cannabisnews.com: Overruling State Drug Laws Overruling State Drug Laws Posted by FoM on December 09, 2000 at 06:46:20 PT Editorial Source: Las Vegas Review-Journal The justices of the U.S. Supreme Court have decided to resolve, once and for all, whether California's Proposition 215 and similar medical-marijuana laws in eight other states pass constitutional muster. At issue is whether these state laws allowing "medicinal" marijuana supersede the long-standing federal Controlled Substances Act, which includes marijuana among the drugs whose manufacture and distribution are illegal. In 1998, the Justice Department secured an injunction from a federal district court in San Francisco barring the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative and other similar "medicinal" marijuana clubs from distributing the narcotic. However, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overruled the district court, declaring that medical necessity could be a defense to the charge of distributing drugs in violation of the Controlled Substances Act. Of course, if the 9th Circuit's ruling stands, it would undermine the rule of law. For the appellate court has decided, capriciously so, that federal law may be disregarded under certain circumstances -- like "medical necessity." If federal drug laws can be ignored under certain circumstances, then all manner of federal laws might be similarly ignored -- including tax laws, gun laws, environmental laws, civil rights laws, etc. If exceptions are to be made to the federal Controlled Substances Act, then it is up to Congress to amend the law. ... It is almost certain that the U.S. Supreme Court will strike down these state laws as unconstitutional. Source: Las Vegas Review-Journal (NV)Published: Saturday December 9, 2000Copyright: Las Vegas Review-Journal, 2000Address: P.O. Box 70, Las Vegas, NV 89125Fax: (702)383-4676Contact: letters lvrj.comWebsite: http://www.lvrj.com/Forum: http://www.lvrj.com/lvrj_home/feedback/CannabisNews Medical Marijuana Archiveshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/list/medical.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #8 posted by Nate H. on December 10, 2000 at 09:26:07 PT federal enforcement of pot laws As one person here pointed out, the case before the Supreme Court will likely have zero impact on laws concerning possession of medical marijuana. Possession laws are almost entirely enforced at state and local level - the federal DEA, FBI, customs, etc generally only get involved in trafficking cases, cultivation, etc. The feds can do what they want, but they really have very little control over the actual street-level enforcement of pot law in the U.S.-Nate H. [ Post Comment ] Comment #7 posted by dddd on December 09, 2000 at 22:46:57 PT we beg your pardon Thank you Auntie for edifying those of us who were not aware. You must admit though,that the decision of the court,even if it does only pertain to the OCC,could have far reaching implications. Take it easy Auntie.We like angry cynical comments like this.Let's see some more.......dddd [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by AuntieMedia on December 09, 2000 at 18:49:55 PT Fact-checking?? Doesn't anyone in the friggin' media check facts? Moreover, aren't any of you aware that the Supremes ARE NOT reviewing the MMJ laws in the various states: only the right of the Oakland Cannabis Club to distribute marijuana. This is the only club at issue. Others are still operating.Christ, get it right..... [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by kaptinemo on December 09, 2000 at 17:05:05 PT: Federalism, come home to roost The Founders of the US were of two minds about the centralization of power; they knew it was inevitable...and they feared the inevitability. The Federalist camp was mainly swayed by the then very real threat of divide-and-conquer; a foreign power might be tempted to attack one State to see if they could get away with it, and then proceed to break up the Union piecmeal. Which the Brits tried to do in the War of 1812.But there were Anti-Federalists, who, having suffered from King George's monopoly of power, wanted to ensure that the inevitable central government trod very lightly upon the rights of the citizens of the individual and (originally) sovereign States. (This is, by the way, the reason why I capitalize the word; the States were originally meant to be de facto *countries*, with laws drawn up by the citizens of that State. The Founders made that *quite plain* in all their writings; always with a capital letter. After all, since that was the original intent of the Founders, who am I to contradict them?) But after the Civil War, with the Federalist Union triumphant, the States began their long slow slide into historical insignificance. Unfortunately, the last time the idea of 'States' Rights' was used as a bulwark against encroaching Federalism it was twisted an by bigots to justify continued racial prejudice. Hence the bad taste the phrase leaves in some people's mouths.But now, with the threat of foreign attack having receded into the background, and the very real dangers of Federalism being evinced by the DrugWar, we may yet see some sort of showdown between the Feds and the States.Simply because of one simple fact: it is the *citizens* of the States that comprise the Union. The Federal government seems to have forgotten that very salient fact. The *citizens of the States* have spoken: they want a change in the drug laws. The Federal government is being faced with an increasing number of States that want this. To continue to ignore this call is to invite disaster.For over a hundred and 40 years the pendulum has swung in favor of increased centralization...and all the dangers associated with it. We may be seeing the beginning of the swing back towards the States.I really do hope so. too many have suffered and died because of an outmoded idea being allowed to run rampant over people's supposedly 'inalienable rights'. [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by defenderoffreeworld on December 09, 2000 at 11:20:27 PT: anyone remember states rights? i remember our founding fathers advocated a small central government, with each individual state able to make their own decisions in most cases. whatever happened to that? and when the central government did pass the law prohibiting marijuana use, where did they get authorization to do that? i mean, with what authority could they prohibit the use of cannabis? and now that states are slowly starting to come around,and want to erradicate (for medicinal purposes) that law, washington argues that federal law is stronger than anything the states might have to say. does anyone else notice a huge contradiction here? [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by Rev. Jonathan Adler on December 09, 2000 at 10:53:41 PT: CSA unconstitutional Obstruction of Justice! CSA is a clear example of the Feds claiming over-control. It amounts to an unconstitutional control of religion and the free-will choice to heal one'self or prevent illness by natural therapies available in nature. They had no legal juridiction when they passed this act and they still don't. See www.medijuana.com and ask yourself if American Indians have the right to use peyote in their church. You'll find that they do. Hawaii Medical Marijuana Institute [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by Smokeless in Seattle on December 09, 2000 at 10:02:03 PT Oops Sorry, correction, it was not the constitution that mentions nullification, I think it is just federal law - any legal eagles out there, please correct me :)SiS [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by Smokeless in Seattle on December 09, 2000 at 09:46:05 PT Just might happen that way... The problem with the whole thing is that the Controlled Substances act is a federal law. According to the constitution, there are two points to be considered. The first and most obvious is that Congress has the power to make federal laws (which is why it exists), and second, "nullification" of federal laws is not possible by the states. The first time it was tried was in 1832, by South Carolina. The second time, South carolina and 10 other states seceded from the union, in 1860-61.So basically, the Supreme Court is bound by the Constitution and common law to uphold the Controlled Substances act, because it is a lawful act of congress which does not violate the constitution.I think a lot of activists are gathering false hope that the Supreme Court will be their Deus ex Machina. Don't be too shocked if it's a unanimous vote, either. The Justices cannot *change* a law, they can only declare it unconstitutional, and nullify it.Anyone have any ideas on how to get the controlled substances act unconstitutional? That's gonna be a tough one.SiS [ Post Comment ] Post Comment Name: Optional Password: E-Mail: Subject: Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message] Link URL: Link Title: