cannabisnews.com: The Wheat From The Grass





The Wheat From The Grass
Posted by CN Staff on December 14, 2004 at 08:43:53 PT
Editorial
Source: Toledo Blade
Conservative judges on the U.S. Supreme Court find themselves in a dilemma in a case involving the medical use of marijuana.It can be fairly assumed that, culturally, they are not disposed toward marijuana use for any reason but, philosophically, they are naturally sympathetic to the idea of states' rights and in recent years they have put limits on the reach of the Constitution's commerce clause. In short, the case puts them between a rock of belief and a hard place of legal reasoning.
They will want to avoid the appearance of being "activist " judges of the sort that their like-minded brethren in the political world regularly denounce. But the problem is that the case before them is not one of legal overreach but concerns the will of the people in one state, as expressed in a 1996 referendum, to allow marijuana use for medical purposes. As it happens, some judicial activism may be needed to balance competing interests.The case that raises these interesting questions for the Supreme Court is from California, which is one of 11 states that allow a medical exemption for marijuana.Two sympathetic plaintiffs, women who use marijuana to alleviate highly painful conditions, challenged federal law. At the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, they won an injunction barring federal officers from seizing their marijuana supplies. Now it's up to the Supreme Court.The nation's highest court has passed this way before. Last year, in another case from California, the justices affirmed the right of doctors to recommend marijuana for medical purposes. Two years earlier, the court found that the federal government can prohibit the large-scale distribution of marijuana by private clubs catering to patients seeking pain relief. Judge Clarence Thomas wrote at the time that marijuana "has no currently accepted use in treatment in the United States."A lot of those who suffer from cancer and other painful ailments - and their doctors - disagree. But the medical efficacy of marijuana was less an issue on Monday than whether people who privately use the drug for medicinal reasons are part of the web of interstate commerce, and thus subject to federal control.Ominously for the women's case, perhaps, two justices, Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy, saw the constitutionality of the Controlled Substances Act supported by a 1942 precedent involving the private cultivation of wheat for home consumption, which was found to still have an effect on the national market.If the justices separate the wheat from the chaff - or the grass - they could bring some sense to the absolutist mindset that currently governs the war on drugs, one that happens to be at odds with life as it is actually lived in these United States. Possession of a small amount of marijuana is generally a misdemeanor in all states and some have decriminalized such offenses to the level of a traffic citation.As a matter of common sense, the law should not tolerate marijuana use by those such as juveniles and anybody who drives a car or flies an aircraft, but it shouldn't be a federal case if sick people use it, with a doctor's prescription, for personal pain relief in states where this has been approved.In this case, the justices can and should strike a blow both for states' rights and those of the individual.Source: Toledo Blade, The (OH) Published: Tuesday, December 14, 2004Copyright: 2004 The Blade Contact: letters theblade.com Website: http://www.toledoblade.com/ Related Articles & Web Site:Angel Raich v. Ashcroft Newshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/raich.htmCannabis and The Constitutionhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread20027.shtmlA Health Care Issuehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread20024.shtmlSwitching Sides On States' Rightshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread20023.shtmlFear and Loathing at Supreme Courthttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread20022.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Post Comment