home

Supreme Court Rules Against Medical Marijuana

By TChris, Section Court Decisions
Posted on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 08:53:02 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

The Justice Department today won another victory in its war against pot smokers, while advocates of states' rights -- not to mention seriously ill patients who now face federal prosecution for using a medicine many states would like them to have -- are the losers.

By a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court ruled that state laws providing medical marijuana users and providers with protection against state prosecution are no shield against federal prosecution.

Federal authorities may prosecute sick people whose doctors prescribe marijuana to ease pain, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, concluding that state laws don't protect users from a federal ban on the drug. The decision is a stinging defeat for marijuana advocates who had successfully pushed 10 states to allow the drug's use to treat various illnesses.

The decision in Gonzalez v. Raich is summarized here.

TalkLeft has repeatedly warned against the federalization of crimes that can easily be prosecuted (or not, as a state chooses) under state law, most recently here and here. Conservatives who want to limit the scope of legislation authorized by the Commerce Clause will be disappointed by the Court's reinforcement of "Congress’ power to regulate purely local activities that are part of an economic 'class of activities' that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce." Unlike social conservatives who want to see greater federal regulation of private activity, "Commerce Clause conservatives" want to see no federal regulation of economic activity. Watching the two groups clash over the qualifications of the next Supreme Court nominee may be amusing.

For those less interested in constitutional theory, a more human focus on the problem of prosecuting patients who use marijuana to improve the quality of their lives can be found here. Critics of the administration's renewed war against marijuana smokers are quoted abundantly in this recent article.

< Lea Fastow Leves Prison for Halfway House | Dissenters in Gonzales v. Raich >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Supreme Court Rules Against Medical Marijuana | 41 comments (41 topical)
    Re: Supreme Court Rules Against Medical Marijuana (none / 0) (#34)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:17 PM EST
    Che, Hardly a troll statement. During the whole Justice Sunday threads and filibuster threads here the question was repeatedly asked: what judicial activism, what law-making by judicial fiat is the right talking about? This is exactly what they are talking about. Your ox has been gored. It is now complained about here because it struck down medical use of marijuana. I sincerely hope this allows those on the left and right who think that the federal government has enough power vis a vis the states to actually have a rational conversation outside the rhetoric - and see if we have some agreement on this issue.

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Against Medical Marijuana (none / 0) (#35)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:17 PM EST
    Maybe I misread the decision, but are some of the liberal justices who voted to uphold the federal legislation here thinking back to the Heart of Atlanta Motel decision? Back in those days, when the federal government was trying to eradicate discrimination, the conservatives were arguing strenuously that one little hotel didn't affect interstate commerce. Some important advances in civil rights were made over the objection that the commerce clause was being stretched too far. Just something to think about.

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Against Medical Marijuana (none / 0) (#36)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:58:20 PM EST
    When I was a young radical I was arrested under the H. Rap Brown Act for crossing state lines with intent to riot (go to Wounded Knee). Funny thing, I was 120 miles from the nearest state line when I was arrested because I was on an Interstate Highway - "the means of interstate commerce" Something else to think about.

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Against Medical Marijuana (none / 0) (#1)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:45 PM EST
    So that clears up exactly what? It's still legal to use medical marijuana in California, but you can be prosecuted federally. What has changed?

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Against Medical Marijuana (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:45 PM EST
    Nothing...the "State's Rights" Party does it again..can't wait 'til the Dems get their shot next...

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Against Medical Marijuana (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:45 PM EST
    you might want to actually look at the lineup of the Justices before jumping to conclusions. why should it shock that the majority, generally the left wing of the Court, defers to the government?

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Against Medical Marijuana (none / 0) (#4)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:45 PM EST
    Blagh, Look at how the justices voted before you shoot your mouth off.

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Against Medical Marijuana (none / 0) (#5)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:45 PM EST
    Sick people dont get medicine, but innocent people can be tortured. "What a country!"

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Against Medical Marijuana (none / 0) (#6)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:45 PM EST
    “What has changed?” Nothing if the feds choose to let it be. But it is an ugly precedent; the interstate commerce clause now allows the feds to regulate absolutely anything anywhere. And speaking of ugly precedent “ … the Court established that Congress can regulate purely intrastate activity that is not itself “commercial,” i.e., not produced for sale, if it concludes that failure to regulate that class of activity would undercut the regulation of the interstate market in that commodity.” The Supremes applied Wickard v. Filburn to an illegal market? Can someone help me out with the states interest in regulating a non-commercial commodity that might NEGATIVLY impact, albeit indirectly, an illegal market? What a $hit decision.

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Against Medical Marijuana (none / 0) (#7)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:45 PM EST
    Blagh, Here's link to the justices

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Against Medical Marijuana (none / 0) (#8)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:45 PM EST
    The Court cited Wickard! I was taught in law school that Wickard was one of the lamest decisions ever rendered by the court. You know what? F*ck the US! My only regret is that I have actually served this country. This country that stands for injustice, torture, and air-headed right wingers. F*ck all o0f you!

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Against Medical Marijuana (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:45 PM EST
    While I don't like the consequences of this decision, I think pigwiggle's misreading the use of Wickard. It's that the regulation of the interstate market would (supposedly) be undercut by medical marijuana, not the market itself. Although the latter is obviously true as well, and a very good argument in favour of medical marijuana, it's not the point of law in Wickard.

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Against Medical Marijuana (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:45 PM EST
    Sorry, Roger. I'm feeling you.

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Against Medical Marijuana (none / 0) (#11)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:45 PM EST
    I hope they all choke on their martini olives. Hypocrites.

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Against Medical Marijuana (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:45 PM EST
    You're right Patrick, Blaghaddy apologises...the evil liberals just want to smoke weed instead of enslaving human beings in Bush-Country... Silly Blagh...

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Against Medical Marijuana (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:45 PM EST
    Well, I'll go smoke some good old non-medical marijuana in sympathy for you in the U.S... =P

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Against Medical Marijuana (none / 0) (#14)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:45 PM EST
    Is it just me, or can Fedgov now enact pretty much any law under the Commerce Clause now? Or, what can't they regulate as interstate trade? The GOP stopped being the "small government" party as soon as they got power -- about the same time the Democrats started promoting states' rights. Whichever party is in the minority is the small government party... Maybe after the next election we'll a balance of parties so we can return to the good old days of Gridlock. Still, this decision (and the administration's celebration of it) will alienate some of the GOP's friends. Pro-gun groups and libertarian-leaners come to mind. My uncle survived throat cancer. He still smokes tobacco cigarettes; I'd much rather see him smoking pot so he could gain back some weight.

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Against Medical Marijuana (none / 0) (#15)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:45 PM EST
    PW, The reasoning seems to be that allowing legal pot would interfere with the gov'ts regulatory efforts to ban a market entirely. Wickard itself concerned a farmer during WWII, who grew wheat(?) on his farm, in order to feed his family. Wickard has all of the intellectual purity of Dred Scot, but without the racist angle. To apply Wickard to Raich requires quite a stretch. If you count "conservatism" as, generally "not wanting any great changes to what you have", then the dissenters make sense. The real suprise in this is that Scalia agreed with the majority on any aspect of this case. If you loke "original intent", all of the framers grew pot (ok, I know, not to smoke). so- Patrick- you are right, basically nothing has changed where you are Blagh- Patrick is a cop in California. He is not Jim. Also "states rights" people are pro-med mj PW- you hit this case on the head. Interstate commerce is already the excetion that swallows the rule. It is hard to envision how far it could go with this angle

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Against Medical Marijuana (none / 0) (#16)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:45 PM EST
    The hypocrisy continues. Ignorance reigns. If only we all liked to guzzle our booze, like the pilgrims did. There is no more wasteful, useless, puritanical b.s. in this country than mj prohibition. And it is no different than alcohol prohibition, a dismal ridiculous failure. Sorry, but I'll keep toking so I can haul my partially paralyzed leg and wretched spine around, and so I can have a little fun without harming anyone -- like free Americans, I thought, are supposed to be able to.

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Against Medical Marijuana (none / 0) (#17)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:45 PM EST
    It is hard to believe that Stevens wrote this........

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Against Medical Marijuana (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:45 PM EST
    Perhaps its time for y'all to join together with the religious right against these "activist judges". Incidentally, this is the point of the complaint about activist judges. They pass law by construction.

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Against Medical Marijuana (none / 0) (#19)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:45 PM EST
    We definitely can't blame this defeat on the right wing or conservatives. The left wing (if Dems can be called left wing) wholeheartedly support prohibition as well. It's just the majority of us laypeople, both right and left, who see mj prohibition as moronic. Not to mention how cruel and unnecessary prosecuting medical mj users is. Special interests (prison industry, law enforcement industry, legal industry) win again! Freedom dies a little more....I'm with you Roger..Freak this country and what it has become. It is not the country my grandfathers risked their necks for in WWII. The land of the free my arse. I eagerly await and salivate over the coming of the second revolution...it's long overdue.

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Against Medical Marijuana (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:45 PM EST
    Blagh doesn't care if Patrick's a cop...if he was a smart one, he'd know that people who mind their own business don't like the arm of the law looking over their shoulder... This isn't about the cops...they just do their jobs...but why does their job include so many intrusions...? Bush won't say whether he snorted coke in college (maybe 'cause he doesn't want to lie about it), and yet we're to all live our lives by what he thinks is right or wrong? Yikes....

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Against Medical Marijuana (none / 0) (#21)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:45 PM EST
    Just for fun, does anybody have guesses for how Bush's filibustered judicial nominees would have ruled on this case?

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Against Medical Marijuana (none / 0) (#22)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:45 PM EST
    And if Blagh was smart he'd shut that pie hole lest everyone realize he's a fool.
    This isn't about the cops...they just do their jobs...but why does their job include so many intrusions...?
    Gee, lemmee think, Oh yeah, cops arrest people, I guess intrusion is what it's all about. A smart person would have commented on the balance of the intrusion based on public safety and personal privacy.
    Bush won't say whether he snorted coke in college (maybe 'cause he doesn't want to lie about it), and yet we're to all live our lives by what he thinks is right or wrong?
    Like him or hate him, he doesn't really decide what is law, so what he thinks is right or wrong isn't the bar we all have to live by. A smart person would have commented on legislative branch of the government as the branch responsible to write laws based on the will off the people.

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Against Medical Marijuana (none / 0) (#23)
    by pigwiggle on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:45 PM EST
    "It's that the regulation of the interstate market would (supposedly) be undercut" "The reasoning seems to be that allowing legal pot would interfere with the gov'ts regulatory efforts" I see; makes more sense.

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Against Medical Marijuana (none / 0) (#24)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:45 PM EST
    A smart person would have commented on legislative branch of the government as the branch responsible to write laws based on the will off the people.
    Uh let's see, since you are so smart how about proving that arresting people who are terminally ill for smoking a joint is the will of the people. Or maybe that wasn't a typo and you really meant the "will off the people". The will to off the people, perhaps?

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Against Medical Marijuana (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:45 PM EST
    This ruling would be moot if they would just change the Federal law and allow MJ use as a cancer treatment.

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Against Medical Marijuana (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:45 PM EST
    "The reasoning seems to be that allowing legal pot would interfere with the gov'ts regulatory efforts"
    Regulatory efforts being arresting sick ppl I assume? -no logic at all

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Against Medical Marijuana (none / 0) (#27)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:45 PM EST
    Ernesto, I never said it was, I said it's not up to President Bush that's all. Do you agree or disagree. Your confusing a judical decision with the legislatures job no? And thanks for pointing pointing out my typo.

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Against Medical Marijuana (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:46 PM EST
    No, the problem is the federal government's and courts continued incursion into issues that should be regulated best by the individual states.
    Still, this decision (and the administration's celebration of it) will alienate some of the GOP's friends. Pro-gun groups and libertarian-leaners come to mind.
    Oh so true, and much more than those two groups [But how do liberals make political hay out of this with their history?]. How can you complain about judicial activism and law by construction only when it harms YOU? Pathetic. But then, liberals here are complaining about judicial activism and law by construction only because it harms YOU. Equally pathetic. Perhaps, it is time for all of us, conservative and liberal, to have some kind of discussion of federalism; federal rights vs states rights; and whether strict or liberal construction should be how the courts rule. We would probably find all those labels would start to dissolve a little.

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Against Medical Marijuana (none / 0) (#29)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:46 PM EST
    All this arguing and STILL...the idiocy and hypocrisy of this prohibition remains. Grouping pot with coke and heroin and crank, c'mon, that's puritan ignorance and/or delusion at it's finest. Why not put the liver-killer ibuprofen in there? What is the POINT of prohibition? To maintain a fraudulent demonizing? All I can figure. And this isn't a problem of "activist" judges; it's a problem of illogical thinking in THIS SPECIFIC CASE!!

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Against Medical Marijuana (none / 0) (#30)
    by aw on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:46 PM EST
    What ever happened to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?"

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Against Medical Marijuana (none / 0) (#31)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:46 PM EST
    AW, You MUST be kidding. That line is a fraud. JC, But then, liberals here are complaining about judicial activism and law by construction only because it harms YOU. Equally pathetic. That's a troll statement if ever I read one And if Blagh was smart he'd shut that pie hole lest everyone realize he's a fool. Boy somebody got up on the wrong side of the drug interdiction chopper this morning. Blagh - meet one of our finest. Mr. Roboto!

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Against Medical Marijuana (none / 0) (#32)
    by aw on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:47 PM EST
    I remember when that line was invoked fairly often and with spirit. You don't hear it much anymore, do you? And no, I'm not 250 years old, not even 200.

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Against Medical Marijuana (none / 0) (#33)
    by jimcee on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:47 PM EST
    Patrick you tell him fella...! I thought the ruling was dreadful and does have future implications i.e gun control and such and just seems built on a shaky foundation. What I thought was intersting was the line up pro and con, it sort of gives everyone a glimpse of which justices believe that the Federal gov't has extra-ordinary powers over the states. Either way its a pretty sh*tty decision.

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Against Medical Marijuana (none / 0) (#37)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:47 PM EST
    Graphicus is right. No matter how offensive this decision is as a matter of policy, fans of anti-discrimination and environmental law should be cheering. There is a conservative movement to restrict the Commerce Clause and thereby undermine the power of Congress to pass many of the important anti-discrimination and environmental laws of the past half century. The Supreme Court has already used a Commerce Clause analysis to invalidate a law prohibiting guns near schools, US v Lopez, 514 US 549 (1995), and another providing a federal civil remedy for certain violence against women. US v. Morrison, 529 US 598 (2000). If you want to see where this is (I'd love to write "was", in the hope that Raich has put a stop to this) headed, check out Klingler v. Dep't of Revenue, 366 F.3d 614 (8th Cir. 2004), in which the court held that Congress did not have the power, under the Commerce Clause, to regulate, through the Americans with Disabilies Act, discrimination in state automobile licensing. If not for the solid, pro-Commerce Clause decision in Raich, I think we could look forward to more piecemeal chipping away of the ADA and other anti-discrimination laws. I personally think marijuana should be legal - as legal as a gin and tonic. At the very least, it should be available as medicine to those who need it. But I have to cheer this decision and the continued ability of our federal government to ensure (some modicum) of equality among our citizens. - Amy Robertson

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Against Medical Marijuana (none / 0) (#38)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:47 PM EST
    OL - Not every problem should be solved by government, and not every problem which should be solved by government should be solved by the federal government. You'r basically saying that it's good for the feds to invent powers for themselves, ignoring the Constitution, because those powers can be used to promote the liberal agenda. Squashing individual freedom is an acceptable side effect. That attitude toward power is why so many conservatives still think the Democrats are the Big Government party.

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Against Medical Marijuana (none / 0) (#39)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:47 PM EST
    The federal govt. is no longer concerned with justice and equality Amy. The commerce clause is now used to spread tyranny. Back when our govt. was by, of, and for the people...maybe the clause was good. But now that the govt. is by, of , and for the corporation...I fear it' ever expanding reach in limiting my freedom to pursue life, liberty, and hapiness. Lets not forget the commerce clause is what gave us prohibition (aka tyranny) in the first place.

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Against Medical Marijuana (none / 0) (#40)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:47 PM EST
    I retract my previous comment. It was snippy and poorly thought out. Sorry, OL.

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Against Medical Marijuana (none / 0) (#41)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:47 PM EST
    That's what Blagh loves about TL...people here aren't afraid to admit when they've spoken hastily or out of turn...God Knows Blagh's been down that path a couple of times here... roy- a government who re-wrote laws to over-ride the Florida Supreme Court would qualify as a "Big Government" party, wouldn't it? yeah, you said...but Blagh couldn't resist... As for the medical marijuana issue, why is it that opium (and thusly, morphine), though a controlled narcotic, can be legally prescribed by doctors... and if used for anything other than its intended purpose, is a hundred times more addictive and much more damaging to the social fabric than bloody Mary Jane? Politics? You betchya...always is...

    Supreme Court Rules Against Medical Marijuana | 41 comments (41 topical)