the same can arguably be said for marijuana. If, for example, marijuana
> use does create a risk that some persons may drive unsafely or do other
> unwise things while under the influence, then the effects of this behavior
> are not limited to the marijuana users themselves, nor are the effects even
> limited to Californians.
>
> California's medical marijuana scheme undoubtedly affects the marijuana
> market in bordering states, and creates spillover effects in those other
> states. Drivers cross state lines, as does the violence that tends to follow
> business enterprises that are illegal in some places. It does not seem
> coincidental that the Norton brothers' operations involved many young,
> seemingly healthy customers who nonetheless have physician recommendations.
> Nor does it seem coincidental that the Nortons have been plagued by armed
> robberies; news reports suggest that, at least four times, armed assailants
> have either killed, shot or robbed the Nortons themselves or their employees
> or customers. This kind of violence rarely can be confined to one small
> location, or even one state.
>
> Indeed, in upholding Congress' power to regulate all marijuana, including
> medicinal marijuana, the Supreme Court in *Raich* noted that the federal
> government cannot count on California to keep its medicinal marijuana - or
> the effects of this marijuana - within state boundaries.
>
> *The Second Event: The California Supreme Court Hears Ross v. Ragingwire
> Telecommunications Inc.*
>
> The second illustration that helps frame federalism issues in this area is
> the *Ross v. Ragingwire*<http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/californiastatecases/c043392.doc>case, in which the California Supreme Court heard oral arguments this past
> Tuesday. Ross is a U.S. Air Force veteran who sustained disabling injuries
> as a result of his military service. Since 1999, he has been taking
> marijuana on the advice of his physician to alleviate back pain. He was
> hired by the Sacramento technology company Ragingwire, which, pursuant to
> company policy, required him to submit to a drug test.
>
> Ross complied, and was very open about his medicinal use of marijuana. But
> when his drug tests came back and they were (predictably) positive for
> marijuana, he was terminated. Ross then brought an action under the
> California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). FEHA, a state law similar
> to the Americans With Disabilities Act, requires employers in California to
> accommodate the physical disabilities of an employee or would-be employee so
> long as the employee can, with accommodation, perform the essential
> functions of the job. Ross argued that since he was disabled but could,
> through the use of medical marijuana, perform the essential functions of his
> job, Ragingwire violated his state law rights in terminating him on account
> of his marijuana use.
>
> The lower courts ruled in favor of the employer, reasoning that FEHA does
> not generally bar employers from using drug tests or from requiring that all
> employees refrain from illegal drugs. Since marijuana is an illegal drug
> under federal law even though its use by Mr. Ross was not criminal under
> California law, the lower courts reasoned, employers can terminate marijuana
> users.
>
> *How Is the **California** Supreme Court Likely to Decide the Ross Case? *
>
> Now, the California Supreme Court must decide how to interpret the FEHA in
> light of this complicated interaction with the federal Controlled Substances
> Act.
>
> A few things seem clear. One is that federal law could, if Congress wanted
> it to, explicitly empower employers to discriminate against marijuana users,
> even if marijuana use is decriminalized under state law. In legal parlance,
> Congress could, if it wanted to, "preempt" state FEHA claims based on Ross'
> theory.
>
> But nothing in the federal Controlled Substances Act or elsewhere in
> federal law seems to say or do that. In other words, there is no federal
> preemption or (as in the Norton case) federal enforcement of federal law.
> Instead, there is only the question of whether FEHA claims, as a matter of
> California state law, can be based on failure to accommodate medicinal
> marijuana users, given that marijuana is a federally-proscribed substance.
>
> In deciding what FEHA means, or should mean, the California Supreme Court
> needs to balance a number of factors. First, if Ross prevails, then at a
> minimum, California employers who are constrained to allow medicinal
> marijuana should not be held liable under state tort claims for any injuries
> traceable to the marijuana use. (The state Supreme Court should have the
> power to confer this tort immunity, since it fashions California tort law.
> In contrast, the California Justices cannot immunize employers from
> liability under *federal* law, but hiring medicinal marijuana users
> wouldn't seem obviously to violate any federal law.)
>
> Second, even if the specter of state tort liability is removed from
> employers, it is still not clear whether they should be forced to hire
> persons who are breaking federal law. Should an employer be forced to bear
> the (small but perhaps non-trivial) risk that his employee will be arrested
> by the feds (and thus unavailable for work)? Or that the workplace may be
> the target of a federal law enforcement search? Or that residual marijuana
> in the employee's physical system will affect his job performance?
>
> On that last point, recall that FEHA claims are viable only if the employee
> can perform the essential job functions. So ruling for Ross wouldn't require
> employers to hire employees whose medical marijuana use deeply impairs job
> performance. Still, there is a difference between performing the essential
> functions of a job and excelling at the job, and there is an argument that
> an employer should be free to pursue excellence, not bare competence, when a
> federally-proscribed drug is responsible for any lapse in job performance.
>
> Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the California court will have to
> consider what the California legislature intended when it enacted a
> provision in 2003 that made clear that employers did not have to accommodate
> medical marijuana "use" on the job site "premises" or during the hours of
> employment. Does this provision suggest that accommodation *is* required
> so long as the medicinal marijuana is ingested *off* the employer's
> property? Or does this language create no such strong inference? And what
> does "use" mean here, anyway? Is a person "using" marijuana on the job site
> if it is still in her bloodstream when she is on the job, even though she
> inhaled it at home?
>
> These and other questions are the ones the California Supreme Court's
> Justices will grapple with, as they issue an opinion some time in the next
> few months trying to make sense of the federal-state medicinal marijuana
> hash. Whatever result the Court reaches, both the decision and the fallout
> should be very interesting.
>  ------------------------------
> Vikram David Amar is a professor of law at the University of California,
> Davis School of Law. He is a 1988 graduate of the Yale Law School, and a
> former clerk to Justice Harry Blackmun. He is a co-author, along with
> William Cohen and Jonathan Varat, of a major constitutional law casebook,
> and a co-author of several volumes of the Wright & Miller treatise on
> federal practice and procedure. Before teaching, Professor Amar spent a few
> years at the firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20080924/e6b0d370/attachment-0001.htm