Posted: June 13, 2012 at 12:01 pm
GUEST POST: Thank You Montana Democrats for Standing Up for Montana Voters
Back in 2004, voters overwhelmingly passed I-148: the Medical Marijuana Act. Appealing to both Montanans’ libertarian character and progressive view on rights, it passed with 62% of the vote — a twenty point landslide victory. And that was that, or so people thought. Then the “Bat Crap Crazy” legislature showed in 2011 with their War on Voters.
Governor Brian Schweitzer vetoed their attempt to directly repeal medical marijuana, so they used SB 423 to overturn the will of the voters through a stealth repeal (that became law without the good guv’s signature). The constitutionality of this legislation is currently under review by the Montana Supreme Court after it was blocked by a lower court.
Regardless of the how the Supreme Court rules, voters will get their say this fall with IR-124, an initiative referendum that puts the legislature’s attempt at a stealth repeal of Medical Marijuana to the voters.
That’s the history you need to know to appreciate the leadership by the Montana Democratic Party’s Platform Convention last weekend. In a move meant to stand up against the War on Voters and highlight the compassion of Montana Democrats, the delegates added Medical Marijuana to the party platform.
This is going to be a big issue this election season and the leadership of Montana Democrats is much appreciated.
Because of how a referendum campaign is worded, a “no” vote on IR-124 is a vote to defend the will of the voters on Medical Marijuana, a “yes” vote is a vote to uphold the “bat crap crazy” legislature’s stealth repeal of the will of the voters.
I hope you’ll stand proud with Montana voters and Montana Democrats and defend the right to Medical Marijuana this fall.
Bob Brigham is an advisor to Montana First
Everything these shitbirds do is a nightmare. When Schweitzer next tried an amendatory veto of the bill to eliminate some of the most egregious parts, the legislature voted to override the amendatory veto. So much for the will of the voters…
Ive said it before and I will say it again Medical Grass, helps and Marijuana should be decriminalized. Our Legal system could save millions of dollars by not convicting users caught with under 30 grams. Just fine the folks, let them watch a video, If they comply take it the offence of their records! That simple! We have bigger crooks to go after like Banks!
Let me try that again: I’ve said it before and I will say it again Medical Grass helps, and Marijuana should be decriminalized. Our Legal system could save millions of dollars by not convicting users caught with under 30 grams. Just fine the folks, let them watch a video…….. If they comply take the offense off their records! That simple! We have bigger crooks to go after, like Banks!
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/06/13/498675/seven-more-states-may-legalize-medical-marijuana-in-2012/
Montana law says that under 60 grams is only a misdemeanor. Why lower it to 30 grams ? Why even get the state involved ?
you can still go to jail for a misdemeanor.
This only makes sense. An obvious yes.
Should clarify – Yes to the Dems.
No to Bat Crap Crazy and IR-124.
Here ya Go a little something about Dennis the Menace Rehberg:
http://rehbergair.com
Thank you Montana Democrats for NOT standing with the Montanan voter when it comes to the gay marriage plank.
Let me see if 62% was a “landslide victory” then the gay marriage defeat must have been a SUPER landslide.
N Dakota on Property Tax repeal
http://money.cnn.com/2012/06/13/pf/north-dakota-property-tax/
Religious Freedom
http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/article/id/238634/group/homepage
Question: Does a repressed homosexual have mixed emotions about gay marriage or is he just angry?
What???……are you SUGGESTING here, Buttinski? That Ingy remove the gay plank from his OWN eye first?? It’ Biblical! bhwhahahahahahaa!
Ingy, dude, nuthin’ wrong with gays, dude. The wrongness exists ONLY in your teensy, tiny little christofascist mind, dude. Let it go, Ingy. Let it go!
True story: My wife and I went to dinner the other night. In the booth next to us was an obviously gay couple (men) who were about our age. Through the course of the evening, I watched them closely. And you wanna know sumthin’? THEY WERE HAPPY, DUDE! They were a cute couple that had obviously been together for a long time. And I could not help but think how closely they resembled a man and WOMAN married couple!
And then, it hit me, Ingy. That damn epiphany! These two dues were in LOVE, as much as any man and woman who’ve been togehter for a long time. They were a cute couple. They really DID make a cute couple! And my wife thought so too!
And ya know, I just could find NOTHING wrong with that! Just two people in love sharing their lives together, including all the trials, tribulations, and travails.
I ask you in all seriousness, Ingy, what the hell is so wrong with that? Do those two dudes REALLY represent a threat to your marriage? Well, they don’t to mine! Do the right thing, Ingy, and allow these two people to marry. It’s the right thing to do.
Time to rope a dope pope!
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/gay-priest-defies-pope-catholics-should-vote
Republican legislators lay out 2012 campaign plan and call it jobs when infact all they are doing is putting more money into the Big Corprations? Figures! http://www.kxlh.com/news/republican-legislators-lay-out-2012-campaign-plan/#!prettyPhoto/0/
They say the key to job creation is Montana’s natural resource industry( ( logging and Mining)???? Bwahhahahahaha an Industry which has not shown any growth in the last 12 Months http://www.bls.gov/eag/eag.mt.htm
The jobs that do count like construction, Information, Manufacturing are growing, so is education, but they want the dirty stuff that eviromentally decreases Montanas wealth?
I would say the Montana Republicans are out of touch!!!!
What they want for Montana is happening in PA http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/13/opinion/the-beleaguered-middle-class-pink-slips.html?_r=1
Bullock supporters may want to consider these comments from Shane Combs, a staunch pro Medical Marijuana supporter, in a recent Missoula Independent letter to the editor:
Why Tester and Bullock will lose
POSTED THU, APR 26, 2012 AT 4:00 AM
“It’s the medical marijuana issue, stupid.”
“. . . all will vote, and few will ever again vote for any candidate who doesn’t speak and act to end our nation’s horribly failed war on marijuana users.
“Then there’s Attorney General Steve Bullock, who sold the state’s patients and their loved ones down the river in numerous ways. He refused to effectively enforce the law voters had adopted. He refused to help develop stricter rules that patient leaders and the health department sought, and again said and did nothing when the federal raids came. Many of us believe he had a hand in making the raids happen, to take a controversy off the table to clear the way for his next political ambition. And now he expects Montanans to trust that he will fight to defend all of us, as governor?”
“Many, many thousands of us will never again vote for any candidate who doesn’t speak and act to defend basic patient rights and to reform old-fashioned, cruel and failed drug policies. This may bring short-term electoral chaos since there are almost no Republicans we can support either, but we will stick with it for years to come. This November will see the beginning of a sustained and growing single-issue voter movement for marijuana reform, and we won’t stop until the insanity ends. We owe this much to our fallen comrades, now in federal prison, and our fallen patients, some now dead and others suffering unnecessarily. In the words of the Occupy movement: We will not forgive. We will not forget. Expect us.”
Shane “Moose” Combs
Helena
http://missoulanews.bigskypress.com/LettersToTheEditor/archives/2012/04/26/why-tester-and-bullock-will-lose
He is always welcome to vote for Hill or Vandevender. Of course, a vote for Hill would put him at odds with those who focus on real job creation and social justice for GBLT folks. A vote for Vandevender would put him at odds with the environmentalists, as well as the GBLT voters. And he still won’t get what he wants. He simply thinks he has the power to frighten people into accepting his single issue as the issue. Clearly it isn’t.
Political threats rarely work out well. That might just be why the right keeps gaining strength.
Let me amend that. Political threats against other voters rarely work out well.
I agree with Rob Kailey. I will add that Anyone, anyone who thinks Hill would be better than bullock on these issues is smoking crack.
Wait…didn’t Montanans also overwhelmingly declare marriage between one man and one woman that same year by approving CI-96 by nearly 67% to 33%? Now the Democrats have amended their platform to expressly disregard the will of the voters on that issue.
I appreciate the D’s support of I-148. It was passed by the people, and should be amended by the people if need be. I voted for I-148 and I didn’t want it changed. I voted against CI-96, but by the same token as I-148 I’m not keen on the D’s thinking it’s OK to overturn the will of the people.
If they were the same thing, that would make sense. They aren’t, so it doesn’t.
Medical Marijuana is not a matter of civil rights. It is a matter of allowing people access to a drug that assists in certain medical conditions, and yes, probably should be as legal as tobacco or alcohol. Drugs are not a matter of civil right. They never have been and likely won’t be any time sooner or later. It’s possible that you think they should be, and I wouldn’t argue with you if you did. But getting doped up on Oxycontin or Demerol or MJ isn’t a “right” granted among free people.
Marriage, on the other hand, is a right that confers certain civil and spiritual benefits with no harm to society or change or difference to human behavior. It’s two people who willingly choose to live together in love. ‘The will of the people’ should have nothing to say about what is a civil right causing no harm to any. 25 years and 1 day ago, the Supreme Court ruled that miscegenation was a violation of rights that all humans deserve. The ‘will of the people’ has nothing to say about that, any more than it should whether brown people can vote or drink water.
Couldn’t have said that better Myself!
OK I get it. Overturning the will of the people is only OK when it fits your agenda. Makes perfect sense coming from a liberal.
You’re born with God given rights. Rights are not granted by the government. They are only taken away by the government, for what should be good reason. Among the rights you’re born with are the right to get drugged up, married, and medicated. I don’t wish for the government to infringe upon any of those rights, even if I don’t choose to enact any of them.
No, Republiplant, you really don’t get it all. One is not born with rights supplied by God. Rights are granted by any agreement in which folk live together. In our case, that happens to be the Constitution. Overturning the will of the people is always an instantiation of rights, not a denial of them. Please go back and read those first ten amendments, because you seem terribly unclear on the concept.
The will of the people of Montana is that Medical Marijuana be available to those who need it for health care. It is not a civil right, (though your argument acknowledges what few of your right wingnut brethren will, that health care should be a civil right). Civil rights are those that should and must apply to all civilians equally. Marriage is a civil right, and just like in the Loving Decision, people will soon acknowledge that. Marriage, as acknowledged by law, must extend to all. I think your going to be waiting a long time before you see a day in which getting baked is a ‘civil right’.
Obviously, the right to be in a loving committed relationship is different from which medications are allowed on the market under which guidelines. Not that I don’t believe that marriage and medical cannabis shouldn’t both be legal. I do. It’s just that one is much, much more important than the other.
Rnov,
No Where in any documentation of the US Constitution is there a God given right.
“God,” or “Creator,” “Jesus,” or “Lord.” none of these words ever appears in the Constitution, neither the original nor in any of the Amendments. The notable exception is found in the Signatory section,at the end, where the date is written thusly: “Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven”. The use of the word “Lord” here is not a religious reference, however. This was a common way of expressing the date, in both religious and secular contexts.
“it’s a free country” Nope that ain’t in there either. It never says it is a free country. The un-true implication of the axiom is that in the United States, you can do whatever you want to do, and the Constitution is there to ensure that. It is certainly true that the Constitution protects many civil rights, But being a free country or the word of the lord whoever isn’t one of them either!
You’re welcome!
Voters need to know and remember that Bullock is not a friend of the Medical Marijuana movement. Don’t forget that it wasn’t just Federal agencies that raided and arrested MM providers in Montana. There were a dozen state law enforcement agencies that assisted the Feds – agencies that report to Bullock’s Attorney General office.
Bullock worked hand in hand with Federal agencies to target and arrest MM providers while he was giving lip service to the MM supporters and lying that he was on their side. He will do the same thing if elected Governor regardless of what the Democratic Party platform says.
Yes, there will be other names on the ballot for Governor, but Steve Bullock will be the only one on that ballot who has ever been directly responsible for arresting, convicting and sending Medical Marijuana growers and providers to prison. I don’t want to reward him for his actions with my vote. Either write in another candidate for Governor or leave that section blank. Either way it sends a message.
Where is the proof of this? News stories? LInks?
in my experience, if they had it, they would have posted it. anyway…
Again another person who does not understand state and federal law. Fionn give it a break, your complaint borders on a Paranoia. Why didn’t MM creators seek to decriminalize possession here first? why didn’t they make sure that MM Patients could be proven on a case by case basis if they were busted, if the federal government cracked down … which they were sure to do?
Why? it is called Money, Green of another kind. They started out with a noble cause, and then when it looked like the law might be passed to have MM, they didn’t take precautions to protect the Patients if it all went south…. some providers were too busy watching those dollars signs spin around in their heads. Not all of them of course, but enough for the Government to make it look bad.
Figure it out, your smarter then that! And we can still help folks if we can get it decriminalized first!
The problem with your solution, Norma, is that it would have made no difference. As long as Federal Law says Marijuana is illegal, there is still an opening for Federal raids like what happened here in Montana (and others states). The Federal Narcotics laws trump state laws. It is that simple.
The silver lining is that the more states that pass MM or deregulation bills, the more the Federal Government will be pushed into re-examining thier classification of Marijuana. Even the Hardcore, rightwing should be on board with decriminalizing Marijuana given that an Alcohol model for marijuana would conservatively add about 69% of what Alcohol is currently netting in revenue for the Fed and for the states. Some economists believe that number would be even higher. Further, it would reduce the strain on law enforcement and the courts/jails.
What slays me about the constant criticisms of Bullock over the MM raids is that Bullock had no choice. He is aware that Federal law supercedes state law when it comes to narcotics and it was his damn job to cooperate with the police. Further, it should also be noted that many of the raids that occured, happened because many of the providers were breaking MONTANA MM law. If you break the law, you are subject to the consequences.
Now make no mistake, I have been for decriminalization of at least Marijuana for the better part of a decade. Many of the Law Enforcement officers I know are also for decriminalization. What it will take to fix this problem is our do-nothing legislators in Washington have to realise that they need to fix it at a national level. The states can push their attempts to decriminalize it, but until the Feds do it, these raids are ALWAYS a possibility.
It is up to congress to fix you are correct. Maybe someone like tester should consider taking a stand on this issue? I’ve brought that up here before but was told that medical marijuana supporters are toxic and zombies so there is no political gain. I disagree.
If that is truly what the politicians in Washington believe than it is up to us – the voters – to change their minds. If 18 states pass MM or decriminalization laws, then there has to be some support for decriminalization at the Federal level.
There is some support for it. There is a bill in the House (or was Im not sure of the status of it) that would let the States regulate medical marijuana on their own sponsored by Frank & Paul. Seems to me if our esteemed Senators supported a similar measure in the Senate it would be a win win for everyone, especially since it isnt a “legalization” measure per se but simply one that allows the autonomy for the States to do as they see fit. Then you avoid the need for the antics of people who think the Montana AG should simply ignore the federal government and federal laws to the contrary. This would take some balls though. Not a peep about it that I’ve heard.
I thought that bill was killed in committee a while back.
Probably was i’m not sure. If so that would leave it some intrepid forward thinking legislator to revive it.
Oh it will send a message, alright.
Citizen’s United is possibly the biggest threat to representative Democracy this country and state have faced since William Andrews Clark bought a Senate seat. Steve Bullock has been at the forefront of fighting to defend Montana law regarding the purchase of elections. As you display your anger at him for not embracing your personal crusade, please accept that other Montanans might have different worries than whether or not you can freely toke up. So, by all means, leave it blank, vote for another or write in Snoop Dog or Willie Nelson. Good for you if you do. It will send a message,
that message being that you’re an idiot.
(I am convinced that the War on Drugs is a total failure, that Weed should be decriminalized and that Bullock as Governor offers the best chance at making any progress at all towards ending the former and moving towards the latter. I also know that red-eyed temper tantrums demanding that ‘the people’ serve an MJ agenda will result in regress on any issue regarding the plant, including it’s use for medicine which I overwhelmingly favor. So your demands, Fionn, are more than just petulant. They are damaging to those of us who actually want progress on this and many other issues.)
If Philly can do it, and save money so should we. Nothing in federal law says you cannot decriminalize Mary Jane… . this means as long as a punishment is imposed, federal law is satisfied. State laws differ as to punishment so make it as small as possible.
Oh yes, let’s send a message by electing Rick Hill as Governor. What’s the message? “As a voter I don’t know my ass from a hole in the ground and I’d rather vote out of spite than think long term.” Good luck with that one.
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/06/gop-governor-hopefuls-working-out-lesson-of-scott-walker.php
The Montana Attorney Generals Office is independent of the Federal government. Bullock was not required to work with the Feds. He may not have been able to stop them from coming into Montana but he was not legally obligated to assist them.
California notified MM growers and MM health providers that the Feds were likely to arrest them inspite of Holder’s false assurances they wouldn’t. Bullock didn’t do squat. He let people invest their life savings into the MM business then helped the Feds arrest them to promote his own political standing with the moderates and conservatives in the state.
Governor Schweitzer stood up to the Feds on numerous occasions. Bullock could have followed his lead and done the same to the Feds on the MM issue if by no other way than informing people of the Feds true intent to arrest them and by simply saying he wouldn’t cooperate with the Fed raids.
Schweitzer has balls. Bullock has none and is a political coward and won’t get my vote.
Anyone who invested their life savings in medical marijuana and then had it seized by the federal govt was quite stupid and has no one to blame but themselves for taking such an enormous and foolish risk.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/14/medical-marijuana-crackdown-landlords_n_1595849.html
Norma, please read the link James just put up.
Decriminalizing at the state level is the only way Kenny, once a man is convicted, or in this case fined (same thing)by law he can not be tried twice. Thats a federal Law, the federal AGs cant get around.
The federal Government wants a punishment from state courts, they give the states the power to stipulate how the verdict and punishment will play out.
Bypassing courts and just fining will save this state millions a Year.
I wish your take on double jeopardy was true. Unfortunately, you can be convicted in federal court for an act for which you were acquitted in state court. People who want to stay out of the slammer need to stay away from Mary Jane.
The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides:
[N]or shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb . . . . Blah blah etc
The Double Jeopardy Clause encompasses four distinct prohibitions: subsequent prosecution after acquittal, subsequent prosecution after conviction, subsequent prosecution after certain mistrials, and multiple punishment in the same indictment. Jeopardy “attaches” when the jury empanelled, the first witness is sworn, or a plea is accepted.
In addition, the government is barred by collateral estoppel from re-litigating against the same defense.
the only way the Federal government can try a person is if something federally illegal was left out of the other case. the the Supreme Court says the federal government must use this test in order to succeed :Blockburger v. United States (1932), the government may separately try and punish the defendant for two crimes if each crime contains an element that the other does not
Sadly, you just proved James correct. If the Federal Charges were left off the original indictment (as was the case in a number of the arrests in Montana), the Feds can come in afterwards and procecute. Double Jepardy is a rats nest of findings and conditions that would be hard to lay out without examining a specific situation.
You are welcome to believe what you want and you are likely not to listen to damn thing I say here given that you have decided I am the “enemy”, but your views on double jepardy as they apply to MM are… inaccurate. There is currently at least one person I know of that is sitting in a Federal Jail after the state procecuted him for local offenses relating to the sale of Medical Marijuana.
No it doesn’t! What the case I mentioned above said: Is that if a drug dealer was caught dealing on 5 separate days, then all cases could be treated as separate case for separate days. If a person using is caught in possession on one day, its one charge, simple enough. so no your wrong. Users are not treated the same way dealers are in law either.
Look it has already been working in Philidelphia for the last two years and the feds aren’t wringing their hands, because justice is being served. It works! And the Feds cant go back and commit double jeopardy on that kind of one time possesion.
Five policy considerations underpin the right against double jeopardy, sometimes known as the right against former jeopardy:
1. preventing the government from employing its superior resources to wear down and erroneously convict innocent persons.
2. protecting individuals from the financial, emotional, and social consequences of successive prosecutions.
3. preserving the finality and integrity of criminal proceedings, which would be compromised were the government allowed to arbitrarily ignore unsatisfactory outcomes.
4. restricting prosecutorial discretion over the charging process.
5. eliminating judicial discretion to impose cumulative punishments that are otherwise not clearly prohibited by law.
Lastly,
Benton v. Maryland, 39 U.S. 784, 89 S. Ct. 2056, 23 L. Ed.2d 707 (1969), the U. S. Supreme Court ruled that the Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause is applicable to both state and federal proceedings.
Prior to this ruling, an individual accused of violating state law could rely only on that particular state’s protection against double jeopardy.
Some states offered greater protection against double jeopardy than did others, and frequently the level of protection offered was less than that offered under the federal Constitution. The Supreme Court said this was impermissible.
Whatever, Norma. You don’t understand, you are never going to understand and you are failing to even read what I post. You just keep going down the road you are traveling blissfully unaware of the mistakes you are making. Decriminalizing Marijuana in Montana won’t be a guarentee that the Feds won’t charge you with a drug violation. Get that through your think skull. Federal Law trumps state law in this instance.
I have to say, Norma, it is the rare candidate who goes out of her way to childishly insult a voter within her district. Good luck with that.
Where is the Insult, may I ask??? I just added to Kenneth’s conversation. Would you mind pointing it out to me? What?
I am not allowed to explain it so all will understand it? Did I Treat him unfairly? How? Jeez, And its only a Thursday!
Norma, Kenneth has politely requested, as have I, that you not call him “Kenny”. You insist on doing so. Though it may seem an innocent oversight on your part, it objectively appears as insult. He is a voter in your district, and you ignore his request. Please, stop doing that.
So I didn’t know about this….. Really? ….. He never told me his reasoning, just said I was disparaging him without an explanation.
My curiousity has been piqued: How many of the other 17 states that have approved MM had their MM providers raided to the same extent as ours? Was this a national “purge” against all states or was it selective? And, if it was selective, why us and not all of the others?
And how many of the other states are presidential swing states…
lizard put up a good post related to this topic:
http://4and20blackbirds.wordpress.com/2012/06/13/no-choom-no-boom-mr-president/
Those who say a federal solution is needed are right- you can’t get around federal law, you have to change it. Unfortunately none of our current federal “representatives” is doing squat.
I concur. Until Mary Jane is removed from the list of Schedule I drugs, not much can be done at the state level. Removal won’t happen anytime soon. Apart from the Reefer Madness crowd and the DEA’s self-serving activities, there is a huge industry of drug counselors, drug testing labs, drug test manufacturers, prisons and prison guards, who stand to lose a ton of money if consorting with Mary Jane is decriminalized. Mighty few politicians who want to win elections will buck the righteous wrath and deep pockets of those hellbent on punishing and rehabilitating (or at least counseling) those who sin with Mary Jane.
Sponsoring such a movement in Congress might lead someone into the danger zone with these deep pocketed financiers and their lobbyists.
James, I agree: the interests vested in maintaining the “drug war” are deep and wide. There is a lot of work to do to implement sound reasoning on this issue. However, the States can influence the social change; they have a part to play.
Okay I had to go back 7 posts to find it….. and I swear I just didn’t see it that day. there were a lot of comments on that particular post of cowgirls. and I missed it because it was a good amount above Daves last comment and a day after our discussion.
Which one? The two I posted or the one Rob posted? I also find it difficult to buy since you responded to the same post multiple times afterwards. Whatever. You are a candidate and can’t be wrong.
Look have a nice day someday in your life, I don’t need your appreciation, or your slant on life to make it through. I tried to be Honest, and that’s all I am required to do in the eyes of others.
See I understand you don’t have to accept what I say, but that on you…..whether you like it as an individual or not. I can respect it. I cant change your mind only you can.
I don’t read the posts here every day, I have better things to do most times, I missed it. I am not sorry past this apology!
There is no shame in going by Kenny.
I’d log out and get that foot loose of your mouth.
It is worth noting that less than ten minutes after Obama’s executive order not to deport DREAM kids, the MJ folks were already bitterly writing of how Obama could decriminalize marijuana with a stroke of his mighty pen. No, he really can’t. Please tell me that I don’t have to explain the difference here (except to the wingnuts who aren’t bright enough to understand that exiling people from the only home they’ve ever known is not an appropriate punishment for a crime those people never chose to commit.)
As Van Jones pointed out at Netroots Nation last weekend, It’s really beginning to seem as if the left doesn’t want a representative democracy and a president, but rather a king. Purely my opinion, but I find that as scary as hell.
(For the record: James Conner, I am not at all poking you for your quip about Platonic philosopher kings, and your preference for such if that king were you. I enjoyed that comment. I just don’t want a misunderstanding here between what you wrote, and I’ve written. That tends to happen a lot online, and I’m kind of over the whole drama of it.)
think: convention. gather, dems.
If a PK is needed, I’m still available — and if I’m selected…
It’s not purely your opinion, Rob. Just listen to the disdain with which Mark speaks about the majority, or read Chomsky talk about manufactured consent. What they really mean is, “It’s better if the people are on our side. But if they are not, they are brainwashed or lazy or apathetic or in someone undeserving of having their opinions heard. We’ll get our way and convince them later, if at all.”
Re: Montana’s law on marijuana: http://www.flatheadnewsgroup.com/hungryhorsenews/article_0d3739f8-a4e8-11e1-bbf2-0019bb2963f4.html
Re: Federal government’s irrational control of marijuana and Montana’s right to self-govern: http://montanalibertyforum.com/mlf/2012/06/02/tim-baldwin-files-commerce-power-v-tenth-amendment-brief-in-9th-circuit/
This is why change needs to come at the federal level regarding marijuana laws. Otherwise it is just raw meat for the wackos likebaldwin who want to nullify federal law.I’m sure timbo also thinks the federal government acted unconstitutionally when using the commerce clause to enact civil rights laws. The marijuana issue is a Trojan horse form them that could find broad appeal in the younger generations who dont remember states abuses and Jim crow.
I am going to try one more time to explain it to those that just can’t seem to get the facts straight.
The issue with Marijuana is NOT a state issue. It does not matter one whit what the state does because the Federal Mandate on Drug Use and Drug Trafficing has been found to supercede any state law. Norma, you are wrong.
The reason you are wrong is a Supreme Court case that is very familiar to anyone that has been actively working on this issue for any amount of time. As someone that is interested in representing your district at the State level next year, you really need to know this.
The case in question was Gonzales V Raich (known in MM circles as the Raich case). In 2005, the Supreme Court ruled that under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, the United States Congress may criminalize the production and use of home-grown cannabis even where states approve its use for medicinal purposes. You can read the details here if you wish –
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich
This case was a “landmark” case in the same way Roe VS Wade was a landmark case for the right to choose. All subsequent MM and decriminalization cases brought before courts since have operated by the decision of the Raich Case.
For this reason, any state level decision on Marijuana (or any other drug for that matter) is useless in attempting to defend against a Federal Drug Charge.
The silver lining, though, is that the decision in the Raich Case also indicates what supporters for MM and decriminalization have to do to get it changed. The court recognised that it is within Congress’s power to legislate whether MM or decriminalization is legal –
“Respondents in this case do not dispute that passage of the CSA, as part of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act, was well within Congress’ commerce power. ”
By doing so, they have laid out the exact procedure Congress could choose to go through to make MM available to the states that want it. Moreover, Congress could simply legislate to decriminalize Marijuana and regulate it like Alcohol or tobacco.
Passing a MM or Decriminalization law in Montana does NOTHING to protect those that use Marijuana from Federal Procecution. PERIOD.
Bhaw hahahaha Do you even think to read the real opinion and not the Wiki Guide
“The silver lining, though, is that the decision in the Raich Case also indicates what supporters for MM and decriminalization have to do to get it changed. The court recognised that it is within Congress’s power to legislate whether MM or decriminalization is legal –” That is not he legal argument that is telling in that court case, bit what it rested its argument on for the supreme court.
I am wrong? I am the one who said decriminalize first. MM does have ways to go forward as well very efficiently as well! California has been fighting the US Government on MM laws for over 14 years now, because of that decriminalization and MM can move forward.
The Small Amount of Marijuana (SAM) program, which Seth Williams the Attorney general of Philadelphia had implemented in June 2010 , frees up prosecutors to concentrate on more serious crimes by treating arrests for marijuana possession of up to 30 grams – slightly more than an ounce – as a summary offense, rather than a misdemeanor. The misdemeanor charge carried a maximum penalty of 30 days’ probation or jail time and a $500 fine,unlike MM laws.
Now, marijuana offenders pay $200 for a three-hour class about drug abuse, and their record is expunged. No trial, no judge, no court-appointed defense attorneys, no prosecutor, no lab tests to confirm the “leafy green substance” is actually marijuana, no cops getting paid overtime to testify.
“We were spending thousands of dollars for when someone possessed $10 or $15 worth of weed,” Williams said of the way marijuana cases were prosecuted when he was elected. “It just didn’t make any sense.”
This new program, called the Small Amount of Marijuana (SAM – because government loves acronyms) program allows people that are found in possession of small amounts of marijuana (30 grams or less, or a little more than an ounce) to avoid arrest, conviction, imprisonment and a criminal record.
People that would have been charged with possession of marijuana (which is still illegal in Philadelphia) instead pay a $200 fee for a three hour class on drug abuse. No case is brought to trial, and no record remains after the person completes the class.
People who are charged with possession of marijuana can either enter the SAM program or opt for a trial instead. Since the implementation of the program, the vast majority of those charged with possession of marijuana chose the SAM program. It’s a no brainer.
It makes sense to reduce the amount of cases that are brought to the court and the man-hours for court security, judges, lab technicians, lawyers and police officers that would otherwise have been spent to prosecute this minor offense. By instead charging a small fee, Philadelphia has taken an unproductive tax money sinkhole and turned it into a source of revenue.
Prior to the SAM program, a conviction for possession of marijuana could mean a 30-day sentence to probation, time in jail and a fine of $500, along with a misdemeanor on the offender’s record.
Approximately 4,160 defendants enrolled in the SAM program during its first year, The federal Government has not re-litigated any of those cases and never will, Mr Kailey! In fact the program is considered so well tuned that other cities and states, Are clamoring to use it themselves! This speaks in volumes of how well the law is written to conform to all federal Opinions.
“The Federal government may not compel the States to enact or enforce a Federal regulatory program.” Printz v. United States 538 U.S. 1036 (1997). “Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative process of the states by directly compelling them to enact and enforce a Federal regulatory program.” New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 161 (1992).
The Federal Government’s actions constitute commandeering when it “requires state officials to assist in the enforcement of Federal statutes regulating private individuals.” Raich v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 850 867 n.17 (9th Cir. 2007).
Thats the right part of Raich V Gonzales to write about. not your wiki one.
The manner in which the Controlled Substances Act is enforced can violate the Tenth Amendment. Conant v. Walters, 309 F.3d 629 (9th Cir. 2002) (Chief Judge Kozinsky’s concurring opinion).
Notwithstanding its decision in Raich, the Supreme Court showed its tacit approval of California’s medical marijuana laws by refusing to review City of Garden Grove v. Superior Court of Orange County (Felix Kha), 157 Cal.App. 4th 355 (2007):
“Defendant Kha was caught with a third of an ounce of marijuana and the case was dismissed because the defendant was a medical marijuana patient. Id. The issue then became whether to return his medical marijuana, a Schedule 1 controlled substance under Federal Law. Id. The Fourth District Court of Appeal ruled Defendant Kha was entitled to the return of his property. Id. at 390.”
The city, representing the police department, appealed the ruling, ultimately seeking review by the United States Supreme Court, who declined review.
Lastly you flawed argument!
Congress has the power to preempt state law under the Supremacy clause. See U.S. Const. Art VI, cl. 2; Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council (2000) 530 U.S. 363, 372-374.
However, there is a strong presumption against Federal preemption when it comes to the exercise of historic police powers of the states. Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc. (1992) 505 U.S. 504, 516; That presumption will not be overcome absent a clear and manifest congressional purpose. This is why the Philly Law exists!
Good luck with you Argument Mr. Kailey… But this is one thing I don’t plan on backing down from.
Yes, Norma, I have read the entire finding from the Raich case. Since my access to the legal library is restricted to me, I chose to use the more common Wiki article for my comment.
You are welcome to keep tilting at the windmill of state sovernty with MM. Just don’t ask me to buy into your argument just because you are making it. The raids in both California and Montana within the last 12 months are perfect examples that Washington disagrees with you. Until the Federal law is changed or until a contractory finding from the Supreme Court overrules Raich, no matter what anecdotal evidence you have to the contrary, the Feds still have both the authority and will to use that authority to overrule the states. Siting stories where they haven’t doesn’t mean that they can’t.
The truly sad thing about this continuing argument is that I have been actively working for the decriminalization of marijuana for the better part of a decade. I WANT it decriminalized, even though I am deathly allergic to it. The Billions of dollars that have spent on this “War on Drugs” is lunacy. The war was lost before it began because prohibition does not work and it never will.
You are welcome to advocate for state law after state law. In my opinion, it is completely wasted effort that is far better directed at the real culprits in this situation – our stuffed suit congress critters.
Okay just so you know you can go to the supreme court website and pull up Just about any case before it in full. Reading Wiki can sometimes be a great source for court cases names, but its info is always sketchy at best.
Secondly The county has an excellent little library on our state law plus opinions of cases. It is free to use with permission. I know I used them Twice once to defend my property against the city, and another time to help a friend, against an unfair firing by county officials(We both won with a little research).
http://www.supremecourt.gov/
Lastly I am not tilting for state sovereignty, anymore then Brian Schweitzer has when he refused the FED ID Law, and helped our elder citizens, disabled get cheaper drugs then the USA wanted us to have. He just knew, what laws were clear cut from the U.S. government and what isn’t. He picked his fights for this state very well, and that’s what I want to do here also. I feel this SAM program is a great approach to save the state government money on recreational users as Federal Law already stand on the side of doctor patient rights in cannabis use( see my comments above). I am sorry patients do not know that here, or they haven’t been told.
States do have rights out there that are still not defined in federal law, and where federal authority has overstepped it’s bounds, it is in some state crumbling. there have been hundreds of cases each year that test the bounds for the U.S. Gov, and there will be hundreds of cases each year to come.
There is good government laws in place for both state and federal and there are bad. NO Montana legislator should need a lobbyist to tell them that. They should be smart enough to use the online Fed and state law websites to find how we can protect people rights and State rights responsibly. Idiot laws like the Gold standard BS, and stripping the federal government of EPA protections here are not good ones.
That’s not an argument to you Mr. Kailey it is a spirited debate. This is the very kind of debate that needs to happen, whether you or others, like it or not.
The MM community in this state made some huge mistakes, that led to the heavy hand of the government.
The federal government in California is going after landlords who want to rent to MM facilities, because they have exhausted other legal remedies regarding weed for medical use in state and federal courts.
The Feds are losing… it is just not at the speed that Baby-boomers and the X generation want. The wheels of justice turn, albeit slowly…. But there is nothing wrong with adding the grease from our own state to further the national debate, starting at the state level.
The feds going after Landlords, so infuriates some local officials in Cali so much… that City governments like Santa Cruz have dispensed medical Marijuana on the steps of the county buildings to MM card carriers without ill effects from the Feds.
The battle on Marijuana will continue to wage until the people tell government they do not want their money spent on the drug war anymore. This can only start with electing the right fed officials at the state level by voting the people into DC who promise to be pro MM…. not hoping someone will write a bill Later.
The change is happening at the state level, because state governments are closer aligned to the will of the people then the U.S. Government is. We need to put people in place that will argue that for us.
So corner your Candidates, ask those questions and Vote.
To argue that federal court cases stand for absolute, unchanging rules ignores the US S CT’s own rulings and advocates originalist doctrines–a doctrine most, if not all, liberals or progressives reject.
This unchanging-rule view implies that the parameters of Congress’ power cannot change based upon the law’s letter, despite the fact that the circumstances which gave rise to that letter have changed or no longer exist; thereby leaving the people to suffer under a law that no longer serves their needs. Most people, including the courts, have rejected this approach to constitutional rules.
As the US S CT stated in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, rules of Constitutional law are not absolutely fixed; they are analyzed based upon a host of circumstances, social and otherwise. This constitutional view is a discipline in both inductive and deductive reasoning, among other interpretative tools.
Where the facts in a specific case reveal a need to change a rule, the Courts will find the rule’s outer limits and begin shaping new rules. US S CT Justice Benjamin Cardozo stated the same in his book, The Nature of the Judicial Process.
To admit that the constitution is living admits that Congress’ power is subject to social and changing conditions, especially when the grant of power under review is vague and not subject to absolute certainty; such as, “shall have the power to regulate commerce among the States”.
This is what I argue in my Amicus Brief to the 9th Circuit recently (http://montanalibertyforum.com/mlf/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/2012-6-2-Amicus-Brief-Final-MT-Caregivers-v-US-12-35110.pdf). The Appellant’s main brief argues the same: http://montanalibertyforum.com/mlf/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/2012-6-5-Appellant-Brief-MT-Caregivers-v-US-12-351101.pdf.
One of the methods of determining social change is through State action. (This is based upon the reality that laws that originate closest to the people reflect more accurately their will and consent–this also was one of the main reasons for keeping the States as States in the 1787 US Constitution.) The federal courts have acknowledged the States’ role in making this determination of social change, including the Raich court. The 9th Cir. said respective of the States’ influence:
“[A]lthough changes in state law reveal a clear trend towards the
protection of medical marijuana use, we hold that the asserted right
has not yet gained the traction on a national scale to be deemed
fundamental.”
“Has not yet gained” more than implies that “changes in state law” may reveal at some point that the “asserted right…is to be deemed fundamental”, thus limiting Congress’ power.
Were the States to do nothing to protect their citizens and to advance liberty, the people’s liberties would rest completely and solely with how fast or slow Congress reacted to social changes–presuming they even respond correctly. Given our vast nation’s population of over 300 million and the complexity of our interests, can any reasonable mind believe that Congress’ wisdom and foresight is sufficient to meet all of the needs and wants of the entire nation? When was the last time you had in depth and meaningful conversation with Montana’s one Representative or two Senators on why marijuana should be legalized or removed from Schedule 1–must less any of the other host of issues we deal with on a day to day basis?
To claim the States have no part to play in the revelation of social change denies our constitutional system and rejects how the federal courts determine whether an action is deemed fundamental to deserve protection under the living constitution view.
States are fortunately granting more liberty to their citizens relative to marijuana. This is a direct sign of changing social conditions that warrant a reevaluation of Congress’ power to deprive citizens of an accepted liberty.
(Unfounded and satirical comments relative to a State depriving minorities civil rights adds nothing to the argument but reveals the shallowness and prejudice of ones’ thinking and understanding.)
Thus, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison’s view of the US Constitution was right when they said in the Federalist Papers that the States will watch the federal government and the federal government will watch the States for usurpation and that the people must ultimately resolve the conflicts.
Our federal system is not always easy as conflict is inherent. This is not a bad thing, however, according to progressive philosopher, John Stuart Mill in his work, On Liberty (1869). Our federal system is a powerful system of checks and balances for an advanced and complex society, as it works towards expanding individual liberty through the tests of trial and experience.
We should not discourage conflict, nor should we desire to monopolize power that could be used to harm the people. Open and debated conflict is the most effective method of revealing truth and objective reality–a price of liberty we as free people should be willing to pay.
How you got to your reply from my comment is beyond me (other than an almost pathological need to show your own superiority). I did not say that the Supreme Court Decision on Raich was above change down the road. What I did say was that the Raich decision (made in 2005) was the blueprint that is being used now. It is unreasonable to suggest – without congressional action – that the Supreme Court would have changed it’s mind in seven years. That kind of change takes time.
I would actually agree with most of what you wrote on an ideological level. Sadly, it has little to do with the situation I was discussing at this time.
The easiest solution (in terms of logistics) is to address the situation at Congress – the agency even the Supreme Court admitted was the authority to address the issue. Sadly, that is also the most unlikely place it will be addressed.
One thing to add. While the state passing a law to “legalize” marijuana for medicinal use has not legal value in terms of the Federal Mandate, it does have value. If enough states pass laws on Medical Marijuana, it is reasonable to see that as a stepping stone to forcing Congress to address the issue.
Kenneth, I was not responding to you directly. My response was a general response in light of the subject matter.
Why you make accusation against me is beyond me. I thought education and open discussions were good and necessary to maintain a free society. I particularly enjoy the free flow of thought. Forgive the impression.
I believe we should work together on matters we have common interest and goals, regardless of party or ideological preferences. We could get a lot more good accomplished.
Thanks Tim, it looks like some people from both parties, can get this issue resolved at the state level, were it is supposed to be, and we need too!
Then I apologize. My comment was predicated on the idea that you were responding to me.
I also want to Thank you for your efforts, even if I feel they are misdirected. It is just my opinion, based on the current state of affairs that if half the energy being currently directed at state efforts were instead directed at the stuffed suits in Washington that are supposedly representing us, this issue would have been put to bed years ago. It is unlikely to be resolved at the state level any time soon and a Congressional approach is far more efficent and appropriate.
No worries, Kenneth, and thank you for your response.
Old Timmy talking a sweet game, trying to get himself some allies. See what I mean? The baldwins came to Montana Because they think it will be a mountain ‘redoubt’ for them in the apocalyptic future conflict these clowns predict with the federal government. They are also on record as confederate supporters. You aren’t fooling anyone who is paying attention when you claim federal civil rights laws are not on your delusional radar Tim. The same interpretation of the commerce clause you seek would give the southern states the right to bring back discrimination in public accommodations. Isn’t that right Tim Tim ?
Jack Ruby, I appreciate your interest in Tim Baldwin; however, your ad hominem attacks are silly–even humorous. Still, let’s analyze the substance of the matter you raise:
ISSUE: WHETHER THE STATES WOULD POSSESS THE POWER TO DEPRIVE INDIVIDUALS OF DUE PROCESS, EQUAL PROTECTION, PRIVILEGES, AND IMMUNITIES WERE CONGRESS’ POWER TO REGULATE COMMERCE CONSTRUED MORE STRICTLY.
ANSWER: NO.
The US Constitution leaves no room to entertain your conspiracy theory.
Under the 14th amendment, individuals are protected from State action that deprives or abridges any person of due process, equal protection, and privileges, and immunities. The 14th amendment and laws passed pursuant thereto redressed State action discrimination and other deprivations.
The amendments that were passed soon after the Civil War did not address the commerce power and the power of the States to regulate their internal commerce. This is significant given that the commerce power was interpreted much stricter at that time. Were a stricter view of the commerce power the problem, the amendments would have reflected a new expansive view of Congress’ commerce power. This never took place given the 14th amendment’s effect.
Since then, all of the Civil Rights Acts that have been passed to limit State action discrimination would be constitutionally based in the 14th amendment, not a liberal view of the commerce power.
However, a stricter view of the commerce power would give more room for Montana to regulate marijuana while the 14th amendment limitations would remain. Alexander Hamilton put it this way,
“The supervision of agriculture and of other concerns of a similar nature…are proper to be provided for by local legislation, [and] can never be desirable cares of a general jurisdiction.” Federalist Paper 17
Criminal law relative to intrastate marijuana use should remain in Montana, not Congress. How long it will take us to get there is yet to be seen.
I would love to read one’s theory on how the States could lawfully deprive people of constitutional protections in violation of the 14th amendment assuming a stricter view of the commerce power–of course with an opportunity of countering such a ludicrous proposition.
“Criminal law relative to intrastate marijuana use should remain in Montana, not Congress. How long it will take us to get there is yet to be seen.”
As I am sure you already see the issue with that statement, I am genuinely curious how you would respond to the obvious retort – “how are you going to guarentee that marijuana sales would stay intrastate”?
Further, there is still that pesky problem with the Raich judgement. I recognise that judgements can change over time, but I find it highly unlikely that any effort to redefine the Raich judgement to be successful without Congressional input – at the very least moving Marijuana from a Schedule 1 drug to a Schedule 2 drug.
You raise a good point moor cat. From a practical stand point it is hard to argue that medical marijuana sales would not affect the flow of interstate commerce, particularly if neighboring states have not legalized. Considering some of the things the supreme court has found to have enough of an effect on interstate commerce to fall within fed purview (like not allowing blacks to eat at white lunch counters) I don’t see how the court could not rule the way it did. Federal drug laws are ridiculous. Many things the. Fed govt has used the commerce power for are not. Loons like Baldwin look to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Tim is a sad case. He was raised in his daddy’s cult. MOST young dudes eventually break away from their daddy’s influence and leave home and begin a life of their own. But those raised in a cult never do! And this is very sad. And bizarre!
You see, the Bulbdim’s, instead of staying and trying to improve their OWN sh*thole state of Florida, do what all losers do. They fled! Just like the Pastord did during Vietnam.
And now, Pastord Bulbdim is doing his best Davey Crackpot impersonation by stating that Montana will be his own private Alamo! Yet Tim thinks that OTHERS are “silly and humorous”! Too funny.
These dufus carpetbaggers will never be Montanans. They are simply the latest goofy cult to take up temporary residence here.
Notice that Tim, the great American patriot, was unable to answer ANY of the questions that I posed to him. He CLAIMS to be this great “patriot”, yet he can not even list TEN things that he loves about America! Why? Why is he scared to answer??? Because he knows the TRVTH. He actually HATES America! He wants to re-make America into his daddy’s twisted, bizarre, christo-fascist un-AMERICAN America! Like that’s really gonna happen.
This is why Tim is a sad, pathetic figure. He needs an intervention to get him outta the cult!
“ISSUE: WHETHER THE STATES WOULD POSSESS THE POWER TO DEPRIVE INDIVIDUALS OF DUE PROCESS, EQUAL PROTECTION, PRIVILEGES, AND IMMUNITIES WERE CONGRESS’ POWER TO REGULATE COMMERCE CONSTRUED MORE STRICTLY.”
Nope. You’ve misidentified the issue. The issue is whether the federal government would be able to prevent commercial enterprises within the states from discriminating on the basis of race. That’s the question, but you won’t discuss it, because you know the answer. It would be absolutely acceptable for a business to refuse to hire Mexican, or serve Indians, or for a neighborhood council or real estate agency from preventing blacks from moving into a particular neighborhood, if the state allowed it. And there’s every reason to believe that at least some states would allow it.
Tim, I appreciate how you refer to yourself in the 3rd person. I also appreciate your interest in jack ruby. Your straw man attack was not impressive though. As an attorney you should know that when I refer to discrimination in public accommodations I was not referring to anything in your post. Your failure to acknowledge how civil rights laws were passed using the commerce clause indicates your fundamental dishonesty in attempting to win yourself supporters on the medical marijuana issue. Go back to the redoubt, close the bunker door and start over.
Anyone care to join me for lunch?
Is your daddy comin’ too?? bhwhahahahahaaaa!
Get a life, timmy, your OWN life, dude! Screw up as much courage as you can muster and LEAVE the cult, dude! It’s time. There’s a big world out there called REALITY, tim! Check it out!
BTW, tim, just WHAT makes you think you have the right to move to Montana and start spouting your nonsensical bullshit, dude? Do you REALLY think that people are interested in some outta stater’s religeeous, wacko horseshit?? Why? Why would you believe this? Where does this “right” come from? You’re a liarwyer, tim, so where’s the precedent? Why should Montanans be interested in anything a wackjob has to say? You see, I don’t feel the need to move to the deep south and edify the inbreds down there. So why do YOU feel the need to move here?
You can start answering questions any time now, tim.
I know Tim Baldwin. He’s a pretty conservative guy, but he’s his own man, not a clone of his father. Judge him by his own views and deeds, not by his father’s.
James, conservative simply means stupid. Look, when a FULL FORTY-EIGHT PERCENT of Americans frickin’ believe that the earth is four thousand years old, it’s time to STOP coddling ignorance and superstition! That’s dangerous. NO society in history progressives with ignorance, superstition, and hate!
I asked Tim some legitimate questions in all seriousness. He will not respond. Hell, I’ll truthfully answer ANY question posed by a moron, so why won’t Tim answer mine? I am not being flippant. I want to know.
Here’s the deal. The nutjobs just LUV saying how patriotic they are. All I want to know is just WHAT they love about our patria? Is that so difficult to answer?
And then you’ve got morons like Joe Bullalot who is a big freedumb guy. Just what the hell does he mean by freedom?? To allow coporate fascism, or anarchy where might makes right and anything goes?
I want some accountability from these folks. If they spout it, they own it. So, let’em DEFEND it! They can’t because it’s back to my original point. Conservative just means stoopid. Conservatism died with Goldwater and Buckley. What we’re left with are racist, inbred reetards.
And did you see today’s GF Spitoon? They have given a column to a, you guessed it, reetired gubmint sucker ’cause he wants to get the military/conservative view into the paper! The pathetic lifer SUCKED offn’ Unca Sugartit his entire life, so now he’s an “expert” on Teatardism! I’m sorry, but MY rule is that if you SUCK OFFN’ UNCA SUGARTIT your entire career, you AIN’T an expert on NUTHIN’!
Now, I really want ol’ Tim to list the ten things he loves most about our country. Is that so hard? I’ll gladly do it starting with number one.
1. OUR DIVERSITY! I love our different peoples, languages, colors, religions, cultures, all rolled into one to form our American nation! Our diversity is our strength!
p.s. And James, just for the record, what you’ll NEVER hear the nazis spouting is democracy and justice! Nope, can’t have that. All they spout is freedumb. They conviently leave OUT the “freedom and JUSTICE for all”! Hmm. Wonder why? Guess we’d have to ask ol’ Joe Bullalot!
p.s.s. I just viewed the Lowdown photo. They had “goddamn america”. Well, NOW I really want to know what they LUV about America! They should be able to articulate that, right?
But they can’t, for if they articulate their hate, it will be quite obvious! They HATE the fact that a black man was elected president! And that ain’t luvin’ Murca!
Again, they haven’t thought this one through because they haven’t thought. I would love to hear Joe Bullalot explain HIS idea of freedom.
p.s.s.s. And sumthin’ REAL scary when you hear dildos like rick hildo saying that he wants to “improve” edyucayshun, while nearly ALL of his inbred followers beleive that the earth was created by god four thousand YEARS ago, ’cause that’s what the Book of Superstitions told them so!
Dark ages, anyone???
But I must admit that I didn’t get too upset by the outhouse. Hell, that’s just typical rightwing racist nonsense. If I were a Pubbie leader though, I would probably tell them to please NOT bring that thing around at events, for they’ve already got the inbred racist vote locked up! I’m thinkin’ that this particular group of inbreds just likes to get a rise outta the national news. Means nothing though.
FOR JAMES! Best comment on the incident I’ve seen so far.
“They didn’t shoot at the outhouse because it was O’Bama’s. They shot at it because it was a LIBRARY”!
bwhahahahahahahahahahahhaaa!
Damn! I had beer comin’ out my NOSE when I read that one I was laffing so hard! Now that’s damn funny! And unfortunately, so true!
Agreed.
James, thank you for making an objective observation about my character. However, your description of my being “conservative” is not how I define myself.
To help demonstrate this point, I am accused by many “conservatives” as being liberal or progressive. Some accuse me of rejecting the “ways of Chuck Baldwin” and chide my wayward ways.
It is funny how the political margins will define the same person in completely different ways. This is similar to how Bruce Tutvedt has been described as “socialist or communist” by some of the “TEA Party” types and as a hard core conservative by the progressive types.
For this reason, the labels do very little do describe who a person really is. Perceptions seem to dictate one’s conclusions about another person, and ignorance distorts the remaining conclusions.
I am a serious and genuine student of political philosophy. I have arduously studied political philosophy since I became an adult and find that it has made me who I am today. I have studied most all of the classic philosophers from Socrates to Karl Marx; from Sir Edward Coke to John Locke.
My views about politics are based upon what philosophers have mostly all determined is the role of the State: to protect the general welfare; to protect life, liberty, and property; and to provide for the common administration of the public needs. The preamble to Montana’s Constitution states the same. Is this conservative or liberal? Neither.
From this, we further analyze how the State accomplished this while protecting the individual from a misdirected society (i.e. majority). Herein comes the objective nature of government’s role. Government should not be based upon personal preferences or ideologies (i.e. religion, subjectivity, etc.). Rather, it should consider this: is the action to be governed one that harms or negatively affects the interests or rights of others, or is it personal in nature?
Where this standard is followed, individuals are better protected from a majority that feels the State can and should regulate anything it feels is “good” or “bad”. Thus, for example, the MT S CT found that the government’s claim that criminalizing a homosexual relationship to prevent the spreading of AIDS is not a sufficient nexus between the role of government and the individual’s actions.
In addition, it is the underlying philosophy about the “Social Compact” that formed and continues to govern our States and union. In fact, both federal and Montana courts have referred to the Social Compact (from a philosophical reference) as our most foundational source of constitution and statutory law.
It is the Social Compact theory that formed the principles of the Declaration of Independence, which Montana’s Enabling Act requires our Constitution follow. It is this theory that states that individuals give up certain natural liberties and relinquish them to the State to be governed by the sovereign authority and power of the State.
In my experience, I find few people who love to study and expound more than I do the principles of the Social Compact as it relates to constitutional law and societal progress: protecting the stability while allowing for change and improvement through a variety of means (i.e. courts, laws, amendments, etc.). This pursuit of knowledge has literally changed my life and is one of the driving factors in my desire to run for MT HD 4 legislator.
Thus, my understanding about the State and government’s role rarely fits a preconceived box or label because I view it from a much more scientific approach, not a party or ideological approach–again, noting how people from one of the spectrum or the other will classify me in opposite terms given their perception of what I “should” believe or think.
I see the value of both the Enlightenment philosophy, which birthed the American pursuit of independence, as well as the Progressive philosophy, which birthed the pursuit of change and social development given the complexities and changes in culture, ideology, and values. In this regard, John Stuart Mill and even George Hegel have argued some very persuasive points.
I love America. I love Montana. I love Flathead County. This is my home. It is where I raise my 2 young children, with another due 12/26. It is where I work and am building lasting relationships. It is where I stand before the Courts as a sworn officer of the Court to advocate and advance justify for my clients.
I love many things about America:
1) I love our heritage and history–a complex combination of individual liberty and social strength.
2) I love our diversity with the opportunities of individual improvement and opportunistic pursuits.
3) I love our federal system whereby individual liberty is best preserved by power checking power, and where the Constitution and our laws are what govern men, not the flighty passions of powerful people or factitious mobs.
4) I love how conflict between groups and governments actually enhance our understanding of individual liberty and government’s role.
5) I love our freedom of travel and choice.
6) I love that we have the strength to protect ourselves from foreign enemies and the self-discipline to govern ourselves by law and defend ourselves against the lawless and conscience-rejecting criminals.
7) I love that we value things like honor, family, virtue, character, education, and improvement.
8) I love that neighbors are willing to help neighbors in times of need.
9) I love that freedom of religion is guaranteed, as is expressed in our Constitutions and Montana’s Enabling Act.
10) I love that I was born and raised in America and have had the opportunities to learn, grow, and prosper.
11) I love that I can raise my children to be the best they can be, limited only by their failure to work and envision.
12) I love that our experiences have taught us things about ourselves, in both negative and positive terms and that we have been able to largely recover from nation-dividing events.
13) I love that our foundations have been laid by people who were dedicated enough to study natural laws using the reason and understanding of man to discern what is good and bad government.
I could keep going of course. In short, I am proud to be me: an American and Montanan.
Tim, that’s a start. Not a great one, but a start none the less. Please do stick around though for the more substantive issues and posts. Don’t take it too personal when things start to get western around here, and they always do as you know if you’re a regular reader.
But Tim, in all seriousness, I doubt that you’ll ever be a real Montanan. I don’t mean that as an insult, so don’t take it that way.
It’s all about a sense of place. I think that Steinbeck said it best in the Grapes of Wrath. Speaking of the Okies, he said that “they were the land”. Speaking of the bankers, he said that “the land was them.”
All newbies fall into the second category. Your chunk of land is you. You’re NOT the land! You’ll never BE this land, for you’re now too old. You’ll always be a carptebagger. Your children might be Montanans some day though.
It’s all about place. You don’t buy it. You don’t own it. You EARN it, in body, mind, and spirit through living on the land. And you haven’t done that.
Montana is a tough place to live. I’ve seen it break, destroy, and kill a whole lotta folks. Many drank, worked, and worried themselves to death. The survivors are lucky. They’ve managed to eke out some sort of existence in this stark, beautiful, giant, unforgiving, hardscrabble landscape. (which you can’t eat by the way)
Yet you know nothing of this because the learning curve is long and treacherous.
Good luck to you. I mean that. Just do NOT try to change Montana into some kind of preconcieved wacko bullshit that you came here with. Part of Montana history is watching wackos come and go. Happens all the time. We’ll see where you’re at five years from now, the common length of time that newbies stay here before moving on! I’m not kidding on this fact. Five years IS the most common length of time that newbies do stay in Montana. And then they’re off again.
Thanks, Larry.
You’re quite welcome. And I look forward to your comments to come. You see, we enjoy debate here, REAL debate. Jump right in. The water’s fine.
Actually, I kind of like your list, Tim. Mine would not be all that different. Like you, I am a transplant but in my case, I moved here when I was 10. Even though I left for a couple of decades to serve in the Navy and later, to work in an industry where I could make enough to support my kids (micro-electronics), I am still a Montana Mountain boy. Much of what Larry says is in his own “special” flavor, but there is a lot of truth in what he says too. I have seen the valley I grew up in become some kind of nightmare version of a mashup between rich California and Hillbilly Tennesee. It is scary on a level I cannot describe.
All that said, you also have to understand that we have seen some real nutcase, batshit crazy stuff from the most recent batch of hard right republicans – so much so that it made national news on more than one occation. Your father is at the heart of it as has already been pointed out. While I am more to the right than most posters here, I too am absolutely fed up with wingnut crap. If you are honestly protraying your real views and you establish a history of reasonable arguments here, people will accept you for what you say. If not, well, they tend to eat their own young here so you can imagine what they do to those they consider batshit crazy.
Thanks, Kenneth.
Um, you forgot to include your belief that women shouldn’t have the ability to decide their own destinies.
Tim you wrote a 1000 word essay but you still didn’t meaningfully reply to the point I made about you and the commerce clause. Maybe you are just ignoring me, which would be fine, but I think you are intentionally not answering it because you know what it reveals about you. I’ll ask it again in a different way and split it up for you. Maybe you can try responding to it.
Would the Civil Rights Act of 1964 be unconstitutional under your interpretation of the commerce clause?
Do you personally think it is unconstitutional?
Should the Southern states have had their laws left in place which allowed segregation and discrimination in public businesses?
Do you think a business should have the right to serve only white customers?
Do you think if a state legislature decides that businesses should be able to serve only white customers that such a decision should be the state’s to make?
Do you realize when you give interviews to and are a frequent guest of alex jones and prisonplanet.com you will be viewed a wack job loon?
We know what Tim believes.
He won’t admit the answers are:
Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes and no.
I just don’t see where the Democratic party was standing up for us voters. There are plenty of folks out there who see the Drug War for what is, essentially a war on the Constitution. If I had to choose between the main candidates that will be listed on the Montana ballot, on the issue of who will work to end this war it be former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson. We already know how Obama feels, since the Montana raids and Romney will increase the drug war. Let’s find candidates, who will stand up for individual rights, rather then state rights over the Feds.
I don’t see where the Drug War is a constitutional issue. Don’t get me wrong, I think the Drug War is costly, stupid and a waste of resources, but I don’t see where it is unconstitutional. What the government should have done a long time ago was regulate it like they do alcohol/tobacco. The revenue alone from that would have gone a long way toward paying some of the debt the government has.
It’s a war on the Constitution because, we lose some gun rights because of this war on drugs, we lose some 4th Amendment rights because of this war on drugs. Doesn’t the individual have certain rights under the 9th Amendment as well. Government does what it wants naming the war on drugs as the excuse, to violet our liberties.
The ninth amendment is not a source of rights Dave, it is simply a rule about how to read the Constitution. when you read the the laws of the constitution you must read the case law that defines it. they have been narrowly defined in the past by the supreme court.
I’m not interested in simply being pedantic here, Norma. But the 9th is a source of rights in precisely the same manner as the 1st. It clarifies that the rights granted by other amendments cannot supersede each other in such a way that we are denied rights. If one looks at the issues through the filter of active rights (free expression of religion, right to keep arms) and passive rights (no state sponsored religion, no quartering of troops), then the 9th becomes every bit the source of rights that Dave claims. The 9th is the very reason one can have the right to free speech but yet not have the right to scream “Fire” in a crowded theater.
Though it would be great if Dave could flesh his argument out more, on the surface I agree with him. The WOD has caused an alarming curtailment of the individuals’ rights by the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th amendments. One has the right to practice the religion of Ras Tafari but not to smoke weed as a victimless part of religious ceremony? How does that make any sense? Convicted drug dealers can have their second amendment rights stripped well after they’ve served their sentence? That’s not ‘right’. The WOD allows a 72 hour retroactive period for acquiring a search warrant after an arrest has been made by a search. I thought the 4th protected against that very thing. And how on Earth can anyone justify laws (which we have in Montana) that a refusal to provide evidence of drug use (alcohol or otherwise) is de facto proof that one is guilty of using that drug? That seems like a very clear weakening of the 5th to me. I like Dave’s thinking on these matters.
Yes, there is a wealth of specific case law regarding all of my complaints, some of it very contradictory. But to say that the 9th is not actually a grant of right is to deny much of the case law already written. Your comment, Norma, reads as if all case law is decided and done. No, it really isn’t. And Dave’s complaint loses nothing in the process. It is indeed possible that the WOD is unconstitutional on many levels.
I agree with you in our combined assessment that Dave has not fleshed out his argument further, but let me explain what my understanding of the Ninth is pertaining to Modern Jurisprudence. In 19944 the Ninth amendment pretty mush became toothless in a case called, “United Public Workers of America (C.I.O.) v. Mitchell” (Cites to find the case online will be below).
In Mitchell, a group of federal employees challenged provisions of the Hatch Act that prohibited government workers from engaging in certain political activities.
In addition to First and Fifth Amendment claims, the employees claimed the Act was a “deprivation of the fundamental right of the people of the United States to engage in political activity, reserved to the people of the United States by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.”442 Writing for the Court, Justice Reed ruled that the Ninth and Tenth Amendment claims required no
analysis of an independent right, but involved only questions of enumerated federal power hence the ninth was relinquesd to only goalposts of other Constitutional amendments:
“The powers granted by the Constitution to the Federal Government are subtracted from the totality of sovereignty originally in the states and the people. Therefore, when objection is made that the exercise of a federal power infringes upon rights reserved by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, the inquiry must be directed toward the granted power
under which the action of the Union was taken. If granted power is found, necessarily the objection of invasion of those rights, reserved by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, must fail.”
The Ninth Amendment became a “Truism.”Mitchell’s reduction of the Ninth Amendment became the rule in later cases. It is an
example of the diminished reading of both the Ninth and Tenth Amendments that occurred in the constitutional convention of 1937.
The New Deal was a “constitutional moment,” and whether the Court’s shift in doctrine was triggered by external
political events or an internal evolution of doctrine, I really dont know! What I can tell you is Externalists believe politics forced the change-that it was in fact a political decision, rather than a matter of constitutional interpretation…..Internalists, on the other hand, argued the shift was jurisprudential and occurred gradually over time, reflecting an evolving understanding of the Constitution.
So the pure reading of the constitutional protections of the ninth aren’t anything like it was first written. And is little used as a boiler template by attorneys today.
cite: United Public Workers of America (CIO) v. Mitchell,. 330 U.S. 75 (1947)
!944 the year I added an extra 9 somehow. LOL
Shit lets try again 1944!
Guys, guys, GUYS! Take a much needed time out! I can’t stand the internecine warfare. Jeez, I love to read ALL you guys for your incredibly learned insight! Hell, I’m just a dumbass redneck who went to school on the GI bill so’s I could afford to drink and take night classes so I COULD drunk after them!
But you guys are all quite learned. And fun to read.
So, be nice to each other.
Kenneth, I’m willing to be proven wrong on this, but it seems to me that marijuana use by adults doesn’t need any regulation at all. What would happen if we could all legally grow it in our gardens for our use (medicinal or otherwise) and to give away to our friends?
Would everyone be stoned all the time? Or would people use it more or less responsibly? Would the sale of Twinkies skyrocket?
I’ve known plenty of alcoholics, many of them regularly endangering themselves, their families, and their communities, but I have yet to meet a marijuana addict.
I haven’t used marijuana for around 40 years. I recall it making me feel very mellow, but it didn’t affect me negatively.
Hear, Hear!
Montana has already trained a generation of growers. The state enjoys numerous brewery pubs and wine tasting venues for local product.
Let’s assume that after President Obama is elected to his second term Secretary of Health and Humans Services Secretary Kathleen Sibelius announces soon afterwards that cannabis has been removed from Schedule 1, ala Wikipedia:
“The HHS Secretary can even unilaterally legalize cannabis: “[I]f the Secretary recommends that a drug or other substance not be controlled, the Attorney General shall not control the drug or other substance.”
a federal tax rate is adopted; and, she proposes that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives become the lead agency in enforcement provided that states can craft law to cultivate and distribute.
I’ve proposed that Deadwood get out ahead and draft legislation to make it a cannabis friendly zone in its quest to become an adult destination.
Assuming that home growing law looks like home brewing and wine making, what would state law need to include about liability insurance requirements for commercial resale and how would law enforcement be guided by probable cause?
Uruguay legalizing cannabis:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/24/us-uruguay-marijuana-idUSBRE85N0HN20120624
Uruguay is only one of many countries doing an partial legalization of marijuana and all of them claim to be doing it for the same reason – to undermine the black market sale of drugs. As more and more countries take this path, it makes it harder for the US government to take a hard line on marijuana.
It should also be noted that at the bottom of the article you link, they make it clear that President Obama is opposed to this move –
“U.S. President Barack Obama made clear to Latin American leaders at the Summit of the Americas in Cartagena in April that he opposes the legalization of drugs.”
Marijuana is a drug. There is no escaping that fact. A disturbingly growing trend is people who are apprehended driving while under the influence of Marijuana. For this reason alone, I think it should be controlled at least to the extent of Alcohol.
As far as the addictive qualities – that remains a mystery as there is no conclusive study of the addictive qualities of marijuana that I can find.
Understand that my interest is purely scientific. I am anaphelactically allergic to marijuana. What I know comes from listening to other people and reading the legitimate studies done on the drug.
Further, I think an outright legalization is unlikely at this point. It would be far easier to float the idea of decriminalizing it (like alcohol) and then the argument could be made that by doing so, you create revenue for the state/federal government. This might get people who wouldn’t normally vote for the idea of legal marijuana on board.
The biggest problem any move will face is the misinformation about marijuana. Over half the population of the US still believes that Marijuana is A) more addictive than herion B) is a gateway drug and C) kills people (even though there hasn’t been a single documented case of someone dying solely from marijuana use that I can find ANYWHERE).
The infrastructure already exists to deal with a decriminalization effort. It would be fairly easy to adapt it to marijuana.
Mr. Kailey, just a point of semantics: using the ‘m’ word to describe cannabis is directly linked to the ‘n’ word as it describes persons of African descent.
Since when? You are the first person to ever say that to me and I coorespond daily with the Law Enforcement Officers for Decriminalization group. Even Nicole, who has done more than most to push for Medical Marijuana in this state uses the word Marijuana.
it is a racial slur.
I gotta confess, Larry. That’s a new one to me to. So of course, I used the Google. It appears that you’re right, the word’s use began as a racial slur. However, that use has been fairly lost in the last century, especially considering that weed is legally referred to as “marijuana” in most all statutes. Frankly, though there is some value in attempting to change common use to “cannabis”, pointing out to people in discussion that they are using ‘racist terminology’ when they are in fact using the legal terminology – well let’s just say that’s not very helpful to furthering any ends.
In the future, I will happily use the terms “weed”, “pot”, “dope”, “toke”, “doob” and most certainly “cannabis”. Trying to remember to spell “marijuana” correctly is a royal pain the ass …
;-)
Language is a tool earth haters have used against us Dems for too long, Rob: thank you.
Would someone like to take a shot at drafting legislation?
The legislation has already been drafted multiple times. It simply can’t make it out of committee.
direct me to a few copies, Kenneth?
(not medical)
The only ones I know about are for medical. If you can give me a few days, though, I can probably unearth a few that were basic decriminalization. Things are a little hectic here as my wife is getting ready to leave to work the Colorado fires.
If The HHS secretary does what You and I are both thinking she might. I see no reason in not trying to write it if I get in. It would be of great value to some of our farmers here to grow as a secondary crop. It is drought and bug resistant. Yea Ill try!
Obviously If the HHS Secretary thing doesn’t happen, I will still be Pushing for the S.A.M Philly has.
We need this now!
My choice is to have it look like brew pub law and home wine making law where growers have the licenses.
Individuals could grow for personal use.
Industrial hemp would be a complete separate category.
When I first started school back in the 60′s, the common term for people with red skin was “Indian”. Given that the term was both inaccurate and confusing, it came as little surprise that the term changed when I was in Jr. High to “Native American”. Most people I have known since (both white and red) still use that term.
When I was in Oregan, I attended a Salish “Red Pride” festival and while and a few of my Salish friends were waiting on our turn at the drumming circle, this really nicely dressed, upper middle class white woman came up to me and started asking about the significance of the dance being performed. Since I wasn’t Salish (and I was a little fuzzy about the significance myself), I passed her off to one of my Salish friends. During the conversation, John used the term “Native American”. You should have seen this woman’s face. She got all red and puffy and then explained to use how racist the term “Native American” was and that we should be using the term “First Nation”. I found it ironic that she would do that. We just call ourselves “The People”.
Agreed! And seconded!
Kenneth, If your claim that “a disturbingly growing trend is people who are apprehended for driving while under the influence of marijuana” turned out to be wrong or greatly exaggerated, would you still want it regulated the way alcohol is?
To the extent that your claim could be true (I haven’t tried researching it yet), I wonder what led to these arrests. Were drivers swerving or otherwise endangering other drivers? Were they dring too slow? Or were they stopped for driving drunk or on suspicion of committing some crime and marijuana happened to be found on them when they were patted down?
I’m not sure what the definition of a “drug” is. But, in my opinion, marijuana is a drug in the same way that coffee, turkey, and chocolate are drugs. They all have mild psychotropic properties. And none of them is addictive.
LSD and other strong psychotropics need to be dealt with differently. I’ve witnessed people freaking out and doing dangerous things while on acid.
Yes, to all of the above. Drivers under the influence of Marijuana can exhibit the same behavior as drivers under the influence of Alcohol. As far as the statistic, it comes from the Dept of Justice. This is a common subject of discussion in the Law Enforcement group I belong to.
Again, you are assuming that Marijuana is not addictive. That has yet to be established by research. The definition of “drug” in a legal sense is concrete and effects of Marijuana certainly apply.
To answer you base question, though, Yes, I would still want to see it regulated like alcohol. Part of that is personal – I do not want to go to a resteraunt and hit the floor because someone is smoking pot at the table next to me. Part of that is pragmatic, because I think the only way you are going to get a majority of people to buy into decriminalization is if it is regulated like Alcohol.
Driving under the Influence Of weed: A review of over a dozen of these [laboratory] experiments reveals three findings. First, after using marijuana, people drive more slowly. In addition, they increase the distance between their cars and the car in front of them. Third, they are less likely to attempt to pass other vehicles on the road. All of these practices can decrease the chance of crashes and certainly limit the probability of injury or death if an accident does occur. These three habits may explain the slightly lower risk of accidents that appears in the epidemiological studies. These results contrast dramatically to those found for alcohol. Alcohol intoxication often increases speed and passing while decreasing following distance, and markedly raises the chance of crashes.
Recent reviews have found the increase in risk to be approximately 1.5-3.0, an increase which is substantially lower, however, than that in alcohol-impaired drivers. The impairment from concurrent alcohol and cannabis use may be multiplicative, so individuals who drive under the influence of both drugs may be at higher risk for MVAs.42 An expert consensus view was that a THC concentration of 7-10 nanograms per millilitre in serum would produce impairment equivalent to that of 0.05% blood alcohol content (BAC). It was suggested that this level could serve as a ‘per se’ limit to define cannabis-impaired driving.43 Current research suggests that acute impairment from cannabis typically clears 3-4 hours after use
Source: Carter, Gregory T.; Earleywine, Mitchell; McGill, Jason T., “Exhibit B: Statement of Grounds,” Rulemaking petition to reclassify cannabis for medical use from a Schedule I controlled substance to a Schedule II (Office of Lincoln D. Chafee, Governor Rhode Island and Office of Christine O. Gregoire, Governor of Washington: Letter to Michelle Leonhard, Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration, November 30, 2011), p. 37.
http://www.governor.wa.gov/priorities/healthcare/petition/combined_docum…
Source: Fischer, Benedikt; Jeffries, Victoria; Hall, Wayne; Room, Robin; Goldner, Elliot; Rehm, Jürgen, “Lower Risk Cannabis Use Guidelines for Canada (LRCUG): A Narrative Review of Evidence and Recommendations,” Canadian Journal of Public Health (Ottawa, Ontario: Canadian Public Health Association, September/October 2011) Vol. 102, No. 5, p. 325.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22032094
(marijuana – driving) “Participants receiving active marijuana decreased their speed more so than those receiving the placebo cigarette during a distracted section of the drive, An overall effect of marijuana was seen for the mean speed during the distracted driving (PASAT [Paced Auditory Serial-Addition Test] section), While no other changes in driving performance were found, marijuana appeared to hinder practice effects on the PASAT task, suggesting individuals may not be able to adequately use information and experience previously acquired while under the influence of marijuana, While only minimal differences in driving performance were found, this failure to benefit from prior practice may be detrimental to driving performance …
“The present study’s subtle finding of decreased speed under the influence of acute marijuana is generally consistent with the literature, which has found that marijuana’s effects on driving can be subtle …
“The decreased speed during the simulated drive could be interpreted as an attempt to compensate for perceived cognitive impairment, Alternatively, marijuana may not have affected decision making and judgment and the reduction in speed would improve safety margins, While the clinical significance of a 3% to 5% decrease in speed may be questioned, previous research suggests such a decrease will result in approximately a 7% decrease in all injuries and a 15% decrease in fatalities (Nilsson 1981).”
Source: Anderson, Beth M.; Rizzo, Matthew; Block, Robert I.; Pearlson, Godfrey D.; O’Leary, Daniel S., “Sex differences in the effects of marijuana on simulated driving performance,” Journal of Psychoactive Drugs (San Francisco, CA: Haight Ashbury Publications, March 1, 2010), Vol. 42, No. 1.
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/_/print/PrintArticle.aspx?id=239347323
Police made 853,838 arrests in 2010 for marijuana-related offenses, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s annual Uniform Crime Report, released today. The arrest total is among the highest ever reported by the agency and is nearly identical to the total number of cannabis-related arrests reported in 2009. Of those charged with marijuana law violations, 750,591 (88 percent) were arrested for marijuana offenses involving possession only. The remaining 103,247 individuals were charged with “sale/manufacture,” a category that includes virtually all cultivation offenses.
http://blog.norml.org/2011/09/19/marijuana-arrests-driving-americas-so-called-drug-war-latest-fbi-data-shows/
One of the quickest ways to get pulled over by a police officer at night is to be driving too slow. This may explain why there has been an increase in instances of marijuana related driving incidents.
As far as the FBI statistics that kind of jives with what the law enforcement officers are saying. The problem for law enforcement is that the only way to detect a marijuana impaired driver is a blood test and while that will definitely indicate THC, there is no way to prove that the use was the cause of the aberant driving. These usually result in possession arrests (if there is an arrest at all).