quote:Medical Marijuana Effort Loses at U.S. High Court
June 6 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Supreme Court dealt a blow to the medical marijuana movement, ruling that federal narcotics laws ban the drug even when it never crosses state lines and is used only to relieve pain or nausea.
The justices, siding with the Bush administration, today said Congress's power over interstate commerce is broad enough to cover locally grown and used medical marijuana. The 6-3 ruling overturns a decision that favored two California women, including one who says cannabis relieves life-threatening symptoms.
The majority said California marijuana users Angel McClary Raich and Diane Monson must turn to ``the democratic process'' for a change in the law. ``The voices of voters allied with these respondents may one day be heard in the halls of Congress,'' Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the court in Washington.
California and nine other states exempt seriously ill people from laws banning cultivation and use of marijuana. Today's ruling means people in those states will face the risk of federal prosecution if they use or distribute marijuana.
The Bush administration said the lower court ruling would undermine its efforts to enforce anti-drug laws.
The case brought into tension two themes of the court under Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist: the limits it has imposed on the federal government and the latitude it has afforded law enforcement officers. Those issues produced an unusual breakdown among the nine justices. A Divided Court
Joining Stevens's majority decision were Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote separately to say he agreed with the result, though not the majority's reasoning.
Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas dissented. Those three, along with Scalia and Kennedy, formed 5-4 majorities in a series of previous cases that limited the power of Congress.
``If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything -- and the federal government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers,'' Thomas wrote.
Stevens, in his opinion for the court, said locally grown and used marijuana might affect the national market.
``That the national and international narcotics trade has thrived in the face of vigorous criminal enforcement efforts suggests that no small number of unscrupulous people will make use of the California exemptions to serve their commercial ends whenever it is feasible to do so,'' he wrote.
Previous Setback
It's the second time in four years the high court has ruled against medical marijuana advocates in a fight with the federal government. In 2001 the court said the U.S. Controlled Substances Act, which bans marijuana and other drugs except for use in government-approved research projects, doesn't contain a ``medical necessity'' exception.
Raich and Monson, both Northern California residents, say all other medicines either failed to treat their symptoms or caused intolerable side effects.
Raich, 39, and her doctor say she might starve to death without marijuana. She suffers a number of conditions, including an inoperable brain tumor and a life-threatening wasting syndrome.
Raich uses marijuana given to her by two unidentified caregivers who grow it. Monson, 47, who suffers from chronic back pain and muscle spasms caused by a spinal disease, grows her own marijuana.
Federal drug agents raided Monson's home in 2002. She, Raich and the two caregivers then sued to stop federal officials from enforcing the Controlled Substances Act against them. Impact on Illegal Market
The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily barred enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act against the women and caregivers, saying their activities didn't appear to be linked to interstate commerce.
The federal government lists marijuana among the most strictly controlled drugs, a classification that also includes LSD and heroin.
The Justice Department argued that legalizing medical marijuana would undermine the federal fight against illegal use and trafficking. At arguments in November, acting U.S. solicitor general Paul Clement said the California law might allow use by as many as 100,000 patients.
Lawyers for Raich and Monson said the impact of medical marijuana on the illegal market would be trivial.
The other medical-marijuana states are Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington.
Advocates of medical use say marijuana can ease cancer patients' nausea from chemotherapy, help treat glaucoma, stimulate AIDS patients' appetite and ease pain for multiple sclerosis sufferers.
The case is Gonzales v. Raich, 03-1454.
quote:Findlaw quotes the tenth amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
quote:The Constitution allows Congress: "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."
It seems pretty clear-cut to me. As for turning to the democratic process, it seems that California voters have already decided on the issue. (Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington state have laws similar to California.)
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems clear-cut if only one ignores a very long line of commerce clause cases. As far back as the 1930s, the Court upheld the federal government's right to punish someone for producing wheat on their own farm and using it as livestock feed.
I disagree with this decision from both a policy perspective and from my pereferred interpretation of the commerce clause. But in light of precedent, it actually seems pretty clear cut in favor of the majority decision. A decision the other way would have been a move away from such precedent - a trend that the Rehnquist Court has only partially accomplished.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I see what you're saying. Although even based on years of precendent, the dissenting opinions still were basically an argument for states' rights.
Justice Thomas wrote:
quote:If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything--and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.
and
quote:The CSA [Controlled Substances Act, the law that allows Congress to dictate drug policy], as applied to respondents' conduct, is not a valid exercise of Congress' power under the Necessary and Proper Clause.
quote:The Washington Post says: Alan Hopper, an American Civil Liberties Union attorney, said that local and state officers handle 99 percent of marijuana prosecutions and must still follow any state laws that protect patients. "This is probably not going to change a lot for individual medical marijuana patients," he said.
This ruling specifically doesn't overturn any state law, but it allows federal (DEA) agents to arrest and prosecute medical marijuana patients for posession.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, when is THC going to be commercially produced in a regulated, standardized form and available by prescription? Wouldn't that solve the whole medical marijuana problem?
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am glad that very sick people will not be allowed to take something that helps them feel better. It is good that the government does not let themselves get distracted from this by the hungry and needy. I am glad our goverment has their priorities straight.
Posts: 1015 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
It should be clear cut to most people, look at the most dollars spent to keep marijuana illegal, those biggest "moral" wallets are alcohol companies and pharmacuetical companies.
Our government is owned and operated by global corporations, our legislation is written by global corporations, as long as global corporations can continue a vise grip on power by charging us $5.00 a pill for something it costs less than a penny to manufacture, we will not get the best of options.
Seriously, when I'm 80 and sitting on the back porch, If I ain't leaving the house that day, ain't no man on Earth has the right to say I can't smoke a joint.
Ah, but we live in times where the black dragon controls the minds of men who have not the courage to question and answer false corporate monarchies. A time where the name and spirit of Jesus is used to sell tax cuts for Billionaires, and deregulation for Trillionaires.
Should marijauana be legal and regulated? Yes.
Should human beings go to jail or prison from using marijuana? No.
Native Americans filled the Peace Pipe with Marijuana, the Supreme Court declared Native Americans 3/5's human. Americans then committed genocide on the Native Americans.
Jesus loves me.
Anthony Scalia is probably convinced i'm going to hell.
posted
Any chance of congress changing the federal law? It seems pretty archaic to say unequivocably that marijuana has no medical value--isn't that opinion based on opinion and bad and OLD science?
Everyday, as I check in journals at my job (I work in a library), I see one or more advertisements from the Parents: The Anti-Drug people rehashing the old and much-refuted studies and opinions about marijuana as if they're gospel.
So, what do you think? What would it take to get congress to change the federal law? I think it could get a lot of Republican support--based on the Republicans I know, and even more support if people were properly educated.
posted
http://www.maryjanecandyco.com/ or Kronic Kandy. You know, since you can't get it as a prescription, hey, at least you can rangle up some Cannabis-flavored candy to keep around. Or there's http://www.canabliss.com in case you really like smelling like a joint without all the side effects. There's legal movements in the works to ban that kind of candy from the street -- where, frighteningly enough, its peddled by the same friendly blokes who distribute the real stuff ("Hey, kid. you wanna...? No? Well, how about a lollipop, then? Your parents would flip if they ever saw you eating this bad boy...").
Honestly? I don't see marijuana getting much approval in the US for quite a while. The standard image is that of the leaf floating around college dorms and back alleys and, well, even if the older generation managed to have their fun a few decades ago, they (for the most part) see the dangers of it and don't want to purport any kind of approval of "that sort of thing." There's too much quote-unquote when you use the term "medically" and officials realize that prescription only translates far too often to easy access. The ruling doesn't surprise me at all.
posted
I think it's reprehensible to keep marijuana from people who desperately need it, like chemo and glaucoma patients.
It's easier than ever to get hold of it illegally, which makes it that much sadder that sick people who want to obey the law will be penalized.
The anti-drug movement in this country is so impotent that I sometimes wonder how we can justify funding it at all. In the past 15-20 years drugs have gotten cheaper, purer, and easier to get.
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Shigosei asked: So, when is THC going to be commercially produced in a regulated, standardized form and available by prescription? Wouldn't that solve the whole medical marijuana problem?
posted
I think the point here is that there are more laws that need to be refined/changed/amended, and that this must be done through the democratic and legislative process rather than through court command. The judges didn't rule on the morality of the thing, just the legality.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
As has been said by the news media -- nothing is really changed by this ruling.
All the ruling said was the the federal law trumps any state law on this issue. That has really always been true -- it was just not handed down as a ruling/interpretation before.
I don't think they are going to start raiding the medicinal marijuana cafes in California. Basically they always had the right to do that, and the supreme court just said that; but I don't see that really changing business as usual.
posted
The DEA has been raiding medical marijuana clubs infrequently since the mid-nineties. (Also many growers who publicly grow for medical marijuana patients have been busted.)
Like you said, I doubt this will lead to increased activity. But hopefully it will lead to the Congress changing marijuana to a schedule II drug, or something lower even, recognizing its medical potential and stopping these raids.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The List of People who spent a large portion of their lives smoking marijuana.
George W. Bush = President.
Steven Spielberg = Filmmaker
Jimi Hendrix = Musical Prodigy and Mastermind
Bill Gates = World's Richest Man
George Lucas = Epic Maker
Steve Jobs = Computer Master
John Lennon and Paul McArtney = part of the best band ever.
Willie Nelson and Johnny Cash = Great American Folk Singers.
If you would like to put together a list of modern American puritans who didn't ever drink or smoke marijauna, I'd like to see it.
The proof is not in our American Drug War's pudding.
How much money a year do we spend here and abroad fighting this 70 year drug war? How many plasticman politicians have won themselves elections by pledging to rid the streets of drugs?
How many people deserve to be in jail for smoking the sweet leaf?
Money rules america, not truth.
God didn't write the federal laws.
Marijuana has always been associated with peace, alcohol is associtated with violence, and guns are always associated with death.
How many legal drug commericals are on TV now? One out of five maybe? One out of four?
Paxil may induce suicide, but legal and fine.
America is a don't do natural drugs, do synthetic drugs nation.
We've got more than one mouth in our megaphone speaker face.
America is my home and I love her, but she is no saint and she certainly ain't Jesus.
Do you have proof or a cite that he did it this long, or is this a personal conjecture?
quote:Follow the Money...
Please remove your tinfoil hat. I agree that many major industries and companies have much more influence then they deserve (and it swings both ways, BTW); however, The Supreme Court was not bought out. The Court was reinforcing federal law, however much we may disagree with the ruling. Whether the law is fascist, pigheaded, or slightly annoying is of personal opinion. I think that marijuana should be legal, so I disagree with the ruling, but it is only more proof that we need a loosening of the federal law through the democratic process, which is exactly how this is supposed to work, and probably will.
My belief is that It is getting close to being loosened in the law. Even though the DEA is very powerful, it is loosing grip, as state medical marijuana laws demonsrate. Congress is feeling a lot of pressure, from pro-legalization lobbyists and constituents, to enact some of these same laws, or at least allow more research, which is a good first step.
Posts: 684 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
