In before the move to the Smokey Backroom!
Posted on 07/14/2005 3:19:42 PM PDT by Crackingham
The Supreme Court's medical marijuana decision this past June was a minor defeat for the so-called states' rights cause but a major setback for compassion and common sense. It marked one of the few defeats suffered by retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in her long campaign against federal regulation of the national economy and for the enhancement of individual rights. This time, she should have won. Although the decision temporarily halted the conservative assault, it allowed federal authorities to deny a locally grown and marketed drug with proven therapeutic value to people who desperately need it.
In Gonzales v. Raich, the Court told California and ten other states that if they allowed their residents to use marijuana to relieve their illnesses, those people would be violating the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), even if the drug were taken solely for serious medical conditions under a doctor's supervision, state law allowed it, and the growth and usage were entirely within the same state. A unique combination of the four liberal justices plus the ultraconservative Antonin Scalia and the occasional swing vote Anthony Kennedy decided that the commerce clause was broad enough to reach these purely local transactions; Justice O'Connor, Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas dissented.
Plaintiffs Angel Raich and Diane Monson did not challenge the CSA itself but only the way it was being applied to people in their circumstances, what the lower court described as a "separate and distinct class" of users and noncommercial activities that were never involved directly or indirectly in interstate trade. The amount they used, the plaintiffs argued, was too small and too localized to "substantially affect interstate commerce," the standard for application of the commerce clause.
The Supreme Court's medical marijuana decision this past June was a minor defeat for the so-called states' rights cause but a major setback for compassion and common sense. It marked one of the few defeats suffered by retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in her long campaign against federal regulation of the national economy and for the enhancement of individual rights. This time, she should have won. Although the decision temporarily halted the conservative assault, it allowed federal authorities to deny a locally grown and marketed drug with proven therapeutic value to people who desperately need it.
In Gonzales v. Raich, the Court told California and ten other states that if they allowed their residents to use marijuana to relieve their illnesses, those people would be violating the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), even if the drug were taken solely for serious medical conditions under a doctor's supervision, state law allowed it, and the growth and usage were entirely within the same state. A unique combination of the four liberal justices plus the ultraconservative Antonin Scalia and the occasional swing vote Anthony Kennedy decided that the commerce clause was broad enough to reach these purely local transactions; Justice O'Connor, Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas dissented.
Plaintiffs Angel Raich and Diane Monson did not challenge the CSA itself but only the way it was being applied to people in their circumstances, what the lower court described as a "separate and distinct class" of users and noncommercial activities that were never involved directly or indirectly in interstate trade. The amount they used, the plaintiffs argued, was too small and too localized to "substantially affect interstate commerce," the standard for application of the commerce clause.
Sensing a rare victory in a commerce clause case, Justice John Paul Stevens issued an opinion that authorized the federal government to prohibit use of even the tiniest amounts of marijuana if Congress had a "rational basis" for thinking that federal drug laws would be undermined if exceptions were made. That could happen if the medically authorized marijuana were diverted to the illicit interstate market, although, as Stevens admitted, there was no evidence of any such diversion in the Raich case. General Accounting Office studies show that registered medical marijuana users are too few to have any substantial effect on the interstate market. Crafting a medical exception would not have been difficult, for as Stevens recognized, the medical users' challenge to the CSA was "actually quite limited." In fact, the therapeutic exemption actually reduced demand for illegal marijuana, which is the primary federal concern, because it kept desperate AIDS sufferers, cancer patients and others from turning to criminal drug dealers.
There have indeed been abuses. Two weeks after the decision, it was reported that drug dealers and crooked doctors had used three medical marijuana dispensaries as a front to peddle massive amounts of marijuana and other illegal drugs. But as Kevin Ryan, the US Attorney for the Northern District of California, said, this case was not "about ill people who may be using marijuana [but]...about a criminal enterprise" involving a multimillion-dollar international conspiracy. Many medical dispensaries operate properly, and both California and federal law are available to deal with the truly criminal.
The Supreme Court decision may actually encourage abuses. Those who need marijuana to ease their suffering will still manage to get it from illegal sources, and federal officials have indicated they are not likely to prosecute individual users. But California will no longer be able to justify continuing its current efforts to tighten dispensary regulation and to restrict access to the truly needy, for how can a state justify regulating and implicitly approving what the Supreme Court has found illegal? The decision will discourage more states from permitting medical use of the drug, no matter how carefully controlled.
In before the move to the Smokey Backroom!
Interesting dissent grouping... siding with libertarian mindset. As much fun as it is poking libertarians with sticks, a whole lot of bucks could be shifted from the drug runners to the good guys by decriminalizing cannabis and going after the gangs with RICO, even though it'd probably change the shift in power in the war on terrorism a bit. Both sides are too intrenched in the WOD, and eveyone's planted their heels. Are there truly medical benefits to cannibis? Dunno. The end of prohibition put the Chicago gangs out on the porch lookin for new markets. Interesting situation.
>>>Are there truly medical benefits to cannibis?
Yes.
The only way to shift a whole lot of bucks away from the drug runners is to legalize the growing and selling of cannabis, as Prohibition was ended with legalization of the making and selling of alcohol. Is that what you mean by "decriminalizing"? If so, where does "going after the gangs with RICO" fit in?
Taxation of those products to supplement antiterror activities, supplemental diversion of WOD cash to same...
If the transborder gangs aren't selling drugs, they might hustle the highest bidders, the America haters. They wouldn't be transborder without support on this side, hence RICO.
I don't have any answers, but the question of our open border policy has to have some root, and it ain't pool maintenance.
"What is that supposed to mean?"
He posted the same thing to me on another thread. I don't get it, either.
What background, training, and qualifications do doctors have that makes such "supervision" legitimate?
If I'm not mistaken, I think its called "Medical School".
Well, after I graduated from "medical school", I've taught at, and written curriculum for several of them for thirty years.
The scientific case for "medical" use of marijuana is supported by - nothing.
If people want to get high, that's fine by me.
It's not fine to make up sh*t to justify it.
Hardly. Do a google some time.
Publications in "High Times" don't count.
The first twenty hits in a pubmed search were either newspaper articles or advocacy pieces. There was one journal article.
"Scientific drug information in newspapers: sensationalism and low quality. The example of therapeutic use of cannabinoids", published this month in the European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology.
Far out, dude.
If it feels like medicine, maybe it is. Who really knows?
Meanwhile those who want to keep their (remaining?) brain cells will stay away from it.
You'll have competition; the feminist harpies want to reserve the RICO statute to bludgeon pro-lifers like Joe Scheidler.
http://www.gwpharm.com/
If people want to get high, that's fine by me.
It's not fine to make up sh*t to justify it.
My sentiments EXACTLY...
I like the “do a google” responses, as if that is some badge of wisdom... google-dee-doo-da-doo...
From this point forward, the story is dead meat. O'Clowner is hardly any of that...
Looks like he's making some reference to people biting the hand that feeds them. I suppose he thinks that states with medical marijuana laws who don't bow down and lick the federal boots are biting the hand that feeds them, as if the feds feed us.
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.
