The Case Against Cannabis Legalization

The Case Against Legalization:
           How Cannabis Taxation and Regulation Laws Further the Prohibitionists' Agenda
by Kimmarie Rojas

Introduction

Cannabis Activists are a-buzz with excitement at the prospect of California’s “Tax and Regulate” campaign, as well as other “legalization” attempts about the Nation. The arguments seem favorable, and the current recession is but another tool in the arsenal of reasons why legalization, taxation and regulation would be the right thing to do.

Yet, lest we forget that “taxation and regulation” of cannabis is the main reason for the original early 20th century federal prohibition of cannabis, be reminded of “The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937” placed into federal law requiring only a $1 tax, but with unachievable and public bureaucratic record-keeping and inappropriate punishments for not following the tax act to the letter, ranging from a $2000.00 fine to LIFE imprisonment. Will a Marihuana Tax Act of 2011 reverse this language and "legalization" ruse or add to it? Will another tax and regulate act remove the legal and political bricks which have built impenetrable walls around the production, harvesting, use, transfer, and possession of Marijuana. 
Although California is the thankful forerunner of medicalization, let us also not forget that it was California that made the first law restricting, regulating, and criminalizing cannabis. It was not drugs that California was against then, however. Remember, Cocaine and Heroin were still legal in 1913. Alcoholism and opiate addiction were rampant. It was racism that doomed Cannabis, not a scientific study or a social necessity. Cannabis was smoked by Mexicans; and although they were the indigenous population of the state, closed white puritans minds, believing they were greater than and more entitled in all ways, used their superior political and media powers to spread reefer madness.

Mike Meno wrote the article Colorado’s Governor Signs Medical Marijuana Regulations in the current MPP Blog.. It was a glowing review about this important bill, and how Colorado can set the pace for other state models. It sounded as if this was indeed, a "groundbreaking" event, however after reading the comments, many Colorado caretakers, patients, and smokers, emotionally wrote that this bill is a disaster for MMJ and dispensaries. Read for yourself, and note my comments to the MPP Blog:


The Power to Regulate is the Power to Destroy


Anytime a democratic people must convince the government to stop enforcing unjust laws through mechanisms such as "tax and regulate", that government has succeeded in extorting its citizens. We talk of MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION as a panacea, the end of a war, a freedom. Yet this freedom IS ALREADY OURS, simply because the “laws and regulations” that make possession or use of marijuana a punishable offence are indeed UNJUST laws. It is not “legalization” that will make cannabis free. Legalization implies the inherent right to tax and regulate, to govern the growth of a natural indigenous plant for which our bodies were designed to receive (see “cannabis receptors”), and to exact taxes from the sick, or from the fruits of the earth and human labor, that which was grown by ones own hands. Decriminalization, the repeal of those laws and loopholes in Federal Interstate Commerce laws, and all other administrators and administrations that knowingly or unknowingly created a police state. Just give back what you took one hundred years ago, and let us go on about life. Already, citizens hungry and overdue for medicalization are willing to pass initiatives that give up their right to grow their own cannabis, in return for a highly regulated cannabis medicalization plan. Giving up the right to grow a plant from a seed in one’s own soil with ones own hands is a slippery slope that gives away the very ability to survive. Imagine those sweet tomatoes in the garden being taxed. We may be willing to let the government extort money from us through taxation and legalization, but how many inherent human rights will we allow the Government to take before we realize we have a DUTY to make things right?

c 2010 MariesRun
The Green Association for Sustainability

If You Don't Agree With Your Benefit Decision

APPEALING YOUR PUBLIC BENEFITS DECISION:

Agency Hearings Vs. Court Trials

The recession and double digit unemployment has forced many once stable middle class families to apply for Unemployment Benefits, Food Stamps, Medicaid and other public benefits, many for the first time. If benefits are denied, discontinued, or lowered, and you disagree with the agency's decision, you can appeal the decision. When appealing decisions from a government agency, it is important to know the difference between agency hearings and court trials.

Agency hearings and court trials are both adjudicative proceedings, yet court trials are likely, but not necessarily, to be more formal. A judge or a jury may adjudicate Court trials, but administrative law judges (ALJ) decide administrative proceedings. Some believe that administrative agencies should not adjudicate because the primary purpose of an administrative agency is to carry out the statutory rules as set forth by Congress; however, administrative agencies can take on quasi-legislative and quasi-adjudicative characteristics in addition to the administrative duties of implementing statutes.

Critics of administrative hearings argue that agency adjudication usually involves privilege disputes, not rights violations, and as such, the matter could be handled best informally. In Goldberg V. Kelly (397 US 254, 1970), the Supreme Court upheld the administrative hearing process, citing that the test of hearing or trial is not whether the matter under adjudication involves rights or privileges, but the extent to which the litigant “could or has suffered a grievous loss.” In 1984, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Freeman v. Hittle (747 F.2d 1984) that liquor licenses could be taken away because they are a “privilege, not a right”. This decision is usually ignored by the Supreme Court and other adjudicative institutions, and act instead on the Goldberg decision.

The Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 sets out specific rules and uniform standards for conducting hearings. In addition, the courts try to pressure agencies into “reasonable fairness” by imposing their own rules of adjudication on administrative hearings. Critics site the lack of a uniform agency procedure for conducting hearings. With over 200 different procedural codes in place across administrative agencies, judges believe that administrative hearings should be more like court proceedings, claiming that on a court appeal of the informal hearing decision, [court judges] can not tell if due process has been achieved.

Particular aspects of judicial trials versus agency hearings are related to the rules of evidence. The main point of the Rules of Evidence in the context of administrative adjudication in a democratic society is “evidence employed to justify conclusions in trials or hearings should be gathered, presented, and evaluated” in a manner consistent with principles of fair procedure. “Unreliable Evidence” is usually in the form of hearsay or “he said she said” second-hand testimony. In hearsay testimony, the person giving witness did not directly experience the event described or is relating conversation second hand. Court proceedings have specific rules of hearsay exceptions and exclusions to allow hearsay evidence to be used; administrative agencies may use hearsay evidence without exceptions, and it is up to the ALJ to decide if the testimony is reliable or not. Due process is another key aspect in determining the rules of evidence. The purpose of presenting evidence is to have or provide the opportunity for the opposition to challenge the evidence and to show it as unreliable (Davis). The ability to provide and challenge evidence is an important aspect of due process.

Others believe that agency hearings should not be more like court proceedings, although their “quasi-judicial” standing should be maintained. Agency administrators and Administrative Law Judges prefer to keep these hearings simple, and as long as they do not remove life, liberty or property (a line that is often crossed in agency hearings), informal procedures are adequate. If the issue is of serious consequence, the case may eventually end up in front of a judge, and all of the time on agency grievance procedures has been spent for naught. At this point, it may also be a fair bet that the complainant no longer has the resources (emotionally, physically, financially) to go on to a trial court, which will generally uphold the administrative decision requiring the claimant to proceed through the judicial appeals process. By this time, this issue originally adjudicated has become irrelevant, and the issue has already done damage that may no longer be easily remedied.

Author and attorney, Kenneth Warren advises that administrative disputes may best be handled by contacting one’s congressional representative, than through the informal adjudication process. You should contact your representative first, regardless of your intent to follow through with the appeal process. There is often a 60 day limit for filing an appeal of your benefit decision. These are often held by conference call, between the agency ombudsman, the administrative law judge, and the complainant.







The Green Association for Sustainability