Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Medical marijuana: The real stakes
TownHall.com ^ | 12-10-04 | Jeff Jacoby

Posted on 12/17/2004 9:12:14 AM PST by inquest

Ashcroft v. Raich, the Supreme Court's medical marijuana case, isn't really about medical marijuana. It's about power -- the power of Congress to exert control, and the power of the Constitution to rein Congress in.

The named plaintiff in this case is Angel McClary Raich, a California mother of two afflicted with an awful array of diseases, including tumors in her brain and uterus, asthma, severe weight loss, and endometriosis. To ease her symptoms, doctors put her on dozens of standard medications. When none of them helped, they prescribed marijuana. That did help -- so much so that Raich, who had been confined to a wheelchair, was again able to walk.

Raich's marijuana was supplied to her for free from two donors who grew it in California, using only California soil, water, and supplies. Under the state's Compassionate Use Act of 1996, which exempts the use of marijuana under a doctor's supervision from criminal sanction, all of this was perfectly legal.

But under the federal Controlled Substances Act of 1970, the possession of marijuana for any reason is illegal. The question for the court is which law should prevail in this case: state or federal?

Normally that wouldn't be an issue. Under the Constitution, a valid exercise of federal power trumps any conflicting state law. But is the application of the federal drug law to Raich a valid exercise of federal power? Does Congress have the right to criminalize the possession of minuscule amounts of marijuana, not bought on the illicit drug market, and used as medicine?

Americans often forget that the federal government was never intended to have limitless authority. Unlike the states, which have a broad "police power" to regulate public health, safety, and welfare, the national government has only the powers granted to it by the Constitution. Where does the Constitution empower Congress to bar pain-wracked patients from using the marijuana their doctors say they need?

According to the Bush administration, it says it in the Commerce Clause, which authorizes Congress to "regulate commerce . . . among the several states." And it is true that those words have long been treated as a broad grant of power allowing Congress to control almost anything it chooses.

The Supreme Court's most expansive reading of the Commerce Clause came in Wickard v. Filburn, a unanimous 1942 decision about a farmer who grew more wheat on his farm than was allowed under federal law. Roscoe Filburn argued that his excess wheat was none of Washington's business, since it all remained on his farm -- some of it he ground into flour, for his family, some he fed to his livestock, and some he planted the following year. None of it entered interstate commerce, so what right did Congress have to penalize it?

But a unanimous Supreme Court ruled against Filburn. It held that his 239 excess bushels of wheat affected the national wheat market whether he sold it or not, since wheat he produced for his own use was wheat he didn't have to buy elsewhere. If other farmers did the same thing, demand for wheat -- and its price -- would fall. That ruling threw the door open to virtually unbridled congressional activism. After all, if wheat that never left the farm it grew on was tied to "interstate commerce" and therefore subject to federal control, what wasn't? Not surprisingly, the years since Wickard have seen a vast expansion of federal authority.

Still, the Supreme Court has never actually held that congressional power under the Commerce Clause is unlimited. Twice in the past 10 years, in fact, it has struck down laws that could not be justified as commerce-related even under Wickard's hyperloose standard. But if the government gets its way in this case, the court really will have remade the Commerce Clause into a license to regulate anything. For unlike Filburn -- who was, after all, engaged in the business of running a farm and selling grain -- Raich is engaged in no commercial or economic activity of any kind. She is not buying or selling a thing. The marijuana she uses is not displacing any other marijuana.

But that point seemed lost on the court during last week's oral argument. "It looks like Wickard to me," Justice Antonin Scalia said. "I always used to laugh at Wickard, but that's what Wickard says."

Well, if Wickard says that Congress can ban or penalize Angel Raich's marijuana -- noncommercial, medically necessary, locally grown, and legal under state law -- then it says Congress can reach absolutely any activity at all. When I was a law student in the 1980s, I didn't laugh at Wickard, I was appalled by it. If Ashcroft v. Raich is decided for the government, future law students will have an even more appalling case to study.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; US: California
KEYWORDS: aclulist; billofrights; california; communistsubversion; conspiracy; constitutionlist; federalism; govwatch; jacoby; libertarians; marijuana; medical; medicalmarijuana; noteworthy; nwo; philosophytime; pufflist; real; scotuslist; stakes; the; wodlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 441-442 next last
This is my problem with this type of constitutional analysis: There's nothing in the Constitution giving states the power to define the limits of federal law. If federal law has overreached, then it's unconstitutional and invalid regardless of what state law says. If it hasn't overreached, then it overrides state law to the contrary. Either way, state law is irrelevant, and should never be treated as in any way relevant.
1 posted on 12/17/2004 9:12:14 AM PST by inquest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: inquest

LeRoy would be so proud. LeRoy you out there, what is your current screen name? Lost track of you after "No King but Jesus".


2 posted on 12/17/2004 9:14:04 AM PST by AxelPaulsenJr (Pray Daily For Our Troops and President Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: inquest

I was at the argument and there was quite a bit of discussion on the effect of this law on marijuana prices throughout the country. Also the California statute is so loosey-goosey. I think it's basically NORML at work.


3 posted on 12/17/2004 9:16:59 AM PST by Pinetop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: inquest
There's nothing in the Constitution giving states the power to define the limits of federal law.

 1. Powers of the Federal Government - Delegated Powers


4 posted on 12/17/2004 9:17:19 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum (Drug prohibition laws help fund terrorism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: inquest
I have never heard a reasoned argument against marijuana use for medical purposes.

It always winds up in some kind of flaming war.

5 posted on 12/17/2004 9:17:58 AM PST by evad (DUmmie FUnnies and Pookie Toons-the start of a nice day)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: inquest

MJ should be legal.


6 posted on 12/17/2004 9:23:02 AM PST by Phantom Lord
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: evad
Why doesn't the federal government just decriminalize marijuana possesion (importing it or transporting across state lines could still be illegal)?

Drug prohibition is a ridiculous criminal joke that is destroying America.

7 posted on 12/17/2004 9:23:15 AM PST by conserv13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: inquest
"There's nothing in the Constitution giving states the power to define the limits of federal law."

There's no reason for states to define limits to Federal authority; that's the Constitution's job. If the Constitution doesn't give a power to the Federal government, then that power is reserved for the people or the states. Control over interstate commerce was granted to the Federal government. Control over intrastate commerce isn't among the Federal powers enumerated by the Constitution, and is thus reserved to the people and/or the states, as per Amendment X.

Amendment X: 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.
8 posted on 12/17/2004 9:23:36 AM PST by NJ_gent (Conservatism begins at home. Security begins at the border. Please, someone, secure our borders.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: inquest

Maybe its time to start thinking about a Constitutional convention as a way to rein in the Federal Government. The Supreme Court has rewritten much of the Constitution expanding the powers of the Federal government far beyond anything that is rational.


9 posted on 12/17/2004 9:40:11 AM PST by Reaganghost (Reagan could see the Renaissance coming, but it will be up to you to make it happen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reaganghost

I'm really surprised the justice department is taking the approach that it has taken. This would be the perfect opportunity to lobby for Wickard to be limited.


10 posted on 12/17/2004 9:46:22 AM PST by VaBarrister
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: inquest; robertpaulsen; tacticalogic

rp and tl: pinging you to this thread to discuss the Wickard case, which is the basis of the "substantial effects" interpretation of the Commerce clause.


11 posted on 12/17/2004 10:03:37 AM PST by bassmaner (Let's take the word "liberal" back from the commies!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: inquest

If the federal government had the power to prohibit sales of marijuana, then there would have been no need for the 18th amendment (which prohibits the sale of alcohol,and was repealed by the 21st amendment).


12 posted on 12/17/2004 10:06:18 AM PST by Aegedius (Veni, vidi, icked-kay utt-bay.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Phantom Lord

This is a slam dunk, really. No way the SC will go against the Feds on this one. On the bright side, it'll be fun watching all the "conservatives" bitch and moan about the newly restored Commerce Clause when it bites them in the backside somewhere down the road.


13 posted on 12/17/2004 10:07:19 AM PST by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Reaganghost
If there was support for a new constitutional convention to rein in the federal government, then there'd be support for reining in the federal government with the existing Constitution. A constitutional convention today would more than likely do the opposite of reining it in.
14 posted on 12/17/2004 10:08:17 AM PST by inquest (Now is the time to remove the leftist influence from the GOP. "Unity" can wait.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: VaBarrister

Once Ashcroft is gone maybe they will ease up. Too late for Chong though.


15 posted on 12/17/2004 10:09:04 AM PST by OneTimeLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: conserv13
Drug prohibition is a ridiculous criminal joke that is destroying America.

Amen.

Drug prohibition is at its core a utopian social-engineering agenda that contradicts a fundamental reality of human nature. We've had 30+ years of the so-called "War on Drugs" and "illegal" drugs are more plentiful than ever, despite the fact that there are 500,000+ prisoners in the U.S. in jail for drug "crimes".

Memo to Drug War-supporting conservatives: utopian social-engineering agendas are the stock-in-trade of the socialist left, and are eternally doomed to failure. Even ex-Drug Czar Barry McCaffery once admitted that we would never be able to "jail our way out of the drug problem". It's time to admit that the best solution is the market solution: legalize, tax, and regulate, get the federal government out of the drug prohibition enforcement business, and leave regulation up to the states like it is for alcohol and tobacco.

16 posted on 12/17/2004 10:15:21 AM PST by bassmaner (Let's take the word "liberal" back from the commies!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: evad
"I have never heard a reasoned argument against marijuana use for medical purposes."

The arguments are mainly against "smoked" marijuana for medical purposes.

To reduce the intraocular pressure caused by glaucoma, it would require smoking 10 joints/day, every day. But any form of marijuana for glaucoma, however, is contraindicated due to its negative effect on the optic nerve.

No major medical association supports smoked marijuana for medical reasons. None.

One other little ditty for you. 99% of medical marijuana patients (in a California survey) were already smoking marijuana for their "condition" prior to seeing a doctor. Their doctors were not recommending marijuana -- they were simply authorizing it.

The "condition" in 2 out of 3 cases? Pain.

17 posted on 12/17/2004 10:33:30 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: conserv13
"Why doesn't the federal government just decriminalize marijuana possesion (importing it or transporting across state lines could still be illegal)?"

First, I think you mean "legalize" not "decriminalize". Decriminalization means that marijuana is still illegal, but the offense is reduced to a civil misdemeanor with usually a small fine. Some states have decriminalized.

You're looking to turn the legalization decision over to the states and leaving the federal government out of it (unless, as you say, it crosses our borders or state lines).

The 21st amendment, Section 2, did exactly that for alcohol. I would suggest that we get a similar amendment for drugs if we want to go down that path.

18 posted on 12/17/2004 10:42:30 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie
On the bright side, it'll be fun watching all the "conservatives" bitch and moan about the newly restored Commerce Clause when it bites them in the backside somewhere down the road.

Hey, this conservative is pulling for Raich, because I understand that it will also affect the Stewart case, which involves homemade NFA firearms.

For your reading pleasure - transcript of the USSC Raich case oral arguments

19 posted on 12/17/2004 10:43:54 AM PST by gieriscm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: inquest
Of course the state laws are relevant. Federalism is all about power sharing. The feds were to control certain things governments have a right to control in this country and the states the rest. The question in cases like these is who has the right to control a particular activity within a state, the state, the feds, or both? One of the determining factors in these commerce clause cases is whether the activity involves interstate commerce. The way the state laws are written can play a very important role in making this determination. If a state wants to allow something and has narrowly tailored state laws that discourage interstate commerce in thing or activity, then those laws are relevant in the determination of whether the activity involves interstate commerce. Just because something is relevant in a legal sense does not mean it is necessarily determinative, but it is useful in the analysis.
20 posted on 12/17/2004 10:45:18 AM PST by TKDietz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 441-442 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson