Supreme Court Needs Medical Marijuana

[jersey_guy]

Because their yesterday's ruling allowing the federal government to ban intrastate non-commercial growing and use of medical marijuana is disgraceful and dangerous.

I read O'Connor's and Thomas's dissenting opinions in their entirety, and I pretty much agree 100% with both of them.

The Court practically reversed its own 1990 Lopez decision (striking down federal law prohibiting carrying guns near schools), which established that the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution can be applied only to economic activity that directly affects interstate commerce.

Now, I am no lawyer, so could more educated legalese scholars on here explain to me how the **** does growing your own pot affect interstate commerce??

And what is the point of the Tenth Amendment if the Supreme Court can randomly decide when it applies and when it does not?

I wonder what will be the next non-commercial activity that will "fall" under the Commerce Clause for another power grab by the feds. My bet is on gay marriage or civil unions.

[Jwaksman]

The Columbia Libertarians brought in Randy Barnett to speak (he was the main lawyer arguing for Raich in this case). He was a fantastic speaker and really broke down all of the issues at stake. It was a while ago, but let me see if I can remember the issues as he said it (I can't even remember the names of the court cases....):



1) There was a case during the Great Depression that involved a law restricting the amount of grain that could be sold across state lines. It was one of FDR's midguided attempts to raise the price of goods. One farmer took his extra grain and fed it to his own pigs. He was then charged with breaking that law. He argued that what he was doing wasn't interstate commerce, that he was just feeding his pigs, but the Supreme Court ruled that he was affecting the price of grain across state border, so he could be punished.

2) This case was then used as the federal government's precedent when their guns-near-schools law was challenged. It was a federal law prohibiting guns within a certain number of feet of a school. In a case called United States v. Lopez, the federal government argued that guns near schools had an abstract effect on the economy and interstate commerce. But the Supreme Court ruled against them, and said that the interstate commerce clause of the constitution only allows the government to restrict inherently commercial activity.



So, Barnett was trying to argue that the medical marijuana at issue was not inherently commercial. First of all, marijuana is not even allowed to be sold across state lines, and is not federally regulated as such. Secondly, it was not sold in a normal market, it was simply grown by one person and other people took what they needed and left donations to help support. The only argument that the US government had was trying to say that by buying marijuana people are less likely to buy other pain killers.



It's a really silly argument. All that happened here was that you had some conservative judges who find marijuana immoral (something that Barnett said that he feared) and you have some liberal judges who never miss a chance to take away some states rights.


The women who were the defendents in the trial have said that they will not stop taking their drugs. They both have real bad, chronic diseases, and need the drugs to stop some of the pain. I'd like to see the federal government come in and drag them away. In fact, that reminds me of the absurdity during the first time that they were arrested. California has legalized medical marijuana, so they didn't want to arrest the ladies. So you had federal drug control agents trying to arrest the ladies, and you had California police trying to keep the women from being arrested - saying that they weren't breaking the law. It's an absurd situation...

[jersey_guy]

The interesting thing is that Rehnquist decided in favor of medical marijuana because he knows what's it like to have cancer. I wouldn't be surprised if he's on the ganja himself.

The DEA already said that they will not enforce the law unless notified by local authorities (which they won't). So basically they will stick to the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, and the patients can take the Supereme Court ruling, roll it up and smoke it.

[mzungu]

j_g refers to an earlier case involving state gun laws that was struck down by the supreme court. what's even more interesting than the supreme court's reversal is that both sides reversed here. in a gun case, rehnquist was, i believe, pro-federal law priority, whereas in the medical marijuana case he was anti-federal law priority. the conservative view is typically against federal power and for state power, but that earlier case, like bush v. gore, was an exception. other nominees also shifted their positions. usually the conservatives like rehnquist will vote in favor of the constitutionality of harsher drug control and arrest measures. in the 1980s, the burger and rehnquist courts constantly rolled back freedoms in drug cases. so, you expect rehnquist to be conflicted on the pot case, because he always voted for more prosecution of pot, and sometimes voted against the priority of federal over state laws. feel free to correct the record or provide more facts as i am relying on memory.

[Zat0pek]

I will try to read this case (press reports rarely, if ever, tell all the important nuances) and I haven't yet, but let me throw this out anyway.

There is a doctrine known as pre-emption. Essentially, federal can pre-empt state law if certain criteria are met.

Preemption occurs when Congress, in enacting a federal statute, expresses a clear intent to preempt state law, when there is outright or actual conflict between federal and state law, where compliance with both federal and state law is in effect physically impossible, where there is implicit in federal law a barrier to state regulation, where Congress has legislated comprehensively, thus occupying an entire field of regulation and leaving no room for the States to supplement federal law, or where the state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full objectives of Congress

I'll read it when I get a chance, but I strongly suspect the case was decided on preemption grounds.

[Zat0pek]

I just skimmed it quickly, and I was close; largely based on the Supremecy Clause, closely intertwined with preemption:

The Supremacy Clause unambiguously provides that if there is any conflict between federal and state law, federal law shall prevail. It is beyond peradventure that federal power over commerce is " 'superior to that of the States to provide for the welfare or necessities of their inhabitants,' " however legitimate or dire those necessities may be. Wirtz, 392 U.S., at 196 (http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=780&SerialNum=1968131225&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&ReferencePosition=196&AP=&mt=Federal&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.05) (quoting Sanitary Dist. of Chicago v. United States, 266 U.S. 405, 426, 45 S.Ct. 176, 69 L.Ed. 352 (1925) (http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=708&SerialNum=1925122184&FindType=Y&AP=&mt=Federal&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.05)). See also 392 U.S., at 195-196; (http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=780&SerialNum=1968131225&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&ReferencePosition=195&AP=&mt=Federal&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.05) Wickard, 317 U.S., at 124 (http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=780&SerialNum=1942121823&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&ReferencePosition=124&AP=&mt=Federal&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.05) (" '[N]o form of state activity can constitutionally thwart the regulatory power granted by the commerce clause to Congress' "). Just as state acquiescence to federal regulation cannot expand the bounds of the Commerce Clause, see, e.g., Morrison, 529 U.S., at 661- 662 (http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=780&SerialNum=2000308396&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&ReferencePosition=661&AP=&mt=Federal&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.05)

[KenA55]

Yes, I guess the way I saw the decision is that the feds hold jurisdiction over other drugs, through the fda- to approve (or not), require md prescription (or not), etc. How would medical marijuana differ from those? No state has the power to put any other prescription drug in use without federal approval, correct? Nor is it legal to create/grow them in your basement lab/hydroponic garden, correct?

I don't mean to present this as an argument for or against the medical use of the weed, but the way the game's set up, the federal level is where you have to go to make it legal, not the state, if I'm not mistaken.

[Jwaksman]

But the point of the case is that the federal government shouldn't be able to make those legislations. Where in the constitution is the federal government given the right to tell individuals what medicines they can take? The state of California supports the right of its citizens to take medically-prescribed marijuana to relieve pain. Forget the issue that these people should be allowed to relieve their pain this way, but what right does the federal government have to make that decision?


I think each state should be allowed to make their own laws.


In fact, the supreme court ruled (in this case) that Congress could choose to legalize medical marijuana throughout the country. And since polls show that Americans overwhelmingly support the legalization of medical marijuana, perhaps we should just pass a national law.


For those who want documentation on the claim that americans support medical marijuana, I've found two polls on the issue by major polling firms. A 1999 Gallup Poll found that 73% of Americans support ""making marijuana legally available for doctors to prescribe in order to reduce pain and suffering", with 25% against. A 2002 CNN/Time poll found that 80% of Americans said "yes" to the question of: "Do you think adults should be allowed to legally use marijuana for medical purposes if their doctor prescribes it or do you think that marijuana should remain illegal even for medical purposes?", with 17% saying that it should still be illegal. That CNN/Time poll found that 34% of Americans supported the legalization of marijuana for all purposes, with only 59% disapproving.


Meanwhile, 11 states have legalized medical marijuana. In the 2004 election, some states tried to go even further. Alaska had a ballot measure that would legalize marijuana for everyone over 21, and to regulate it identically to alcohol. That measure only lost 57% to 43%. I hope the federal government passes a law that gives all states the right to legalize the drug. That would be the proper, constitutional thing to do.

[Kalaby]

Showing my lack of knowledge in this area, but are there legal medical alternatives to marijuana?

[Jwaksman]

There are alternatives for everything. I mean, tylenol has alternatives, and it has side-effects, so why don't we ban tylenol? The point is that we should leave it up to the doctors to decide what is the best treatment for patients. They have even created (I believe, correct me if I'm wrong) these vaporizers that make the marijuana much less harmful. And I bet we could do even better, since corporate research would pick up if the large pharmaceuticals were allowed to get into the marijuana business. The drug would become cheaper and safer, pain would decrease, and freedom would increase. Everyone wins.

[Zat0pek]

Yes, I guess the way I saw the decision is that the feds hold jurisdiction over other drugs, through the fda- to approve (or not), require md prescription (or not), etc. How would medical marijuana differ from those? No state has the power to put any other prescription drug in use without federal approval, correct? Nor is it legal to create/grow them in your basement lab/hydroponic garden, correct?

I don't mean to present this as an argument for or against the medical use of the weed, but the way the game's set up, the federal level is where you have to go to make it legal, not the state, if I'm not mistaken.

Precisely.

[jersey_guy]

Doesn't THC come in a legal pill form?

[Zat0pek]

Doesn't THC come in a legal pill form?

Yes, which is why the medical marijuana argument is, frankly, stupid. All they want is a legal way to get stoned.

[CTsnapple]

Doesn't THC come in a legal pill form?

Yes, but it's not very effective. THC isn't the only active chemical in marijuana that provides the relief medicinal users would be looking for. Marinol, synthetic THC, etc. all have poor records in providing pain relief and aren't widely used.

Also, with smoking or vaporizing there is almost instant relief, as opposed to taking something orally and digesting it.

[KenA55]

All they want is a legal way to get stoned.

But they would not feel so all alone...EVERYBODY MUST GET STONED!

[Jwaksman]

But Zatopek, why does that matter? Marijuana, even at its most potent, is no more dangerous than alcohol. In fact, it's much safer. Alcohol makes people violent, which marijuana does not.

So, if we allow alcohol to be legal, how can we restrict marijuana? It's really just a symbolic action by the religious right, which has marijuana listed as a Schedule I drug. Do you know what that means? It means that it has a high potential for abuse, no recognized medical use, and no safe use under medical supervision. This is where the government classifies things like crack cocaine.

But of course, marijuana isn't anything like that. It's no more likely to be abused than cigarettes or alcohol, it has a clear medical use, and is perfectly safe when used under the supervision of a doctor.


So how can the government list marijuana as such a dangerous drug with a straight face? It should just admit that this is a symbolic morality issue, and has nothing to do with any actual science.

[KenA55]

I agree that the majority attitude toward marijuana use is a social phobia that's a bit hypocritical in nature when you consider the greater immediate dangers other legal intoxicants present. The generation that preceeded mine viewed marijuana as the 'black man's alcohol,' at least up this way- and it's use by the white community was marginal to say the least prior to the sixties- making it easy to stigmatize at the time. I think some of that attitude still lingers. We still have many voters out there today in that 65+ age bracket.

But I certainly don't have much in the way of respect for habitual daily users, either- same could be said for the drinker who doesn't get through any day without his cocktail(s). My own experiences with it, which were limited to a few handfuls of occasions when friends would insist on my partaking as the joint went around- generally resulted in my being convinced that my skull was about five feet wide, insuring that I made no attempt to actually leave the room since my head wasn't going to make it through any doorway. Driving was entirely out of the question. I'd generally just lay there and eventually fall asleep.

So you see- it never was my idea of partying to say the least. It simply meant the end of the party.

But I know a lot of younguns end up doing it in the car primarily- because they don't have anywhere else to really do it away from parental restrictions or whatever. That can't be a good thing. My ex-girlfriend's daughter's boyfriend drives me up the wall- not just the tattoos and the hardware installed in his face- but the fact that he keeps himself so doped up and has no desire whatsoever to actually get out and get a job for months on end. He lets her work instead and sponges off of her. It's hard for me to believe any young lady would tolerate that for more than a few weeks, but its happening all over. They got thrown out of their place in January and I made the mistake of giving them shelter until the thaw- what a mistake. Almost got myself thrown out because of their antics while I was away.

[exjersey1]

But Zatopek, why does that matter? Marijuana, even at its most potent, is no more dangerous than alcohol. In fact, it's much safer. Alcohol makes people violent, which marijuana does not.



#1) Alcohol is a central nervous system depressant; it does not "make people violent." It may cause violent people, or people prone to violent reactions, to act more violently because their inhibitions (among other things) are not able to function normally due to their chemical uptake.

#2) One joint contains more carcinogens than a pack of Camel non-filters. Marijuana smoke is still being studied because there are chemical compounds in it that are still considered unidentified. Smoking it is NOT safe.

The alcohol vs. marijuana issue is an old one, but what's really more applicable (or at least as applicable) is tobacco vs. marijuana, and why one is government-supported while the other is suppressed.

[mzungu]

no one has ever died from marijuana use by itself, whereas alcohol produces many deaths. according to eric schlosser's history in "reefer madness," you'd have to smoke the impossible--100 lbs of marijuana per hour for a certain number of hour--to die from it. marijuana prohibitions have come and gone in strictness. the nixon administration made marijuana the number one enemy because of its association with the counterculture and hippies, reagan shifted between marijuana and crack cocaine.

there's no doubt that smoking marijuana would cause cancer if people smoked three packs a day for forty years, but very few people smoke marijuana in that way. most of the population has tried marijuana and tobacco, but in trying marijuana most have had a few joints or brownies now and then, whereas in trying tobacco many have had multiple cigarettes or even packs of cigarettes every day for years.

[exjersey1]

Unless the standards have changed, a regular/chronic marijuana smoker is considered to be someone who smokes approx. 5 joints/day. That's the basic equivalent of smoking 4-5 packs of cigarettes/day.

So we probably have not yet seen the long-term carcinogenic effects of pot. Not everyone remains a chronic user along those lines; they either quit or migrate to other drugs.

If you tried to smoke as much of anything as you mentioned from Schlosser's book, you'd be dead of other things long before you OD'd on THC or anything else.

[mzungu]

haven't seen the carcinogenic effects of marijuana????????

marijuana's been smoked for 5,000 years. and typically it's smoked rarely, few people would actually smoke a whole joint by themselves--they pass it around and take a few tokes. we're not talking about anything comparable to tobacco use.

[exjersey1]

[QUOTE=mzungu]haven't seen the carcinogenic effects of marijuana????????

QUOTE]


not among high-intensity users, a la regular smokers. That'll be completely different than the type of use you pointed out.

Of course, for anyone who was like Clinton and claimed they never inhaled....

[CTsnapple]

I don't believe there has been any link between smoking marijuana exclusively and cancer. Smoking anything is bad for your lungs, but there's a big difference in tobacco smoke and MJ smoke.

I personally believe tobacco to be worse mainly because of any additional carcinogenic chemicals that are added to it (or those Truth commercials lead me to believe that cigarette companies add chemicals to their product). Another reason for an MJ smoker to grow their own as they wouldn't need to worry about any additional chemicals.


Anyways smoking is pretty much a moot point considering the number of people that vaporize these days.

[KenA55]

I think maybe I inhaled- but got too messed up for that judgement to be rock-solid. When you can't fit your head through doorways anymore you've got bigger problems then keeping track of those petty details.

[exjersey1]

I think maybe I inhaled- but got too messed up for that judgement to be rock-solid. When you can't fit your head through doorways anymore you've got bigger problems then keeping track of those petty details.

Ken, if you're head was the size of this one, then I'm pretty sure you inhaled.

http://www.drurydrama.com/files/lnk%20Katharine%20with%20big%20head.JPG

[KenA55]

Yeah, I look like toast there don't I. At least somebody threw that wrap around me, never did locate my pants.