cannabisnews.com: Will Justices Favor Compassion or Contradiction?





Will Justices Favor Compassion or Contradiction?
Posted by CN Staff on December 03, 2004 at 10:07:03 PT
Mercury News Editorial
Source: Mercury News
The Bush administration could have deferred to state voters and respected the judgment of doctors. It could have looked the other way, out of compassion for those with debilitating illnesses, instead of enforcing its zero-tolerance drug policy.Instead, it has persecuted ill Californians who rely on marijuana as a lifeline, and picked a constitutional fight that landed in the lap of the U.S. Supreme Court this week.
The administration argued that the clause of the Constitution empowering Congress to lord over interstate commerce includes the right to ban any use of marijuana. The federal Controlled Substances Act trumps any state deviation from it.Broad power under the commerce clause is critical for the federal government to ensure workplace safety, ban hazardous products, punish sexual and racial discrimination and create environmental regulations. Over the past decade, the court has tended to come down on the side of states' rights, rolling back the authority that previous Supreme Court rulings liberally gave to Congress.But to be consistent, the court should slap the feds' hand for interfering with California's prerogative to pass medicinal marijuana laws. It's a stretch to claim, as Bush's acting solicitor general did, that the tiny bit of marijuana that plaintiff Diana Monson grew from seeds to ease her chronic back pain will affect the nationwide illicit market for the drug.Blinded by an ideologically driven drug war, Congress and the administration have refused to acknowledge the proven medical benefits of marijuana. As a result, 11 states have crafted compassionate laws. Proposition 215, which Californians passed eight years ago, permits personal use of marijuana but only with a physician's recommendation.If the court does side with the Bush administration, California's medicinal-marijuana law will technically remain on the books. But patients like Monson will cower, worrying that federal drug agents will seize their marijuana plants and bust them.All of this because of the court's contradictions over federalism. Source: San Jose Mercury News (CA)Published: Friday, December 03, 2004Copyright: 2004 San Jose Mercury NewsContact: letters sjmercury.comWebsite: http://www.sjmercury.com/ Related Articles & Web Sites:Raich vs. Ashcroft http://www.angeljustice.org/Angel Raich v. Ashcroft Newshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/raich.htmHigh Court's The Wrong Joint for Marijuana Fighthttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19963.shtmlOur Right To Be Free from Painhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19954.shtmlThe Supremes Debate Medical Pothttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19926.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #1 posted by FoM on December 03, 2004 at 14:08:52 PT
News Article from Scripps Howard News Service
States Have Right To Own Medical Pot Laws 
 
 
  December 3, 2004(SH) - Whether states should allow marijuana to be used for medical purposes is an interesting question, but whether the federal government should tell then they can't is no question. The federal government has no such right.The federal government asserts the right on the basis of the Constitution's interstate commerce clause, which exists to facilitate national commerce across state lines without interference from the states. But the states permitting marijuana to be used medicinally specify that the marijuana must be grown locally, not transported over state lines. Next to no money is involved in its sale.The interstate commerce clause has been used to justify a vast number of extensions of federal power even when there has been no connection to commerce. This is not only a fraudulent misuse of constitutional language, but a negation of important rights reserved to the states. The people of this land are made less free by the trickery.The case is now before the Supreme Court, and during a hearing the other day, you could hear the justices worrying about such issues as federal regulatory authority and whether medical marijuana will be a means for furthering black markets in recreational marijuana.Get off it, court. Your job is constitutional interpretation, and that means interpreting the commerce clause, and if you really believe in the Constitution, you have just one option. Let the states do as they please.Jay Ambrose is director of editorial policy for Scripps Howard Newspapers and can be reached at AmbroseJ shns.comCopyright: 2004 Scripps Howard News Servicehttp://www.modbee.com/24hour/opinions/story/1891491p-9823444c.html
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment