cannabisnews.com: Supreme Court May Take Up Pot Case





Supreme Court May Take Up Pot Case
Posted by CN Staff on June 27, 2004 at 08:03:00 PT
By David G. Savage, Times Staff Writer
Source: Los Angeles Times 
Washington -- Nine years ago, the Supreme Court's conservative majority proclaimed its intent to curb the federal government's power to meddle in local and state affairs. A federal law making it a crime to have a gun near a school cannot stand, the court said in a 5-4 decision, because simple gun possession is not part of interstate commerce."There never will be a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local" unless the high court enforces limits on Washington's power, said Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist.
Now, defenders of California's medical marijuana law are hoping the Rehnquist court will follow its limited-government instincts to curb Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft and the federal Drug Enforcement Administration.If simple gun possession is protected from federal regulation, they ask, why not simple drug possession?In December, two liberal judges on the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with that argument and issued an order that blocked DEA agents from arresting patients who used home-grown marijuana to relieve pain.The "non-commercial cultivation, possession and use of marijuana for personal medical purposes on the advice of a physician" is protected by California law and is beyond the reach of the federal government's power to regulate interstate commerce, said Judges Harry Pregerson and Richard A. Paez, both from Los Angeles. It is "different in kind from drug trafficking," which is the usual focus of the federal narcotics laws, they said in a 2-1 ruling.Two months ago, however, Ashcroft's Justice Department asked the high court to take up an appeal and reverse the 9th Circuit. The government's lawyers saw no limit on the federal power to enforce the drug laws.Snipped:Complete Article: http://www.freedomtoexhale.com/supreme.htmSource: Los Angeles Times (CA)Author: David G. Savage, Times Staff WriterPublished: June 27, 2004 Copyright: 2004 Los Angeles TimesContact: letters latimes.comWebsite: http://www.latimes.com/Related Articles & Web Site:Raich vs. Ashcroft http://www.angeljustice.org/Stage Set for Legal Showdown Over Pot http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread18876.shtmlJudge Protects 2 Medical Pot Usershttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread18875.shtmlBush Asks Supreme Court To Okay Attackshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread18715.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #12 posted by BGreen on June 28, 2004 at 01:38:38 PT
Cannabis Enthusiast
I'm sure Jesus is pleased as punch to see another fake christian.Why do you even post here?The Reverend Bud Green
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by Cannabis Enthusiast on June 27, 2004 at 23:23:45 PT
I gave up on fighting the power months ago...
I now consider myself to be somewhat conservative (in real life), and have "joined" the power elite [psychologically] rather than being against 'them'. Basically I have come to realize the truth: Protestant Christianity rules the planet and will eventually have complete control over all human behavior (any of you read the Unabomber's Manifesto?).So I have essentially become a Protestant Christian with a rock-solid masculine ego in real life because I see this as necessary to be a person of power, rather than a weak liberal person in today's American society.I haven't smoked cannabis in several months, and I don't drink alcohol or coffee or use tobacco. But I may start using the Christian Power Drugs (alcohol/nicotine/caffeine) eventually.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by gloovins on June 27, 2004 at 20:43:54 PT
Maybe Bush will go Constitutional if they refuse 
to hear the case:AMEND THE CONSITUTION, like they HAD to do in the 1920's see because Congress knew of no other way. Thats why Marijuana Tax Stamp Act was found uncomstituional partially.Yep, Dubya, gotta get a MARRIAGE IS A UNION BETWEEN FEMALE AND MALES and NO PERSON SHALL IMPORT, MANUFACTURE OR POSSESS MARIJUANA/CANNABIS AND NOT BE GUILTY OF A FELONYGO Dubya GO! You're the greatest president ever, protecting all our freedoms. The founding fathers would be proud! Now, excuse me whilst I go throw up.
MICH RESIDENTS U GOT TILL JULY 5 TH TO SIGN
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by OverwhelmSam on June 27, 2004 at 17:55:28 PT
Congress May Be Our Last Resort
Having had to fight all of these laws passed by Congress for years, depending on the outcome of the Supreme Court in this case, firing the anti-marijuana representatives in Congress may be our last resort.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by Zero_G on June 27, 2004 at 17:20:09 PT:
Clarence Thomas
has stated in the footnote of the MedPot case that the SCOTUS previously decided that the constitutionality of the CSA 1970 as applies to interstate commerce has yet to be litigated.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by Agog on June 27, 2004 at 12:52:36 PT
Refusal to hear case
I think that if they refuse to hear the case the ruling will stand for the 9th circuit only. It will however create precedent that may be cited in other regions at the federal circuit level should a similar case come up in another state with a medical cannabis law on the books. Letting it stand would provide compartmentalization and damage control.If they hear the case and agree with the 9th circuit ruling, than that would be a stake in the heart of the CSA. A true victory for State's Rights...If they were to rule the other way....... then it means we live in individual states in name only and the federal govt has the power to come into each and every state virtually unchecked... why, because essentially all we do affects interstate commerce. Let's call it "Butterfly Effect Economics" Or how to enjoy life in federal serfdom.Agog
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by E_Johnson on June 27, 2004 at 12:14:11 PT
Now I am curious Sam Adams
If the Supremes refuse to hear the case, does that mean the ruling is valid only in the original the Ninth Circuit or does that have some immediate legal implication for the rest of the nation?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by Richard Paul Zuckerm on June 27, 2004 at 12:12:28 PT:
NOW IS AN APPROPRIATE TIME FOR THE COURT TO ACT!
Now is an appropriate time for The Court to act on this interstate commerce clause issue and on the Cannabis laws. What I am hoping for is their opinion on the constitutionality of the Cannabis laws, e.g., State v. Mallan, 950 P.2d 178, 208-209, 218-219 (Hawaii 1998)(Dissenting opinion by Justice Levinson); www.judgesagainstthedrugwar.org.I'd like to see The Court rule on the 2nd Amedment and jury nullification, too! 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by Sam Adams on June 27, 2004 at 10:38:52 PT
Don't jump the gun
Remember, the SC may not even hear this case!  Based on the similarity to the gun case, they could easily decide to not consider the appeal. That would be the best scenario and hardest slap in the face to Asscraft.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by westnyc on June 27, 2004 at 09:39:49 PT
Maybe!
EJ - I hope you are right! Maybe my 5-4 assessment only ivolves the Supremes determination when it comes to "Individual Rights!" Someone here once said in regard to Individual Rights, "These people are not our friends!" My apologies to Ruth Bader Ginsburg - I love and respect you!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by E_Johnson on June 27, 2004 at 08:58:09 PT
Thomas and Rehnquist could flip
I think this one could be a surprise. Rehnquist is not happy about drug sentencing. Thomas was raised by nuns and supports states rights and used to smoke pot.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by westnyc on June 27, 2004 at 08:35:26 PT
Gee....Will they do the right thing?
Considering the latest decisions involving the Supreme Court......I see a 5-4 decision to give Ashcroft the ok!
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment