Kerry Thomas Opinion & Commentary

Enumewrated Powers Don't Mention Marijuana

by Kerry Thomas

November 30, 2004

Does the federal government of the United States have the constitutional power to prohibit it's citizens from ingesting marijuana? That seemingly simple question lies at the heart of a case now pending before the Supreme Court, in the case of Ashcroft v. Raich (03-1454).

Before I continue, I want to stress that I am not advocating the use of any drug. But I believe in our Constitution, and I think we need to return to the idea of strictly following the supreme law of the land. The Constitution was not written to give the People rights. Those come to us from God. The Constitution was written so that we, the People, could delegate certain limited powers to our federal government, and to prohibit that government from exercising powers not granted to it by the Constitution.

The legislative powers that we, the People, have delegated to our federal government are found in Article 1, section 8 of our Constitution. That section says that the federal government does have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes. Furthermore, the 10th Amendment says that those powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution are reserved to the States, or to the People.

It has only been through an act of legal contortionism that this "commerce clause" and the "general welfare" clause have been used to regulate virtually every act imaginable. Clearly the authors of the Constitution did not intend that these clauses should be twisted to as to arrive at this interpretation. If we were to believe this was the case, why did they simply not write that Congress has the power to govern every aspect of it's citizen's lives?

If we are to believe that the federal government has the constitutional power to make it illegal for you to ingest marijuana (or any drug, for that matter), then they would also have the power to tell you that you could not eat certain foods because they contain too much fat or sugar, and there is a study that shows those foods are bad for your health. Or that you couldn't use tobacco products. What if Congress decided one day that chocolate is bad for you? Or bacon? What about eggs?

Or they could tell you that you couldn't drink alcohol. Oops, wait a minute. That one was tried, wasn't it? Only, n the case of prohibition, it was done properly, legally, through a constitutional amendment, which granted the government the specific power to prohibit the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors. Notice that not even that amendment prohibited the consumption of alcohol.

Can the government also make it illegal to grow a marijuana plant? What if, instead of marijuana, we substitute the word corn? Or soybeans? Or roses? Do we really want to grant our federal government that authority? Congress can regulate the commerce of these plants, but not the mere growing or ingesting of them. At least, not under our present Constitution.

We don't live in a society where our government dictates to us that which is good for us and that which is bad for us. Violations of those edicts are called crimes against the state. America has spent the last 100+ years fighting against such political ideologies. Should we continue to subject ourselves to such authoritarian dictates?

If We, the People, want to grant such powers to our federal government, then let's do it legally, with a constitutional amendment. Otherwise, let's exercise our God-given intelligence and responsibilities, and allow each citizen to determine for themselves what they will choose to put into their own bodies, fully aware of the consequences of their actions.