Today the US Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Raich v. Ashcroft.
The Raich side argues from a medicinal marijuana point of view:
For me and for thousands of others, this is a life or death issue. I'm very sick -- I suffer from an inoperable brain tumor, a seizure disorder, life-threatening wasting syndrome, severe chronic pain and other documented medical conditions -- but I'll be damned if I'm going to let the federal government prohibit me from improving my health with cannabis.
The other side could be represented by the Drug Free America Foundation. In their Amicus brief to the Supreme Court they summarize their argument in this way:
There is still no proven medical value to the use of crude marijuana. This remains the unequivocal position of the Food and Drug Administration, which is charged by Congress with making this determination. The Appellate Court’s decision (finding a strong likelihood of success on the merits of appellants’ commerce clause claim) rests on its identification of a separate class of activities regarding the use of crude marijuana for personal medical purposes, such that this class of activities exists outside the scope of the class of drug-related activities reached by the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. § 801 et seq. Absent a legitimate and currently accepted medical use for crude
marijuana, the Appellate Court’s reasoning must fail, as it would therefore have no basis for establishing this separate class of drug use which is independent of the Controlled Substances Act.
Neither argument moves me and neither will move the Court, in my opinion. I think both of these arguments are for public consumption not, I hope, court consumption. The only thing that interests me is the State's Right issue and it will be that issue the court takes up....I hope.
The real question before the court has to do with the Federal Government's ability to interfere with laws that are state created. It is recognized that the Federal Government has the Constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce (Article 1 Section 8). Their ability to regulate drugs is based on this.
In brief, the facts of the case are these:
In 2002, DEA officers raided the Oroville California home of Diane Monson, who was growing marijuana in her garden to ease back pain. The raid was tied to a crackdown on medical marijuana
The state of California has legalized marijuana for a specific purpose and if no interstate transportation of the drug has occurred, the Feds should have no ability to arrest someone who is following state law, and not breaking a federal law.
I frankly don't care whether or not marijuana is useful for medical purposes. This argument was made and won and the democratically elected officials of the state of California legally enacted it into law.
I don't care whether or not marijuana is bad for you. Lots of things that are legal are bad for you. All that matters to me is that California weighed the evidence and made the law.
California's laws are not binding in other states. California did not legalize growing marijuana for sale in other states (and couldn't if they wanted to). The law only affects the people of California who, as adults and by means of the proper Democratic process decided its OK.
To me, it is clear that at one time the Congress thought this way regularly. The only reason I can imagine that the 18th Amendment (Prohibition) was passed was because it was the only way the Congress could prohibit States from being able to make and sell alcohol within their own State. When the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment all that was needed to be said could be contained in Section 1
"The eighteenth article of Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed"
But no, it has a Section 2
"The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the UNited States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited."
So even though Congress made alcohol legal, you could not violate the laws of an individual state.
Again, why would the Federal Government even require the 18th Amendment if Congress could simply do what it has done with marijuana; simply declare it illegal?
The current Court has been friendly to Federalism and States Rights. It struck down the Violence Against Women Act because Congress attempted to use the Commerce Clause improperly. Congress' authority to regulate interstate commerce simply can not be used to justify anything and everything Congress wants to do.
We have hope. In the 1995 Lopez ruling, Chief Justice Rehnquist said "If we were to accept the government's arguments, we are hard-pressed to posit any activity by an individual that Congress is without power to regulate."
Justice Rehnquist was not sitting in Court today as he is battling cancer.
But I very much hope his spirit was there and the Court once again stands up for Federalism and State's rights and puts real limits on the power of Congress.
