Is it time for SB 94 or are there problems
Oct 19th, 2009 by David Anderson
The Obama administration made a nod to the tenth amendment with a soon to be issued policy which would tell federal prosecutors to stop prosecuting medical marijuana when it is in compliance with state law. I applaud the move because the Constitution does not allow the federal government to regulate intra state commerce. I wish the administration would adopt that mentality with everything else.
Delaware has on its ready list SB 94 which allows for medical use of six ounces of marijuana. I am not convinced that it is a well designed bill. Now that the federal government is not looking over the state’s shoulder, I think that we should slow down and ensure that this is the bill we want. We are on our own so let’s be responsible. Quotes from the synopsis (that way even Tom can understand it).
All cultivation would have to occur in an enclosed, locked facility. Many patients are unable to cultivate their own supply, so the legislation allows them to designate a caregiver or two who would also receive an ID card. Each caregiver may assist no more than five qualifying patients.
The Bill would also provide a medical necessity affirmative defense that patients who needed more marijuana than was provided for by rule or who did not possess their ID cards can raise in court. This is an important provision, as some legitimate patients will not register because their doctors will not sign a written certification due to an unwarranted fear of federal repercussions.
A person who does not have a medical problem could grow up to 60 plants and claim that their other 4 patients did not have ID’s because the doctors were afraid to sign the paperwork. They could even raise double that if they claim the patients needed more. Does anyone feel a California style loop hole here? Do you want a house full of pot plants next to you?
‘Medical marijuana’ is the first step toward total legalization. The Socialist-Democrats feel that recreational drugs make a citizenry more compliant. I think the jury is still out on that one, but they believe it. I also agree, as did Clarence Thomas in Raich v. Gonzales, that the feds have no authority to regulate any product or commodity, under the guise of the ‘commerce clause,’ that was ‘never bought or sold, never crossed state lines, and has had no demonstrable effect on the market for marijuana’ (paraphrase, but close).
Obama is too busy:
KNOLLER NUGGET, from CBS’s Mark Knoller: President Obama’s two fundraising events TONIGHT in NYC will bring to 22 the number fundraisers he has done since taking office. President George W. Bush did six political fund-raisers during his first year in office.
Mike Protack
This bill unanimously passed out of committee in the Delaware senate but some people had questions so it was held instead of being considered during the rush in June. Does anyone else see potential problems with this regardless of whether or not they favor medical use? If they want legalization, be honest about it. If not, then this could be a problem.
In CA, there are entire houses just used for POT growing. No one lives in them. I could see the same here if people can grow 60 to 120 plants in a trailer somewhere or house in a low cost neighborhood.
I applaud state’s rights, but like you Rick I then agitate for the state to be responsible.
Concerning states rights, I support a Constitutional Amendment which will nullify any Act that has been taken by Congress that is incompatable with the clear language of Article I., Section 8., of the U.S. Constitution. The term ‘general welfare’ is not a power- see Madison’s Federalist #41.
I will admit that technology has advanced to areas unforeseen by the Founders- take radio, for example. Under I., 8., Congress could not regulate the airwaves. Hence, since most rational people in the states would have seen the wisdom of such regulation, a Constitutional Amendment should have been proposed for ratification, adding the power to regulate airwaves to I., 8.
Conversely, if we had adhered to the Constitution(Art. I., Sec. 8.), abominations like the Dept. of Education, whose need would probably not be perceived by3/4 of the states, would simply not exist…nor would the Federal Reserve, Dept. of Energy, and so on.
Bottom line; the Founder were right, but liberal pinheads were allowed to destroy the Constitution. By-the-way, Perry. Read Madison’s Federalist #41 (actually, the last for paragraphs re; the ‘General Welfare,’ and tell me how Madison is wrong and you (and your pinhead leftist jurists)are right.
Nice job Rick…I’m not sure it directly addresses this particular issue though. Fact is that pot is a gateway drug to other more harmful killer drugs like Coke, crack and Heroin. Delaware has a drug problem right now. We have one of the highest substance abuse rates in the country and it’s high time(get the pun?) that we did something about it. Is legalization the answer? Is it decriminalizing? I think it’s a two pronged approach. I would say we increase counseling services for drug/alcohol abuse and increase the penalties for “hard drugs” like Crack, Coke and Heroin.