Posted on 03/04/2005 5:15:52 PM PST by Know your rights
Can California have its marijuana and smoke it too?
Since voters passed the Medical Marijuana Act in 1996, the state law has been seemingly in contradiction with federal laws that say marijuana is an illegal drug under any circumstances.
The U.S. Supreme Court is now reviewing Ashcroft vs. Raich, in which a decision is expected any day regarding the federal government's authority over the matter.
And according to Americans for Safe Access, a group working for medical marijuana rights, now may be as good a time as any for a ruling to be made.
"Right now, the Supreme Court is definitely oriented towards state rights," said campaign director Hilary McQuie. "I don't want to make a bet, but that more than any other factor could be in favor of the Reich decision."
California resident Angel Raich, a prescribed medical marijuana user, sued the federal government in 2002 to challenge federal laws that banned her from using the substance under the Medical Marijuana Act.
After the act passed, federal agents began periodic raids in California to break up marijuana cooperatives, saying that the federal Controlled Substance Act (CSA) does not recognize medical marijuana.
While the US Constitution grants policing power to states, it stipulates that the federal government may intervene when the situation involves commerce between states.
According to court documents, the federal government believes it can override the state law using the CSA because there are sales taking place.
But a Dec 16, 2003 ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decided that using "the CSA is an unconstitutional exercise of Congress' Commerce Clause authority." The government's appeal of that decision landed the case in the Supreme Court in April of 2004.
Patrick Murphy, a California drug policy expert, says that the case could easily go either way at this point; regardless, Californians who support medical marijuana shouldn't panic if the court rules in favor the government.
"The notion of an individual in possession is now a question that a state can make a judgment on and this decision won't overturn that," Murphy said. "More likely, this could settle the question of whether state law is trumped by federal."
The Drug Free America Foundation, an umbrella group that filed a brief in favor of the government's position, did not return calls from The California Aggie for comment.
Despite the assurance that medical marijuana users would still be protected under state law, some wonder whether the federal government could use a win to conduct more frequent raids.
Murphy said the likelihood of such action is low, although the government may still decide to target doctors in an effort to make an example of them.
"But you have to have someone out there willing to make the arrest, and then you also have to have someone willing to prosecute it, and it's just not a very good use of resources," he continued. "Frankly, drugs just aren't a priority for the federal government anymore."
Even a ruling in favor of Raich, although viewed as a big boost for medical marijuana advocates, is something McQuie said is only a minor protection in the larger picture.
"It doesn't end the fight for medical marijuana if it wins because we need to have it rescheduled at the federal level," McQuie said. "But it is a move in the right direction."
GOD MADE HERB
GOD SAW THAT IT WAS GOOD
GOD GAVE IT TO MAN
Genesis 1:11
Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its
kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth"; and it was so.
Genesis 1:12
And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is
in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:29
And God said, "See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose
fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food.
Matthew 22:35-40
Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment.
And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
So, since the Bible dictates dietary law it is not the purvue of Caesar.
Moreover, is it right to imprison your neighbor for the possession, protection
or propagation of an herb gifted from God?
G32, Member Since Nov 26, 2004
With all due respect. you haven't been here long enough to start making demands.
If you disapprove of the subject being discussed, try another thread.
Lookie here....another newbie keybord commando.
SigPro2340, Member Since Feb 21, 2005
And a narc to boot.
God made toadstools too, go injest some.
Once again, not an herb.
I'm sure there's poisonous herbs out there, go eat some.
In fact, store bought mushrooms are more carcinogenic than anything the FDA has ever banned for being carcinogenic.
I can legally grow hundreds of herbs and flowers in my own garden all of which have an effect on the human body in one way or another. Many of these have medicinal properties. Some, which I am permitted to grow have portions that are deadly if ingested at all and others if in too high a quantity. Why is it that this particular herb which pre-existed this nation upon this land is so different that it falls under the jurisdiction of the commerce clause? And, moreover where is the power of the Federal Government enumerated in our Constitution to eradicate it and imprison its possessors, protectors, and propagators?
Get a hobby.
All my time is well spent, thank you for your concern.
Perhaps, your time would be better spent on your own
affairs rather than with that which your neighbor partakes.
Someone blabbering on a forum about their vices isn't 'private'.
I have not written about any vices.
Your empty statements with their
accusatory tone and judgemental
position suit your fascist bent well though.
Romans 14: 2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.
3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.
Madison is describing the Dormant (Negative) Commerce Clause, used "among the states themselves". We've been over this before.
Google up Dormant Commerce Clause.
Then States would continue to decide the issue.
Or that "arms" were limited to rifles.
Then State and Federal laws banning rifles would be unconstitutional. Sounds good to me!
If the court sides with the feds, they're merely affirming the existing federal laws. Nothing changes. There is no precedent. What was before, is today.
If the feds haven't shot down State anti-abortion and gun freedom laws by now, this ruling doesn't change anything. I don't understand your "chicken little" warning.
Yes, and your fraudulent interpretation of Madison was refuted.
So was your distortion of Justice John Marshall's use of the term "Commerce Clause in its dormant state".
Right up until the first federal lawsuit brought by an individual claiming that "concealed carry" violates one of their 9th amendment rights.
Good luck arguing that with a straight face in front of a judge.
Even in the states that have concealed carry, there are exceptions such as schools, libraries, churches, government buildings, workplaces, etc. Ever ask yourself why? How did that happen?
Those arguments were made with a straight face. The judge accepted those arguments, didn't he? Whatever reasons were given for banning concealed carry in those areas seemed to work, didn't it?
Incorporating the second amendment would "nationalize" those restrictions to all libraries, and all schools, and all workplaces. Is that what you want, rather than have each state decide?
Oh, but robertpaulsen, judges wouldn't extend that ban to public parks, shopping malls, restaurants, bars, whatever, -- finally banning it everywhere. Uh huh.
Give it time. That's the one thing liberals got -- time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.