cannabisnews.com: Pot & Principles Medical Marijuana A States Choice





Pot & Principles Medical Marijuana A States Choice
Posted by CN Staff on December 02, 2004 at 08:05:17 PT
By Collin Levey
Source: New York Post 
News that Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas were heard wax ing sympathetic to federal regulations bullying state law normally would prompt the question: What were they smoking? But the scene was this week's oral arguments in Raich v. Ashcroft, the latest medical-marijuana case to come before the Supreme Court. The case concerns Angel Raich, a terminally ill California resident who puffs away the pain of a brain tumor and sundry other ailments. A California law, passed by ballot initiative, lets her do so. But the Bush administration argues that the state law should be trumped by the federal government's zero-tolerance policy.
Specifically, Solicitor General Paul Clement cited the section of the Constitution that authorizes the federal government to regulate interstate commerce. That's a huge flip-flop: Conservatives have spent the last decade trying to curtail the rampant abuse of the Commerce Clause to justify federal intrusion. The marijuana that Raich smokes never crosses state lines, and it is not sold — making both the "interstate" and the "commerce" part seem a little fishy. But the anti-drug warriors cite a 1942 case called Wickard, wherein the Supremes ruled against a farmer who had exceeded the wheat quota imposed by one of FDR's New Deal agencies — disregarding his defense that the Commerce Clause didn't apply to what he was growing for his own consumption. For obvious reasons, the high court's Wickard finding has never been popular with the right. So, as a matter of principle, Scalia, Thomas & Co. should rule against the feds in the Raich case (thereby siding, for once, with the San Francisco-based, ultraliberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals). Yes, that means overlooking the self-inflicted image woes of the medical-marijuana cause, whose supporters haven't done it any favors by aligning themselves with groups whose real goal is drug legalization. The sight of hemp-clad, peaced-out throwbacks wandering around outside the Supreme Court building only underlines the point. Clouding matters even more is George Soros' support for legalization, a fad he has embraced with the same fervor as his recent, deep-pocketed campaign to defeat President Bush. It's no wonder many see medical-marijuana laws as a slippery slope. But the issue here isn't idolization of the druggie culture but the limits of federal authority. The proper venue for this fight is in state legislatures and elections. Over the last decade, 12 states have passed ballot measures carving out exceptions to the federal drug laws. If these exceptions were really unreconcilable with federal law, the Supremes might be required to weigh in. But they're not: Prosecutorial discretion leaves the feds plenty of wiggle room. Even the Justice Department has acknowledged as much: Its prosecution manual explicitly advises laying off cases if no substantial federal interest would be served. States where citizens have voted expressly to tolerate narrow use of marijuana are a good place for such discretion. Prosecuting terminally-ill users of prescribed medical marijuana won't deter illegal drug users. On the contrary: Drawing too hard a line may wind up strengthening the case for legalization. Many conservatives will always associate marijuana with the libertine generation that mocked traditional values and smelled bad doing it. But the principle here is one conservatives appreciate when the battle centers on government limits on pharmaceutical research and on the rights of terminally ill patients to have access to drugs that might save their lives. Solicitor General Clement felt a need to tell the court that "smoked marijuana really doesn't have any future in medicine," given the carcinogens, throat irritation, etc. Yet those are just the kinds of risks that conservatives normally think should be left to doctors and patients to weigh. What constitutes good medicine sometimes takes years to become clear, but we already know the states can manage good government just fine on their own. The Supreme Court should take the opportunity to just sit back and chill out. Complete Title: Pot & Principles Medical Marijuana: A States ChoiceSource: New York Post (NY)Author: Collin LeveyPublished: December 2, 2004Copyright: 2004 N.Y.P. Holdings, Inc.Contact: letters nypost.comWebsite: http://www.nypost.com/Related Articles & Web Site:Angel Raich v. Ashcroft Newshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/raich.htmSupremes on Pothttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19946.shtmlFrom The Ground Uphttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19942.shtmlCowards in Washington Ignore Pot's Benefitshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19940.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #6 posted by Hope on December 02, 2004 at 11:00:08 PT
Kap
I hate it when they mock us. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by Sam Adams on December 02, 2004 at 09:37:20 PT
Or how about...
"But the Bush administration wants heavily armed federal agents and teams of local law enforcement dressed in battle fatigues to drive $50,000 SUVs around, with the SWAT teams breaking into the patient's homes, pushing the sick people to ground and handcuffing them there. Then, the Bush Adminstration wants them to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in protracted court battles while prosecutors try to put them in jail for several years."
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by Sam Adams on December 02, 2004 at 09:34:02 PT
semantics
"The case concerns Angel Raich, a terminally ill California resident who puffs away the pain of a brain tumor and sundry other ailments. A California law, passed by ballot initiative, lets her do so. But the Bush administration argues that the state law should be trumped by the federal government's zero-tolerance policy."I hate this "trumped by federal law" BS. What it should say is, "But the Bush administration wants to throw her in jail".It's just another sign of the Orwellian times. Disregard your common sense! It's useless.  Modern living demands a maze of Byzantine laws & several lawyers to help you navigate through life! Nothing is safe unless several panels of experts, lawyers, PR firms, and government bureacrats have held hearings, passed very complicated laws, and then further complicated those laws with several revisions. ONLY THEN you may walk out your front door & begin living.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by kaptinemo on December 02, 2004 at 09:15:13 PT:
A few dumb swipes, but still a good article
And it makes the same points that we have been making, here and elsewhere, for many years:*The marijuana that Raich smokes never crosses state lines, and it is not sold — making both the "interstate" and the "commerce" part seem a little fishy.*But this part still rankles, and it is deliberate:*...self-inflicted image woes of the medical-marijuana cause, whose supporters haven't done it any favors by aligning themselves with groups whose real goal is drug legalization.*Oh, really, now? And just *who else* has been so forward in their assistance? The AMA? Fraternal Order of Police? NIDA? FDA? Who? Who has stood up for those too ill do so? Who has championed their cause?And this part really stinks: *George Soros' support for legalization, a fad he has embraced with the same fervor as his recent, deep-pocketed campaign to defeat President Bush.*'Fad'. Fad? Maintaining citizen's access to a *ostensibly* democratic system increasingly dominated by exclusive corporatist interests is 'faddish'? I don't think soooooo. Soros has his own reasons for what he does, but in this case, I wholly support his actions, for I am as concerned about this as many thoughtful Americans. There's nothing 'faddish' about trying to prevent a jackboot from being applied to your kidneys or neck.But in general, this editorial is more proof that in the arena of public opinion, we are winning. Whether this will translate into actions is up to the people of the States to continue pressing their legislators to press on despite any negative ruling on the grounds of the purely democratic principle of 'majority rule', as we have been doing for years.It's either that, or secede...or emigrate. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by The GCW on December 02, 2004 at 09:02:55 PT
Ricky Williams update.
Ricky Williams Rejects Deal From NFL http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/F/FBN_DOLPHINS_WILLIAMS?SITE=COFRI&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULTBy TIM REYNOLDS
AP Sports WriterMIAMI (AP) -- Ricky Williams rejected a deal that would have allowed him to serve a four-game drug suspension this season and return to the NFL next year."Ricky indicated to me that he is no longer interested in resuming his career at this time," Williams' lawyer, David Cornwell, said in a statement e-mailed to The Associated Press on Thursday....He is now enrolled in a 17-month course at the California College of Ayurveda in Grass Valley, Calif., studying holistic medicine. ... Cont.Williams has social-anxiety disorder and was a spokesman for an anti-depressant. He said marijuana helped him after he stopped using the anti-depressant.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by afterburner on December 02, 2004 at 08:40:49 PT
Two More Views
US MO: Editorial: Marijuana Law 
by Henry J. Waters, III, Publisher, Columbia Daily Tribune, (30 Nov 2004) Columbia Daily Tribune Missouri 
http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v04/n1714/a02.htmlUS CA: Column: Weeding Out the Politics of Pot 
by Patt Morrison, (01 Dec 2004) Los Angeles Times California
http://www.mapinc.org/ccnews/v04/n1714/a06.html
{Angel Raich, the Oakland woman whose case is one of those before the court, had Rehnquist on her mind this week at least as much as her case may be on his. The other day, on the steps outside the Supreme Court, she wondered aloud whether his suffering might "soften his heart about the issue." He might even find, she suggested, "that cannabis would help him a lot."}Angel's compassion brings a tear to my eye.
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment