Truth Seeker
New Member
The District of Columbia now has an active medical marijuana program, having been approved by voters in 2010. That victory for suffering D.C. residents was approved by Congress pursuant to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the United States Constitution which grants Congress "exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever" over the District of Columbia.
Each member of the U.S. Congress takes an oath of office, vowing to uphold the Constitution. At the same time, each member is required to uphold federal law as representatives of the government.
At this time, cannabis (or marijuana) is illegal under the Controlled Substances Act, classified as a Schedule I drug - which means it has no medicinal use whatsoever. Contrary to scientific and medical evidence, cannabis is prohibited under federal law.
According to the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
When examining these two conflicting ideologies, what else can be assumed but that the U.S. Congress defied federal law by approving a legal medical marijuana program in the District of Columbia? Add to that the irony of D.C.'s primary residents - the top employer is, in fact, the federal government.
Put simply, most federal elected officials live in our nation's capital. They shop for groceries there, they see the doctor there, they fill prescriptions there. And even though most vote within their home states, many enjoy dual residence in D.C. This means some of them could qualify for medical marijuana cards. These are the same politicians who deny sick and dying Americans legal access to medical marijuana in all other states. These are the same members of Congress who approved a medical marijuana program for - well, essentially - themselves and their neighbors, should they choose and qualify for it.
Although many prohibitionists would quote the Elastic Clause as it pertains to the 44th Federalist Paper, which essentially negates the pure states' rights intentions of the Tenth Amendment, in the 17th Federalist Paper, Alexander Hamilton states quite clearly:
"AN OBJECTION, of a nature different from that which has been stated and answered, in my last address, may perhaps be likewise urged against the principle of legislation for the individual citizens of America. It may be said that it would tend to render the government of the Union too powerful, and to enable it to absorb those residuary authorities, which it might be judged proper to leave with the States for local purposes.
Allowing the utmost latitude to the love of power which any reasonable man can require, I confess I am at a loss to discover what temptation the persons intrusted with the administration of the general government could ever feel to divest the States of the authorities of that description."
What can be construed from these arguments? According to current laws, although the federal government has found applicable loopholes to justify the unconstitutional prohibition of cannabis, the legal disparity still exists in the case of the District of Columbia's medical marijuana program.
The logical conclusion should be confirmed that the federal prohibition of cannabis flies in the face of democracy and, therefore, each state should be allowed to decide for itself whether or not to implement pro-cannabis legislation.
In a twenty-first century America... in our struggling economy... with healthcare and prescription costs out of lower and middle class feasibility... our individual choices of alternative medications should be only the business of ourselves and our physicians....
... not in the hands of elected officials who enjoy the Cadillac of health care coverage which is sponsored by the tax dollars of the common man and who have now denied us the alternative of medical marijuana while they now enjoy that very option.
Hopefully, the U.S. Court of Appeals will mitigate this infuriating bias by ruling in favor of rescheduling cannabis as a Schedule II drug, which acknowledges its medical efficacy, when the court hears compelling evidence on October 16th.
If successful, the Tenth Amendment and Alexander Hamilton's intentions will be restored and America will again be a true democracy.
News Hawk- TruthSeekr420 420 MAGAZINE
Source: examiner.com
Author: Deborah Morgan
Contact: About Examiner.com Passionate, local writers | Examiner.com
Website: Congress conflicts with federal law by approving DC medical marijuana - Kansas City Political Buzz | Examiner.com
Each member of the U.S. Congress takes an oath of office, vowing to uphold the Constitution. At the same time, each member is required to uphold federal law as representatives of the government.
At this time, cannabis (or marijuana) is illegal under the Controlled Substances Act, classified as a Schedule I drug - which means it has no medicinal use whatsoever. Contrary to scientific and medical evidence, cannabis is prohibited under federal law.
According to the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
When examining these two conflicting ideologies, what else can be assumed but that the U.S. Congress defied federal law by approving a legal medical marijuana program in the District of Columbia? Add to that the irony of D.C.'s primary residents - the top employer is, in fact, the federal government.
Put simply, most federal elected officials live in our nation's capital. They shop for groceries there, they see the doctor there, they fill prescriptions there. And even though most vote within their home states, many enjoy dual residence in D.C. This means some of them could qualify for medical marijuana cards. These are the same politicians who deny sick and dying Americans legal access to medical marijuana in all other states. These are the same members of Congress who approved a medical marijuana program for - well, essentially - themselves and their neighbors, should they choose and qualify for it.
Although many prohibitionists would quote the Elastic Clause as it pertains to the 44th Federalist Paper, which essentially negates the pure states' rights intentions of the Tenth Amendment, in the 17th Federalist Paper, Alexander Hamilton states quite clearly:
"AN OBJECTION, of a nature different from that which has been stated and answered, in my last address, may perhaps be likewise urged against the principle of legislation for the individual citizens of America. It may be said that it would tend to render the government of the Union too powerful, and to enable it to absorb those residuary authorities, which it might be judged proper to leave with the States for local purposes.
Allowing the utmost latitude to the love of power which any reasonable man can require, I confess I am at a loss to discover what temptation the persons intrusted with the administration of the general government could ever feel to divest the States of the authorities of that description."
What can be construed from these arguments? According to current laws, although the federal government has found applicable loopholes to justify the unconstitutional prohibition of cannabis, the legal disparity still exists in the case of the District of Columbia's medical marijuana program.
The logical conclusion should be confirmed that the federal prohibition of cannabis flies in the face of democracy and, therefore, each state should be allowed to decide for itself whether or not to implement pro-cannabis legislation.
In a twenty-first century America... in our struggling economy... with healthcare and prescription costs out of lower and middle class feasibility... our individual choices of alternative medications should be only the business of ourselves and our physicians....
... not in the hands of elected officials who enjoy the Cadillac of health care coverage which is sponsored by the tax dollars of the common man and who have now denied us the alternative of medical marijuana while they now enjoy that very option.
Hopefully, the U.S. Court of Appeals will mitigate this infuriating bias by ruling in favor of rescheduling cannabis as a Schedule II drug, which acknowledges its medical efficacy, when the court hears compelling evidence on October 16th.
If successful, the Tenth Amendment and Alexander Hamilton's intentions will be restored and America will again be a true democracy.
News Hawk- TruthSeekr420 420 MAGAZINE
Source: examiner.com
Author: Deborah Morgan
Contact: About Examiner.com Passionate, local writers | Examiner.com
Website: Congress conflicts with federal law by approving DC medical marijuana - Kansas City Political Buzz | Examiner.com
