home

Supreme Court Rules Against Medical Marijuana

by TChris

The Justice Department today won another victory in its war against pot smokers, while advocates of states' rights -- not to mention seriously ill patients who now face federal prosecution for using a medicine many states would like them to have -- are the losers.

By a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court ruled that state laws providing medical marijuana users and providers with protection against state prosecution are no shield against federal prosecution.

Federal authorities may prosecute sick people whose doctors prescribe marijuana to ease pain, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, concluding that state laws don't protect users from a federal ban on the drug. The decision is a stinging defeat for marijuana advocates who had successfully pushed 10 states to allow the drug's use to treat various illnesses.

The decision in Gonzalez v. Raich is summarized here.

TalkLeft has repeatedly warned against the federalization of crimes that can easily be prosecuted (or not, as a state chooses) under state law, most recently here and here. Conservatives who want to limit the scope of legislation authorized by the Commerce Clause will be disappointed by the Court's reinforcement of "Congress’ power to regulate purely local activities that are part of an economic 'class of activities' that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce." Unlike social conservatives who want to see greater federal regulation of private activity, "Commerce Clause conservatives" want to see no federal regulation of economic activity. Watching the two groups clash over the qualifications of the next Supreme Court nominee may be amusing.

For those less interested in constitutional theory, a more human focus on the problem of prosecuting patients who use marijuana to improve the quality of their lives can be found here. Critics of the administration's renewed war against marijuana smokers are quoted abundantly in this recent article.

< Lea Fastow Leves Prison for Halfway House | Dissenters in Gonzales v. Raich >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Che, Hardly a troll statement. During the whole Justice Sunday threads and filibuster threads here the question was repeatedly asked: what judicial activism, what law-making by judicial fiat is the right talking about? This is exactly what they are talking about. Your ox has been gored. It is now complained about here because it struck down medical use of marijuana. I sincerely hope this allows those on the left and right who think that the federal government has enough power vis a vis the states to actually have a rational conversation outside the rhetoric - and see if we have some agreement on this issue.

    Maybe I misread the decision, but are some of the liberal justices who voted to uphold the federal legislation here thinking back to the Heart of Atlanta Motel decision? Back in those days, when the federal government was trying to eradicate discrimination, the conservatives were arguing strenuously that one little hotel didn't affect interstate commerce. Some important advances in civil rights were made over the objection that the commerce clause was being stretched too far. Just something to think about.

    When I was a young radical I was arrested under the H. Rap Brown Act for crossing state lines with intent to riot (go to Wounded Knee). Funny thing, I was 120 miles from the nearest state line when I was arrested because I was on an Interstate Highway - "the means of interstate commerce" Something else to think about.

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Against Medical Marijuana (none / 0) (#1)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:45 PM EST
    So that clears up exactly what? It's still legal to use medical marijuana in California, but you can be prosecuted federally. What has changed?

    Nothing...the "State's Rights" Party does it again..can't wait 'til the Dems get their shot next...

    you might want to actually look at the lineup of the Justices before jumping to conclusions. why should it shock that the majority, generally the left wing of the Court, defers to the government?

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Against Medical Marijuana (none / 0) (#4)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:45 PM EST
    Blagh, Look at how the justices voted before you shoot your mouth off.

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Against Medical Marijuana (none / 0) (#5)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:45 PM EST
    Sick people dont get medicine, but innocent people can be tortured. "What a country!"

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Against Medical Marijuana (none / 0) (#6)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:45 PM EST
    “What has changed?” Nothing if the feds choose to let it be. But it is an ugly precedent; the interstate commerce clause now allows the feds to regulate absolutely anything anywhere. And speaking of ugly precedent “ … the Court established that Congress can regulate purely intrastate activity that is not itself “commercial,” i.e., not produced for sale, if it concludes that failure to regulate that class of activity would undercut the regulation of the interstate market in that commodity.” The Supremes applied Wickard v. Filburn to an illegal market? Can someone help me out with the states interest in regulating a non-commercial commodity that might NEGATIVLY impact, albeit indirectly, an illegal market? What a $hit decision.

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Against Medical Marijuana (none / 0) (#7)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:45 PM EST
    Blagh, Here's link to the justices

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Against Medical Marijuana (none / 0) (#8)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:45 PM EST
    The Court cited Wickard! I was taught in law school that Wickard was one of the lamest decisions ever rendered by the court. You know what? F*ck the US! My only regret is that I have actually served this country. This country that stands for injustice, torture, and air-headed right wingers. F*ck all o0f you!

    While I don't like the consequences of this decision, I think pigwiggle's misreading the use of Wickard. It's that the regulation of the interstate market would (supposedly) be undercut by medical marijuana, not the market itself. Although the latter is obviously true as well, and a very good argument in favour of medical marijuana, it's not the point of law in Wickard.

    Sorry, Roger. I'm feeling you.

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Against Medical Marijuana (none / 0) (#11)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:45 PM EST
    I hope they all choke on their martini olives. Hypocrites.

    You're right Patrick, Blaghaddy apologises...the evil liberals just want to smoke weed instead of enslaving human beings in Bush-Country... Silly Blagh...

    Well, I'll go smoke some good old non-medical marijuana in sympathy for you in the U.S... =P

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Against Medical Marijuana (none / 0) (#14)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:45 PM EST
    Is it just me, or can Fedgov now enact pretty much any law under the Commerce Clause now? Or, what can't they regulate as interstate trade? The GOP stopped being the "small government" party as soon as they got power -- about the same time the Democrats started promoting states' rights. Whichever party is in the minority is the small government party... Maybe after the next election we'll a balance of parties so we can return to the good old days of Gridlock. Still, this decision (and the administration's celebration of it) will alienate some of the GOP's friends. Pro-gun groups and libertarian-leaners come to mind. My uncle survived throat cancer. He still smokes tobacco cigarettes; I'd much rather see him smoking pot so he could gain back some weight.

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Against Medical Marijuana (none / 0) (#15)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:45 PM EST
    PW, The reasoning seems to be that allowing legal pot would interfere with the gov'ts regulatory efforts to ban a market entirely. Wickard itself concerned a farmer during WWII, who grew wheat(?) on his farm, in order to feed his family. Wickard has all of the intellectual purity of Dred Scot, but without the racist angle. To apply Wickard to Raich requires quite a stretch. If you count "conservatism" as, generally "not wanting any great changes to what you have", then the dissenters make sense. The real suprise in this is that Scalia agreed with the majority on any aspect of this case. If you loke "original intent", all of the framers grew pot (ok, I know, not to smoke). so- Patrick- you are right, basically nothing has changed where you are Blagh- Patrick is a cop in California. He is not Jim. Also "states rights" people are pro-med mj PW- you hit this case on the head. Interstate commerce is already the excetion that swallows the rule. It is hard to envision how far it could go with this angle

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Against Medical Marijuana (none / 0) (#16)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:45 PM EST
    The hypocrisy continues. Ignorance reigns. If only we all liked to guzzle our booze, like the pilgrims did. There is no more wasteful, useless, puritanical b.s. in this country than mj prohibition. And it is no different than alcohol prohibition, a dismal ridiculous failure. Sorry, but I'll keep toking so I can haul my partially paralyzed leg and wretched spine around, and so I can have a little fun without harming anyone -- like free Americans, I thought, are supposed to be able to.

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Against Medical Marijuana (none / 0) (#17)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:45 PM EST
    It is hard to believe that Stevens wrote this........

    Perhaps its time for y'all to join together with the religious right against these "activist judges". Incidentally, this is the point of the complaint about activist judges. They pass law by construction.

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Against Medical Marijuana (none / 0) (#19)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:45 PM EST
    We definitely can't blame this defeat on the right wing or conservatives. The left wing (if Dems can be called left wing) wholeheartedly support prohibition as well. It's just the majority of us laypeople, both right and left, who see mj prohibition as moronic. Not to mention how cruel and unnecessary prosecuting medical mj users is. Special interests (prison industry, law enforcement industry, legal industry) win again! Freedom dies a little more....I'm with you Roger..Freak this country and what it has become. It is not the country my grandfathers risked their necks for in WWII. The land of the free my arse. I eagerly await and salivate over the coming of the second revolution...it's long overdue.