cannabisnews.com: US Marijuana Case Challenges States' Rights US Marijuana Case Challenges States' Rights Posted by CN Staff on November 29, 2004 at 12:44:07 PT By Patti Waldmeir in Washington Source: Financial Times UK The principle of states' rights faced a stiff challenge at the US Supreme Court yesterday, as the justices tried to decide whether federal drug laws should trump a California state law permitting the medical use of marijuana.Most of the justices appeared unwilling to extend the principle of federalism to protect the state-sanctioned use of drugs that are illegal under federal law, in a case involving two seriously ill California women who use the drug to ease their pain. The justices apparently bowed to the concept of federalism in a different case yesterday, refusing to hear a suit challenging a year-old Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision to legalise gay marriage. The court's decision leaves that ruling in place.The marijuana case was viewed as an important test of the Supreme Court's views on the proper balance of power between state and federal governments and its willingness to limitthe federal government's role in regulating a wide range ofeconomic activities, fromworkplace safety to the environment.States' rights advocates had urged the court to use the case to forge ahead with the federalism revolution pursued by Chief Justice William Rehnquist a revolt that has appeared to falter in recent years. But the justices who spoke at yesterday's oral arguments appeared unwilling to do so.Mr Rehnquist himself was not present; a court statement at the weekend said the chief justice, seriously ill with thyroid cancer, would not attend any of its December sitting.Justice John Paul Stevens, presiding in his absence as the court's most senior member, yesterday said Mr Rehnquist would participate in the case by reading briefs and the transcript of oral arguments.The nature of the case involving the use of marijuana in famously liberal California appeared to cut across the justices' normal positions on states' rights. Justice Antonin Scalia, the staunchest supporter of the federalism revolution, appeared strongly opposed to extending it to protect “communes” in California where, he said, marijuana was produced for “a whole lot of people [with] alleged medical needs”.The issue before the courtwas whether federal drugslaw, which makes no exception for medical uses of marijuana, should overrule a Californialaw that permits such use witha doctor's agreement. The case tests the US constitution'scommerce clause, which says that Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce.The lawyer for the two women argued yesterday that the drug in this case was home-grown, provided for free, and did not cross state borders and therefore did not have enough effect on interstate commerce to permit congressional regulation.But Justice David Souter questioned whether the effect would be so small if every chemotherapy patient in California began using the drug.Complete Title: US Marijuana Case Challenges Principle of States' RightsSource: Financial Times (UK)Author: Patti Waldmeir in Washington Published: November 29, 2004Copyright: The Financial Times Limited 2004Website: http://www.ft.com/Contact: letters.editor ft.comRelated Articles & Web Site:Angel Raich v. Ashcroft Newshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/raich.htm High Court Considers Medical Marijuana Case http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19903.shtmlWary Court Considers Medical Marijuanahttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19901.shtmlHigh Court To Hear Medical Marijuana Casehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19899.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Post Comment