Wickard v. Filburn and "Do not initiate violence"
Posted on Oct 4th, 2007
by 
FLOW
FLOW
One of our principles is "Practice non-violence and radical tolerance." Government often initiates violence against the non-violent. The raids on the Los Angeles' medical marijuana community by the DEA are an example of this. The citizens of California passed a law legalizing medical marijuana and, despite this fact, the DEA is using violence to arrest citizens and confiscate their property.
The DEA, a federal agency, is legallly authorized to do this due to a 1942 Supreme Court decision, Wickard v. Filburn, which concluded that a farmer was not allowed to grow his own wheat for his own family (as summarized by Jeffrey Snyder at FEE):
From my perspective, this is one of numerous instances of the government initiating violence, on both Filburn and the medical marijuana vendors. If they were not initiating violence against others, what right did the government have to initiate violent action against them?
The Marijuana Policy Project has an excellent overview of medical marijuana.
The DEA, a federal agency, is legallly authorized to do this due to a 1942 Supreme Court decision, Wickard v. Filburn, which concluded that a farmer was not allowed to grow his own wheat for his own family (as summarized by Jeffrey Snyder at FEE):
"Roscoe C. Filburn was a farmer in Ohio who maintained a small herd of dairy cattle and a flock of chickens, and sold milk, poultry, and eggs. He also grew a small acreage of winter wheat each year, sold a portion of the crop, used part to feed his poultry and livestock, consumed a small amount at home, and kept the remainder as seed for next year’s crop.Filburn lost the case, the Roosevelt court concluded that the federal government had a right to control even homegrown wheat for homegrown consumption, and thus today the DEA has a legal right to arrest medical marijuana dispensaries that are legal under California law.
Under the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, the secretary of agriculture established a quota for wheat planted by Filburn in the fall of 1940 of 11.1 acres and a normal yield of 20.1 bushels an acre. Filburn sowed 23 acres, harvesting 239 bushels in excess of his allowance. Under the act, this excess was subject to a penalty of 49 cents a bushel ($117.11 in all). The penalty could be avoided only by storing the excess wheat as required by regulations promulgated by the secretary or delivering the wheat to the secretary for storage.
Filburn neither stored nor delivered his wheat. Instead, he sued to prevent the imposition of the penalty by seeking a declaration that Congress lacked the authority to restrict his right to grow and consume, on his own property, as much wheat as he saw fit."
From my perspective, this is one of numerous instances of the government initiating violence, on both Filburn and the medical marijuana vendors. If they were not initiating violence against others, what right did the government have to initiate violent action against them?
The Marijuana Policy Project has an excellent overview of medical marijuana.
Access: PublicTagged with: medical marijuana, federalism, peace, violence, government, supreme court, flow principles, marijuana policy project
federalism
July 2008