Supreme Court Rules Against Medical Marijuana
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 > |





