cannabisnews.com: On Law: Don't Bogart That Marijuana Case










  On Law: Don't Bogart That Marijuana Case

Posted by CN Staff on April 22, 2005 at 11:57:10 PT
By Michael Kirkland, UPI Legal Correspondent 
Source: United Press International 

Washington, DC -- A Supreme Court decision on medical marijuana is more than ripe for delivery. If the case hangs around any longer without a ruling, like ripe Camembert it will begin to smell. Sometimes, the only thing predictable about a Supreme Court resolution is its unpredictability. But still, we ink-stained wretches in the Supreme Court pressroom continue to try to predict which way the wind will blow.
If you ever get the chance to talk to a justice, you'll be impressed by the focus that he or she brings to the law. That holds true whether you're chatting with Justice Clarence Thomas, the soul of human warmth, or with the rather icy Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.As a rule, the Supreme Court press corps is also a brainy bunch, and individuals within it often possess a keen sense of intuition, built up over decades of reporting from the court, as well as their truly outstanding analytical skills.Hold on a second. Let's exclude me from that "brainy" evaluation.Not to brag, but I used to have a mind like a steel trap. Now it's more like a swamp. There's lots of stuff still lurking down in the depths, but every once in a while something crawls out and gets away.Still, I know what I know.When the high court holds on to a case, without handing down a decision, for five months after hearing argument, something is up.Let's recap the case.Ten states allow the medical use of marijuana to some degree. They include California, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, Oregon and Washington. Maryland has reduced the penalty for the medical use of marijuana to a small fine.The case before the Supreme Court involves Angel McClary Raich and Diane Monson, Californians who use marijuana to relieve the symptoms of illness, and Raich's two unnamed caregivers who grow marijuana for her. Three of the four live in Oakland.Raich claims to have a variety of illnesses. Monson grew medical marijuana in her "Prop 215 garden." California voters exempted the use of medical marijuana from its criminal laws in a 1996 referendum, Proposition 215.In October 2002 the four state residents filed suit in federal court against the Justice Department after the Drug Enforcement Administration swooped down on Monson and took her six marijuana plants.A federal judge refused to issue an injunction against the Justice Department for continuing to prosecute those using medical marijuana. However, a federal appeals court panel issued a temporary order restraining the department, saying the four were likely to win their case on the merits.The appeals court said Congress, which enacted the Controlled Substances Act under the constitutional clause authorizing it to regulate interstate commerce, exceeded its power under the clause when it included medical marijuana.The Justice Department then asked the Supreme Court to review the case.At the time of argument in November, a majority of the Supreme Court seemed poised to side with the Justice Department, which contends that the federal law pre-empts the state laws.That wasn't just my view. Everyone I talked to who had watched the argument that day pretty much came away with the same impression.Much of the argument revolved around whether the consumption of homegrown marijuana for medical purposes is an economic activity covered by the commerce clause and whether that consumption of homegrown product affects the illegal interstate commerce of marijuana.The Justice Department said 100,000 people in California are taking advantage of the medical use of marijuana -- out of a 34-million-person population -- and all that use of the drug has an effect on the illegal interstate commerce of marijuana, a $10.5 billion-a-year industry.Boston University Professor Randy Barnett, a fellow at the Washington-based libertarian Cato Institute, spoke for the challengers. He had to handle hostile questions from both the conservatives and the liberals on the bench.As reporters compared notes afterward, the post mortem was unanimous. This case was going to be a slam dunk for the government.So why haven't we heard already?A quick turnaround between argument and opinion in the modern Supreme Court usually takes about a month. A turnaround of three or four months is more about average. Five or six months is really pushing it. Which begs the question, what's holding up Docket No. 03-1454, Gonzales vs. Raich et al?Perhaps the justices are having trouble settling on a majority opinion. Perhaps they disagree on the way they want to slap down the state laws. Or perhaps they have to scrape together a plurality in order to find a way to rule for the Justice Department. One thing they certainly will not do is rule against the government.To do so -- to rule that marijuana can be legal in some circumstances, no matter how restricted, even if it is confined to cancer patients on their death beds in some uncharacteristic judicial outburst of compassion -- would expose this Supreme Court to more heat than it is usually willing to endure.But maybe I'm wrong. We could find out as early as next week or as late as the last week in June, when the justices scatter like schoolchildren for their summer recess.Mike Kirkland is UPI's senior legal affairs correspondent. He has covered the Supreme Court and other parts of the legal community since 1993.Source: United Press International (Wire)Author: Michael Kirkland, UPI Legal Affairs CorrespondentPublished: April 22, 2005Copyright 2005 United Press InternationalWebsite: http://www.upi.com/ Contact: nationaldesk upi.comRelated Articles & Web Site:Angel Raich v. Ashcroft Newshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/raich.htmMedicinal Marijuana on Trialhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread20418.shtmlI Really Consider Cannabis My Miraclehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread20078.shtmlMedical Marijuana vs. The War on Drugs http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19932.shtml 

Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help






 


Comment #21 posted by FoM on April 24, 2005 at 17:46:14 PT

Max Flowers 
I shortened the line because it made us have to scroll sideways to read. I know you wouldn't mind but I wanted to mentioned that I did that.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #20 posted by Max Flowers on April 24, 2005 at 17:26:20 PT

Hear this, "Justices"
We need to let "the supremes" and every other of our "leaders" know that we all now know the truth about our very own US Constitution.===================================="Just as the separation and independence of the coordinate branches of the Federal Government serve to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one branch, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front. . . . In the tension between federal and state power lies the promise of liberty." [ Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 458-459 (1991), , quoted in United States v. Lopez]But perhaps the most important issue discussed in the Lopez case was the concept of federal police power within the several States. The Court clearly established, perhaps for the first time since the founding of this nation, that authority for police power rests not in what type of crime was committed (State versus federal) but where the crime was committed (within the boundaries of federal territory or within the boundaries of a State)."We have said that Congress may regulate not only ‘Commerce . . . among the several states,’ U.S. Const., Art. I, 8, cl. 3, but also anything that has a ‘substantial effect’ on such commerce. This test, if taken to its logical extreme, would give Congress a ‘police power’ over all aspects of American life. Unfortunately, we have never come to grips with this implication of our substantial effects formula. Although we have supposedly applied the substantial effects test for the past 60 years, we always have rejected readings of the Commerce Clause and the scope of federal power that would permit Congress to exercise a police power; our cases are quite clear that there are real limits to federal power… Indeed, on this crucial point, the majority and Justice Breyer agree in principle: the Federal Government has nothing approaching a police power." [Justice Thomas in his concurring opinion, United States v. Lopez]
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #19 posted by FoM on April 24, 2005 at 11:25:53 PT

A Force To Be Reckoned With
EJ I agree. I am beginning to think that they understand that we are serious about medical marijuana. We're like mushrooms in the woods in the spring time. A person might think they got all the mushrooms and return the next day and there are gads more to pick.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #18 posted by E_Johnson on April 24, 2005 at 11:17:27 PT

One comforting thing
Whatever decision they make, it looks like it's an agonozing one.So it's comforting that such a major decision isn't going to be made lightly.At least someone in this government takes the trouble to think really hard before acting.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #17 posted by FoM on April 24, 2005 at 08:20:00 PT

John Tyler 
I agree with you. No matter what we will carry on. I have a feeling that this week might be the week for the decision but it might not be. If they rule against Angel how will they shut down 43 Cannabis Clubs in San Francisco without bringing in the army?PS: I haven't found any news to post on the front page so far but will keep looking.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #16 posted by John Tyler on April 24, 2005 at 06:03:15 PT

Carry on
It would be wonderful if the Supremes ruled in our favor, but win, loose, or draw, we will carry on. 
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #15 posted by E_Johnson on April 23, 2005 at 10:56:53 PT

Something to bear in mind about the Supremes
The law clerks for the Supremes tend to be young people just out of school. A lot of them are Libertarians. 
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #14 posted by mayan on April 23, 2005 at 05:54:44 PT

HEAT
To do so -- to rule that marijuana can be legal in some circumstances, no matter how restricted, even if it is confined to cancer patients on their death beds in some uncharacteristic judicial outburst of compassion -- would expose this Supreme Court to more heat than it is usually willing to endure.Heat? They will certainly feel the heat from the 80% of Americans who support medical cannabis if they cave in to the fascists.The Supremes are likely stalling if they don't know how to spin the language of their much anticipated ruling. Sam could also be right regarding them waiting for some distracting,overshadowing event in the news. There is only one acceptable ruling possible and we likely won't see it. The robes will be exposed to more than heat. They will be exposed to the entire world! Win/Win. Take your pick! 
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #13 posted by FoM on April 22, 2005 at 21:17:00 PT

BGreen
I'm sure it will work out for you. You're a winner in my book.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #12 posted by BGreen on April 22, 2005 at 21:06:21 PT

The job didn't work out
I was duped by people that were all talk and no action.It happens all the time in the music business.I'll be OK.The Reverend Bud Green
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #11 posted by FoM on April 22, 2005 at 20:35:31 PT

BGreen
I think it will encourage activism. Why I feel that way is we did on one day this week a quarter of a million total hits for a 24 hour period. Maybe people aren't commenting but they are visiting and reading. If they are reading then they are learning. When we learn that is how activism gets spurred on I think. PS: I hope you are enjoying your new job.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #10 posted by BGreen on April 22, 2005 at 20:09:58 PT

Maybe the govt's attempt to destroy the courts
lately might encourage a little "activism" in the Supreme Court to our benefit when deciding the Raich case.The Reverend Bud Green
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #9 posted by afterburner on April 22, 2005 at 20:08:37 PT

Here's an Idea for the Supreme Court
Declare the Controlled Substance Act unconstitutional and force Congress to reconsider the issue.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #8 posted by siege on April 22, 2005 at 17:09:24 PT

Supreme Court to review this case
Canada has become the first country in the world to approve a cannabis-based painkiller for patients.Before they can go forward a big stepping stone..
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #7 posted by b4daylight on April 22, 2005 at 16:15:28 PT

....
Comment #1 posted by Sam Adams on April 22, 2005 at 12:09:04 PT what about the people?I think this is sad....
sick people dying cannot light up a joint, but anyone can smoke tabacco and drink to their death. How can they sleep at night?
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #6 posted by FoM on April 22, 2005 at 13:34:53 PT

EJ You're Right
You sure are right!
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #5 posted by E_Johnson on April 22, 2005 at 13:26:45 PT

I think they're in shock
It's shocking to have that moment of awakening when you realize just exactly where the War on Drugs has led us.They're on a painful journey up the learning curve and who knows where it will lead them.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #4 posted by FoM on April 22, 2005 at 12:46:39 PT

Telarus
Maybe that's why people with high IQs read e-mail when they are under the influence of Cannabis!I couldn't resist saying that ! LOL!
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #3 posted by Telarus on April 22, 2005 at 12:40:18 PT:

Email poses greater threat to IQ than Cannabis!
The distractions of constant emails, text and phone messages are a greater threat to IQ and concentration than taking cannabis, according to a survey of befuddled volunteers.Doziness, lethargy and an increasing inability to focus reached "startling" levels in the trials by 1,100 people, who also demonstrated that emails in particular have an addictive, drug-like grip.Respondents' minds were all over the place as they faced new questions and challenges every time an email dropped into their inbox. Productivity at work was damaged and the effect on staff who could not resist trying to juggle new messages with existing work was the equivalent, over a day, to the loss of a night's sleep."This is a very real and widespread phenomenon," said Glenn Wilson, a psychiatrist from King's College, London University, who carried out 80 clinical trials for TNS research, commissioned by the IT firm Hewlett Packard. The average IQ loss was measured at 10 points, more than double the four point mean fall found in studies of cannabis users.The most damage was done, according to the survey, by the almost complete lack of discipline in handling emails. Dr Wilson and his colleagues found a compulsion to reply to each new message, leading to constant changes of direction which inevitably tired and slowed down the brain.Manners are also going by the board, with one in five of the respondents breaking off from meals or social engagements to receive and deal with messages. Although nine out of 10 agreed that answering messages during face-to-face meetings or office conferences was rude, a third nonetheless felt that this had become "acceptable and seen as a sign of diligence and efficiency".In fact, it is a recipe for muddled thinking and poor performance, said Dr Wilson, who also called for restraint by the two-thirds of people who check work emails out of office hours and even on holiday. He said: "Companies should encourage a more balanced and appropriate way of working." 
-------------------------------------------------------
While this article seems full of FNORDS, I see some really telling evidence. I wonder what would happen if they tested this "e-mail IQ trend" on people who had just lit-up????
Email poses greater threat to IQ than Cannabis
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #2 posted by cloud7 on April 22, 2005 at 12:10:42 PT

...
"One thing they certainly will not do is rule against the government."That says it all and it's the truth...but I'm still willing to be surprised.
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #1 posted by Sam Adams on April 22, 2005 at 12:09:04 PT

Perhaps
"Perhaps the justices are having trouble settling on a majority opinion. Perhaps they disagree on the way they want to slap down the state laws. Or perhaps they have to scrape together a plurality in order to find a way to rule for the Justice Department. One thing they certainly will not do is rule against the government."Perhaps they're just waiting for the next terrorist attack to release their verdict in a media blackout.80% of the population disagreeing with you tends to make politicians a wee bit nervous, and make no mistake, these nine are just politicians appointed by other politicians. A wave of negative editorials from newspapers inside and outside the US will surely greet their decision.
[ Post Comment ]






  Post Comment