Cato Daily Dispatch for October 30, 2002
Subscribe to the Daily Dispatch via email
Subscribe to the Daily Dispatch via PDA (AvantGo)
(Links to outside sources were active as of the date of this dispatch; however, not all news sources maintain links to current stories indefinitely. Some links also may require registration.)
Appeals Court Backs Doctors on Medical MarijuanaSouth Dakota Initiative Considers Jury Nullification
Most Incumbents Safe in Midterm Elections
Appeals Court Backs Doctors on Medical Marijuana
A federal appeals court in San Francisco ruled yesterday that the federal government may not revoke the licenses of doctors who recommend marijuana to their patients, reports The New York Times.
The ruling, by a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, is the biggest legal victory yet for voter initiatives in nine states that legalized marijuana for medical purposes. It upholds a five-year-old lower-court decision that blocked the government's efforts to frustrate a 1996 initiative in California.
In prohibiting the government from enforcing the policy, the appeals court, one of the most liberal in the nation, entered a complex and heated debate at the intersection of medical science, the First Amendment rights of doctors and patients, and federal power over the states.
In "Punishing the Sick," Senior Fellow Doug Bandow lists the medical evidence that shows marijuana can help those suffering from AIDS, cancer, glaucoma, multiple sclerosis and other ailments. "Morphine is illegal, but is routinely prescribed as a painkiller," he writes.
Last year, the Cato Institute hosted the forum "The Law and Politics of Medical Marijuana" featuring Alan Bock, author of Waiting to Inhale: The Politics of Medical Marijuana, and Kevin Zeese, president of Common Sense for Drug Policy. Video of the event is available online.
South Dakota Initiative Considers Jury Nullification
According to The Los Angeles Times, Bob Newland, a libertarian activist and candidate for attorney general in South Dakota, has a radical proposal for the state's legal system: Let juries determine not just guilt or innocence, but whether the laws of the land are fair, and whether those laws should apply to any given defendant on any given day.
Newland is the prime force behind the measure. But the concept, broadly known as "jury nullification," has attracted an eclectic bunch of backers-among them, folks infuriated by tough drug laws, gun laws, tax laws, motorcycle helmet laws, even traffic laws.
In short, it would allow a defendant to argue that, although he broke the law, he does not deserve to be prosecuted. "You should be allowed to tell a jury: 'Yes, I committed these actions, but ... this is a stupid law,' " Newland said.
South Dakotans will vote Tuesday on a measure that would enshrine those reforms in the state Constitution. The initiative could upend the state's legal system-and stir similar revolts around the nation.
In Jury Nullification: The Evolution of a Doctrine attorney Clay S. Conrad writes that the principle of jury independence "states that jurors in criminal trials have the right to refuse to convict if they believe that a conviction would be in some way unjust. If jurors believe enforcing the law in a specific case would cause an injustice, it is their prerogative to acquit. If they believe a law is unjust, or misapplied, or that it never was, or never should have been, intended to cover a case such as the one they are facing, it is their duty to see justice done."
Most Incumbents Safe in Midterm Elections
For most voters, next week's congressional elections are no contest. Despite the expenditure of millions of dollars for ads - and breathless analysis of how critical the election will be - nearly 90 percent of Americans live in districts where their votes for the House of Representatives don't matter, reports USA Today.
The once-every-10-years redrawing of congressional lines, which traditionally boosts competition, has done the reverse this year. More than three of four incumbents who had relatively close races in 2000 and whose districts were redrawn now have districts friendlier to them.
As the campaign enters its final week, the winners are already clear in close to 400 of the 435 contests for the House.
Patrick Basham, senior fellow in Cato's Center for Representative Government, had the following comments: "Incumbents are so safe in 2002 as a result of a host of self-bestowed benefits that provide the average incumbent with a huge advantage over any challenger. The most important benefits are the many taxpayer-funded subsidies, including offices, staff, travel, and mailings, and increasingly sophisticated gerrymandering techniques which carve out districts like medieval fiefdoms."
Jonathan Block, editor, jblock@cato.org
/div>