Friday, October 14, 2005

Kilt him a bar . . .

Spot had a post yesterday discussing right-wing hypocrisy in constitutional interpretation. He ran across a story today that shows another example of how wingers have no problem with an expansionist view of federal power when it suits their ends.

Consider the story of Steven Tuck, a disabled vet, 38. Here’s the first graf in an AP story:
SEATTLE - An Army veteran who fled to Canada to avoid prosecution for growing marijuana to treat his chronic pain was yanked from a hospital by Canadian authorities, driven to the border with a catheter still attached, and turned over to U.S. officials, his lawyer says.
Laying aside this rather uncharacteristic – and uncharitable – conduct by our Canadian friends, what in the Sam Hill is happening here? It turns out that Mr. Tuck was growing marijuana to use to treat his chronic pain from a service-related injury: a parachute accident. He was conducting his little agronomy venture in California, which enacted a law permitting medical marijuana several years ago.

Why then, are the feds chasing him? Well, it’s the Supreme Court, stupid. The article concludes with this:
The Supreme Court ruled in June that people who smoke marijuana because their doctors recommend it to ease pain can be prosecuted for violating federal drug laws, even in states like California that have laws permitting medical marijuana use.
Spot reread the constitution before going to bed last night; it helps him sleep; he found no mention of marijuana anywhere in the constitution! The Supreme Court’s decision in this case can only be justified by the 20th century expansion of the meaning of the interstate commerce clause and its implied limitation on the rights of states to regulate interstate commerce, especially where the federal government has assumed a large regulatory role, such as drugs and narcotics.

So, gentle readers, this is just another case where our little control freak friends like Kimmy Crockett (who can undoubtedly trace her lineage back to coonskin Davey) want their freedom but don’t think you should have yours.

No comments: