High court to weigh medical marijuana laws

modbee ^ | 11-25-04

[LouAvul]

OAKLAND, Calif. (AP) - Traditional drugs have done little to help 39-year-old Angel Raich. Beset by a list of ailments that includes tumors in her brain, seizures, spasms and nausea, she has found comfort only in the marijuana that is prescribed by her doctor.

On Monday, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case that will determine whether Raich and similar patients in California and 10 other states can continue to use marijuana for medical purposes.

At issue is whether states have the right to adopt laws allowing the use of drugs the federal government has banned or whether federal drug agents can arrest individuals for abiding by those medical marijuana laws.

[neverdem]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Display&dopt=pubmed_pubmed&from_uid=15458761

[Andrew LB]

Don't believe the hype. Medical Marijuana works. Keep it legal and safe. (and restricted)

[auntdot]

I am a true fan of the tenth amendment to our Constitution.

It is the one that reserves to the states those powers not specifically enumerated in the Constitution to the federal government.

I really do not find any ban on medical marijuana in that document and feel it should be the individual state's authority to allow, or not, the legitimacy of marijuana as a medically useful drug.

But then again I feel the states should have many rights that have been subsumed by the feds.

Yes, the tenth amendment is my favorite amendment.

Next to the twenty first, that is.

Urp.

[Know your rights]

At issue is whether states have the right to adopt laws allowing the use of drugs the federal government has banned

No, at issue is whether medical marijuana has a "substantial effect" on interstate commerce. What should be at issue is whether the "substantial effect" test is a legitimate reading of the Constitution.