cannabisnews.com: Showdown Over Medical Marijuana





Showdown Over Medical Marijuana
Posted by CN Staff on November 28, 2004 at 14:17:44 PT
By Warren Richey, Staff Writer of The CSM
Source: Christian Science Monitor
Washington -- Angel Raich and Diane Monson know plenty about the failings of modern medicine. Ms. Raich has been diagnosed with an inoperable brain tumor, and Ms. Monson suffers from what her doctors say is a degenerative spine disease. Both women have tried virtually every form of medication legally available, but the multiple side effects from prescription drugs have only compounded their difficulties.
In searching for an alternative, and upon their physicians' advice, the two California residents started using marijuana. Both say it helps them cope with pain.But, yes, there is a problem. While medical use of marijuana is authorized under a 1996 California law, federal law bans marijuana as an illegal drug.Monday Raich and Monson's case arrives at the US Supreme Court where the justices must decide whether California law or federal law should apply.How the justices decide the case could affect more than just the applicability of medical-marijuana laws in California and a handful of other states with similar provisions. It could redefine the balance of power between Congress and the states and become a signature decision of the Supreme Court under Chief Justice William Rehnquist."I think it will be a landmark, one way or the other," says Randy Barnett, a professor at Boston University School of Law, who is arguing the case for Raich and Monson.Ultimately at issue in the case is to what extent the Constitution places limits, under the commerce clause, on Congress's ability to regulate areas that have traditionally been left to state and local jurisdictions.Legal analysts say one aspect of the case that makes it particularly worth watching is the mix of a liberal policy issue - medical-marijuana use - with a constitutional principle embraced by conservatives - federalism (state sovereignty).Will conservative justices support federalism even when it means upholding a liberal marijuana-use law that they would probably never otherwise endorse? And will liberal justices support the medical-marijuana provision even when their support of it might advance a view of federalism considered anathema by the court's dissenting liberal wing in earlier cases?At the time the Constitution was written, the federal government's powers were sharply constrained to avoid conflicts with state and local laws. Other than a few areas subject to federal jurisdiction, all other areas were to be left to the states.The Constitution specifically empowers Congress to regulate commerce among states. For much of the nation's history, this provision meant that Congress could pass laws concerning interstate trade and other activities among and between the states to facilitate the emergence of a national economy. But the controlling feature of the clause has always been how the high court defines "commerce."In the late 1930s and early 1940s, the Supreme Court embraced a broad view of "commerce," ruling that congressional power to regulate the economy wasn't strictly confined to interstate commercial activities. The justices announced that congressional power could extend to intrastate activity, upholding federal regulation of wheat produced on a family farm - even when the wheat was grown for consumption only on the farm.That landmark 1942 decision called Wickard v. Filburn opened the door for congressional regulation reaching down to the state and local level - as long as whatever was being regulated had an impact on "commerce," as it was broadly defined by the high court.This definition permitted an explosive growth in national legislation that continued unabated until 1995, when the justices by a 5-to-4 vote struck down the Gun-Free School Zones Act. In 2000, the same 5-to-4 majority invalidated a portion of the Violence Against Women Act that authorized victims of gender-motivated violence to sue their attackers in federal court.Many analysts say the medical- marijuana case places the high court at a crossroads. It can either continue the trend begun with its rulings in 1995 and 2000, or it can step back and authorize what some say would be even broader federal power at the expense of state sovereignty. "If the court upholds [the Justice Department's] claim of federal power, this case will supplant Wickard to become the most expansive interpretation of the commerce clause since the founding," say Robert Long Jr. and Professor Barnett in their brief to the court on behalf of Raich and Monson.Acting Solicitor General Paul Clement says the medical use of marijuana cannot escape congressional regulation any more than farm-consumed wheat did in the Wickard case. If the federal government were unable to enforce federal drug laws within a particular state, it would undercut Congress's goal of effectively countering the illicit trade in narcotics."[Raich and Monson's] conduct is economic activity because it occurs in, and substantially affects, the marijuana market generally," Mr. Clement says in his brief.Lawyers for Raich and Monson disagree. Monson grows her own marijuana at home. Raich, who is unable to grow her own, is supplied marijuana free of charge by two growers who use only supplies originating in or manufactured in California.Some analysts are raising questions about the potential broad impact of a ruling in favor of Raich and Monson. They suggest that it could complicate enforcement of federal child-pornography laws and other statutes.Barnett says such concerns are overblown: Cases involving possession of child pornography within one state could be turned over to state prosecutors. Note: The Supreme Court hears a California case Monday that could become a signature decision of the Rehnquist era.Source: Christian Science Monitor (US)Author: Warren Richey, Staff Writer of The Christian Science Monitor Published: November 29, 2004 Edition Copyright: 2004 The Christian Science Publishing SocietyContact: oped csps.comWebsite: http://www.csmonitor.com/Related Articles & Web Sites:Raich vs. Ashcroft http://www.angeljustice.org/Angel Raich v. Ashcroft Newshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/raich.htmCoping With a Life Full of Pain http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19895.shtmlWomen Make a New Case for Medical Marijuanahttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19893.shtmlFederal Government, Butt Out of Med Marijuanahttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19843.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #5 posted by ekim on November 29, 2004 at 07:59:16 PT
Religion and Freedom,
NPR national public radio the Diane Rehm Show will discuss Religion and who has the right.
http://www.leap.cc/events
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by ekim on November 29, 2004 at 06:09:30 PT
c-span on Angles case
Joyce called in to smear Rob for having grown some in college. Rob said you can read that on his web site.Mr. Evans was against smoking Cannabis never mentioning the vaporizer.
 
Mr. Evens said that Rob backed the Oregon med bill that wanted 6 Lbs of Cannabis.
he kept talking about the Mississippi growing Gov't project but conveniently left out the fact that 7 people are given 300 cigarettes a month. Mr. Evens said that the FDA is to allow med of use of drugs but never said one word as to the fact that these 7 people who receive med Cannabis from Mississippi. have never undergone a Gov't med study of how they have reacted to Cannabis and its value to the person. Rob held his own. gave much good info.callers were pro and con 
http://www.leap.cc/events
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by OverwhelmSam on November 28, 2004 at 20:01:40 PT
Introspection
If the rule against Raich, they might as well drop the Constitution in the shredder. Such a ruling effectively destroys and renders the Constitution worthless, along with it, the powers of the Legislative, Judicial, and Executive branches granted by such Constitution.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by ekim on November 28, 2004 at 15:24:47 PT
Mon C-Span Wash Journal 7:30 am 350 dir tv
MPP's Rob Kampia 
http://www.leap.cc/events
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by global_warming on November 28, 2004 at 14:44:06 PT
Wrong in 1942
It seems to me that the original "landmark 1942 decision called Wickard v. Filburn opened the door for congressional regulation reaching down to the state and local level - as long as whatever was being regulated had an impact on "commerce," as it was broadly defined by the high court." was wrong, and the wheat that man grew on his farm, should never have been an issue, for that wheat was for personal consumption, and what little impact this man had on commerce in general was minimal.That decision slaps the face of human effort to build and to be able to take care of ones self and family. That decision suggests that the court, through the interests that were being protected, preferred that this man participate in the greater industry of wheat production, and that the greater industry requires all people to become participants in their greater contract.This is fundamentally wrong and that decision was in error.In our modern society, many have chosen to live in urban centers, and have relinquished the ability to grow and to sustain their lives, they have chosen to participate in a system of delivery that is based on a system of profit and reward. They go to the "store" and pay the money they earned in company stores, to the company stores, and everybody is happy.For the self reliant, this contradicts their efforts and this law was a block to their ability to function in this world. Essentially, they were forced to become slaves to the urban system, and were denied basic freedoms that were guaranteed by the US Constitution. I hope that this current Supreme Court hearing realizes the original error and makes it right.gw
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment