cannabisnews.com: High Court's The Wrong Joint for Marijuana Fight





High Court's The Wrong Joint for Marijuana Fight
Posted by CN Staff on December 03, 2004 at 08:51:36 PT
By Collin Levey, Times Editorial Columnist
Source: Seattle Times
Typically, if conservative Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas were overheard waxing sympathetic to federal regulations bullying state law, reasonable people would wonder what they'd been smoking. Alas, this week, in Raich v. Ashcroft, the latest medical-marijuana case to come before the high court, that's exactly what they have been up to. The case concerns Angel Raich, a terminally ill California resident who puffs away the pain of a brain tumor and sundry other ailments using pot grown in the state.
A California law, passed by ballot initiative, allows her to do so. But under a section of the Constitution that authorizes the federal government to regulate interstate commerce, the Bush administration and Solicitor General Paul Clement argue California's law should be trumped by the federal government's zero-tolerance drug policy. It is not a proud moment for conservatives who've spent the past decade trying to curtail the rampant abuse of the commerce clause to justify federal intrusion. The marijuana Raich smokes never crosses state lines and it is not sold — making both the "interstate" and the "commerce" part seem a little fishy. That hasn't stopped the anti-drug warriors from trying to analogize her situation to a 1942 case, Wickard v. Filburn, 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 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals). True, the medical-marijuana cause suffers from a series of public-relations flaws; its 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 in Washington only underlines the point. Plus, there's the fact that the case hails from California, the permissiveness capital of the world. Helping cloud matters still further 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. No wonder many conservatives see medical-marijuana laws as a slippery slope — not unreasonable given the High Times readers who turn out in numbers whenever a case like Raich v. Ashcroft materializes. But — focus, conservatives — 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. Since 1996, 11 other states have used ballot initiatives to carve out similar 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 federal discretion. Prosecuting terminally-ill users of prescribed medical marijuana won't deter illegal drug users. On the contrary: As with many "slippery slope" arguments, drawing too hard a line may have the opposite effect of strengthening the cause of those who want drugs legalized for all. For plenty of conservatives who lived through the '70s, marijuana will always be associated with the libertine generation that mocked traditional values and smelled bad doing it. But those same conservatives are regularly found on the front lines of important arguments about pharmaceutical research and the rights of terminally ill patients to have access to drugs that might save their lives — without overly onerous regulations. Clement felt a need to lamely add that "smoked marijuana really doesn't have any future in medicine," given the carcinogens, throat irritation, etc. Good grief. Aren't these 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. Collin Levey writes Fridays for editorial pages of The Times. Complete Title: High Court's The Wrong Joint for Medical-Marijuana Fight Source: Seattle Times (WA)Author: Collin Levey, Times Editorial ColumnistPublished: Friday, December 03, 2004Copyright: 2004 The Seattle Times CompanyContact: opinion seatimes.comWebsite: http://www.seattletimes.com/Related Articles & Web Site:Angel Raich v. Ashcroft Newshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/raich.htmMedicinal Pot Use Not Government's Concernhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19961.shtmlOur Right To Be Free from Painhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19954.shtmlSupreme Court Looks at Medical Marijuanahttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19952.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #10 posted by breeze on December 04, 2004 at 05:50:54 PT
Kill your TV
I like KaptNemo's idea- that would be just too cool! Program a fart noise everytime the word "Asscroft" was mentioned, a hiccup everytime Bush was mentioned, a chorus of moo's or sheep bleet everytime the word public is mentioned, etc...What I meant to say was, Is the med marijuana issue really a topic of conversation on the major news outlets, or is it just a blurb?
I think it should be relished to a fifteen minute expose' every hour. But, given that (sad fact) the majority of people truly believe that they are being "informed" of facts when they watch the big media networks, it only comes up when there is major activity . And a LOT of people watch those channels- CNN, MSNBC, FOX- I was just wondering if the issue had been thrown back to its closet again. They usually concentrate heavily on a subject for an average of three days, and then shelve the topic for the next "big" one. Their mentality is, "If it bleeds, it leads."FSTV was about the only "tell it like it is" news channel I could watch without the urge to barf- back when I had sattelite.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by E_Johnson on December 03, 2004 at 15:14:58 PT
Virtues
The reason why medical marijuana patients welcome support from groups favoring drug legalization is because those people were the very first ones in our political system to step up to the plate and advocate to change the system to protect patients.Mainstream Democrats and Republicans wouldn't touch medical marijuana with a ten foot pole ten years ago.Gratitude is a virtue, and so is loyalty.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by FoM on December 03, 2004 at 14:45:07 PT
cloud7
Thank you. I've looked at froogle but have only bought from Amazon. Maybe it's because it is so simple and using a debit card instead of our credit card is nice and saves money. No tax or shipping when you order the one way. I like the wish list on Amazon. I add things and then delete things if I decide it isn't something I really want. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by cloud7 on December 03, 2004 at 14:32:27 PT
FoM
Just in case you haven't used it before, you ought to try froogle.com, google's price comparison service, for shopping. I have found some things much cheaper, just be sure to check out the business you're dealing with.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by mikeeeeee on December 03, 2004 at 14:29:21 PT
Television
Tv has its own agenda, the caps were taken off in the mid 80's by reagan. Therefore, don't expect balanced programming. The news is horribe. They should call it for what it is, BAD news. There's a saying, fear will disable enemies. If the enemy is the consumer who you want exploit, than they can sell them more boner pills, hey wild thingie.I spend a minimal time watching the bs machine.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by FoM on December 03, 2004 at 14:25:09 PT
kapt
You sure are creative. I just listen to music and glance at the tv now and then. It's not worth anything to me anymore. I'm back to watching the Discovery Channel. I go to google news and know what is happening faster then the tv news and with much more detail. I love the Internet. I never liked shopping. I don't like crowds but shopping on line is fun. I have my christmas list about ready and will hit one or two buttons and that's that. Delivered to the door! That's my kind of shopping. Life is good with the Internet.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by kaptinemo on December 03, 2004 at 13:48:32 PT:
Entertainment...I got my own ideas about that.
I only watch The Tube now for entertainment, and occasionally for information, but not for decision making. Bad for the blood pressure when you feel you want to send a brick through the screen when you know you're only getting half the story. If that much.I wish I could program my TV the way I can a computer; I'd have it make rude noises (sheep bleating, cattle lowing, people having gas problems, belching and other such) when certain public personages come on, as I know the only thing I'll hear from them are lies, lies, lies. Considering that the usual semantic content of said personages mouthing off is nill, it would be a net gain...and much more entertaining.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by FoM on December 03, 2004 at 11:54:05 PT
breeze
I don't watch the news any more. I mute the sound and listen to music. The news is for entertainment purposes only anymore. The Internet is for the real news. That's how I look at it.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by breeze on December 03, 2004 at 11:33:02 PT
Correction-
I no longer have cable or satellite television- just standard rabbit ears.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by breeze on December 03, 2004 at 11:31:46 PT
I no longer have access to news via tv
"Clement felt a need to lamely add that "smoked marijuana really doesn't have any future in medicine," given the carcinogens, throat irritation, etc. 
Good grief. Aren't these just the kinds of risks that conservatives normally think should be left to doctors and patients to weigh?" So, this means that the media is finally paying attention- that is a good thing, but where is their influence, their compassion, their coverage... to not make this VERY issue on every channel of the FREE news that discusses national headlines? What about the news papers? Why isn't it everywhere? Have we somehow overlooked the means and methods for informing those who distribute information via the various channels of this topic?Where do we begin?
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment