Last Tuesday was the Great Debate, and I spoke for the Libertarians at Virginia Tech on the issue of marijuana laws. I am in favor of the complete legalization of marijuana, since I believe that anything less is just an absurdity. My main point is this: according to the government-funded Monitoring the Future study, one third of college students (almost 6 million people) have smoked marijuana in the last year. So if the marijuana prohibitionists are to be believed, all of these students are criminals. Though the anti-legalization Republicans don't say so, that implies that they think that one in three Virginia Tech students is a criminal. [continues 807 words]
Why Is Marijuana Still Prohibited? Government's answer: because you shouldn't use it. You shouldn't use it because it's prohibited. It's prohibited because you shouldn't use it. You shouldn't use it because... Real answer: persistent myths about marijuana still remain, and they are repeated endlessly by the government, public schools and the media. These myths are preventing many Americans from realizing that there really is no good reason for prohibiting marijuana. However, they are becoming less and less effective. A 2001 Gallup poll revealed that one in three Americans already believes in ending marijuana prohibition. It is only a matter of time before the majority comes out in favor of ending it. I hope to quicken that process by rebutting some often-repeated marijuana myths in this column. [continues 713 words]
The Supreme Court heard arguments in the case of Ashcroft v. Raich yesterday. The Court must decide whether the Commerce Clause in the Constitution allows the federal government to ban the use of medical marijuana. If they decide the federal government does in fact have that power, it will only be through a severe misinterpretation of the Commerce Clause. That clause allows Congress "[to] regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." But the medical marijuana in question is entirely grown within the state of California, and has nothing to do with interstate commerce. The only way anyone gets away with calling the ban constitutional is by interpreting the Commerce Clause to mean the federal government can regulate any commerce that can affect the national economy. [continues 425 words]
