A while back, I mentioned that psilocybin mushrooms are "as illegal as LSD" in our dear, drippy (at least on this side of the Cascades) Washington. One thing worth discussing here is why, exactly, LSD is so very illegal. As illicit drugs go, LSD and "magic mushrooms" would seem to be low-end offenders. They're apparently not addictive, certainly not in any physical dependency sort of way, the lethal dose seems to be ... well, if there is one, it's apparently very high, and they furthermore don't seem to shred your liver, lungs, heart, or spleen. So what's the big deal?
Well, aside from the "we don't like lotus-eaters" factor and the (probably overblown) dread of some guy blitzed out of his mind on the stuff taking a shotgun to the mall, the major concern seems to be that the stuff might just shred your pretty brain meats. Unlike claims about "reefer madness" and "dope fiends," this is an argument with some teeth: apparently, long-term users can start to show some psychological ill-effects, and then there's the possibility of people who already aren't on the best terms with their brains getting worse as a result of hallucinogens. There's some indication that people with underlying mental problems can have them "triggered" by the drug.
And that's not getting into the more immediate potential for a "bad trip," or the longer-term risk for LSD users of having a trip abruptly resurface at inconvenient moments, like in traffic.
Reason enough for outright prohibition? Maybe. Psychological damage is not fun. Then again, compare to the long-term effects of alcohol abuse.
Reason enough for possession to constitute a class C felony? ... yeah, maybe not.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
"Supremacy" What?
So last week, I mentioned that if WA starts selling Mary Jane out of the State liquor stores, it's likely to get smacked with a suit under the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution of the United States of America). A little explanation might be in order here.
The Supremacy Clause is the bit of the Constitution whereby We the People declare federal law to be superior to state law. That is, where state law and federal law conflict, federal law wins. This is why, for example, Washington State can't declare its citizens exempt from the federal income tax.
Now, marijuana, whether or not WA legalizes it, will be illegal under federal law for the foreseeable future (read: "until Congress pulls its head out of the prohibitionist sand"). That, however, does not automatically mean that each state has to use its own laws and expend its own resources to enforce that illegality. The states are free to stand back and let the federal agencies handle federal law.
California cannot stand in the way when the DEA is arresting medical marijuana providers. However, it does not (under current law) have to help the DEA. You follow? This is why, if selling pot became legal in CA, the federal government would be on shaky ground in suing to try to make CA keep marijuana illegal: CA would effectively just be withdrawing its support from the "War on Drugs," where MJ is concerned, not engaging in any action that would bring it into conflict with federal law.
WA selling MJ out of its state-run liquor stores? That's another matter. That would have WA employees, and thus the state itself, in direct violation of federal law, and where state and federal laws conflict, the federal law wins.
You can't put a state in jail, but you (or, rather, the federal government) can sue it in federal court to get an injunction-- basically having a judge tell WA, "No, you're not allowed to do this." WA can appeal, but the appeal isn't likely to be very successful. On this score, the Supremacy Clause is pretty clear.
What happens if WA goes ahead and tries it anyway? Well, that's where you start getting terms like "crisis" popping up in the papers, and the president maybe sending in the national guard.
The Supremacy Clause is the bit of the Constitution whereby We the People declare federal law to be superior to state law. That is, where state law and federal law conflict, federal law wins. This is why, for example, Washington State can't declare its citizens exempt from the federal income tax.
Now, marijuana, whether or not WA legalizes it, will be illegal under federal law for the foreseeable future (read: "until Congress pulls its head out of the prohibitionist sand"). That, however, does not automatically mean that each state has to use its own laws and expend its own resources to enforce that illegality. The states are free to stand back and let the federal agencies handle federal law.
California cannot stand in the way when the DEA is arresting medical marijuana providers. However, it does not (under current law) have to help the DEA. You follow? This is why, if selling pot became legal in CA, the federal government would be on shaky ground in suing to try to make CA keep marijuana illegal: CA would effectively just be withdrawing its support from the "War on Drugs," where MJ is concerned, not engaging in any action that would bring it into conflict with federal law.
WA selling MJ out of its state-run liquor stores? That's another matter. That would have WA employees, and thus the state itself, in direct violation of federal law, and where state and federal laws conflict, the federal law wins.
You can't put a state in jail, but you (or, rather, the federal government) can sue it in federal court to get an injunction-- basically having a judge tell WA, "No, you're not allowed to do this." WA can appeal, but the appeal isn't likely to be very successful. On this score, the Supremacy Clause is pretty clear.
What happens if WA goes ahead and tries it anyway? Well, that's where you start getting terms like "crisis" popping up in the papers, and the president maybe sending in the national guard.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Well, now, this is cute.
A big thank you to Pete Guither over at DrugWarRant.com for providing a link to this.
As cynical as the argument that we shouldn't have "one more mind-altering substance" (it's here already and widely used, legal or not) out there makes me, I do see a bright spot or two here.
Well, sort of.
Kerlikowske is a former Seattle Chief of Police, and not in any "ancient history" kind of way, thus a man whose attitudes might be taken as representative of the harder-line local attitude. He opposed a ballot initiative making marijuana enforcement a "lowest priority" matter in Seattle, and he obviously opposes legalization now.
What I find interesting about him and his stance is that he, a career law-enforcement officer, is saying that the War on Drugs is over, and has been since 2009. I think a few Republican politicians, not to mention a few law enforcement officers, might disagree with him on that, but at least somebody mainstream in the other Washington is taking the idea that drug abuse is a medical condition to be treated rather than a criminal problem to be incarcerated seriously.
Then again, he's also signaled the likely federal response to state legalization. Note that while suing over simple legalization may be on shaky legal ground, it's quite likely that WA selling pot out of state liquor stores would be fit matter for a suit to force WA to comply with federal law under the Supremacy Clause.
Fun.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)