http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/06/scotus.medical.mar1juana.ap/index.html Supreme Court allows prosecution of medical mar1juana Monday, June 6, 2005 Posted: 10:40 AM EDT (1440 GMT) WASHINGTON (AP) -- Federal authorities may prosecute sick people who smoke pot on doctors' orders, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, concluding that state medical mar1juana laws don't protect users from a federal ban on the drug. The decision is a stinging defeat for mar1juana advocates who had successfully pushed 10 states to allow the drug's use to treat various illnesses. Justice John Paul Stevens, writing the 6-3 decision, said that Congress could change the law to allow medical use of mar1juana. The closely watched case was an appeal by the Bush administration in a case that it lost in late 2003. At issue was whether the prosecution of medical mar1juana users under the federal Controlled Substances Act was constitutional. Under the Constitution, Congress may pass laws regulating a state's economic activity so long as it involves "interstate commerce" that crosses state borders. The California mar1juana in question was homegrown, distributed to patients without charge and without crossing state lines. Stevens said there are other legal options for patients, "but perhaps even more important than these legal avenues is the democratic process, in which the voices of voters allied with these respondents may one day be heard in the halls of Congress." California's medical mar1juana law, passed by voters in 1996, allows people to grow, smoke or obtain mar1juana for medical needs with a doctor's recommendation. Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington state have laws similar to California. In those states, doctors generally can give written or oral recommendations on mar1juana to patients with cancer, HIV and other serious illnesses. In a dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said that states should be allowed to set their own rules. "The states' core police powers have always included authority to define criminal law and to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens," said O'Connor, who was joined by other states' rights advocates. The legal question presented a dilemma for the court's conservatives, who have pushed to broaden states' rights in recent years, invalidating federal laws dealing with gun possession near schools and violence against women on the grounds the activity was too local to justify federal intrusion. O'Connor said she would have opposed California's medical mar1juana law if she was a voter or a legislator. But she said the court was overreaching to endorse "making it a federal crime to grow small amounts of mar1juana in one's own home for one's own medicinal use." The case concerned two seriously ill California women, Angel Raich and Diane Monson. The two had sued then-U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft, asking for a court order letting them smoke, grow or obtain mar1juana without fear of arrest, home raids or other intrusion by federal authorities. Raich, an Oakland woman suffering from ailments including scoliosis, a brain tumor, chronic nausea, fatigue and pain, smokes mar1juana every few hours. She said she was partly paralyzed until she started smoking pot. Monson, an accountant who lives near Oroville, California, has degenerative spine disease and grows her own mar1juana plants in her backyard.
What is wrong with these people? Let them feel better. What a piece of crap ruling. Very Sad. So will a Sate policeman still arrest you if it is legal in your state?
They say everything comes around again. The 2000s are starting to look like the 1950s redux. The only good thing about it is that Chuck Berry should rule Top 40 radio within the next few months.....
I was thinking more along the lines of the 80s, Tex. Hell, I even see people turning up their collars once in a while again...
Even as a conservative, I am dissapointed with this ruling, there are some issues that are obviously in need of reform and this is at the top of the list. How long will the government wage war on mar1juana, while crack/cocaine and meth destroy communities across the country. I have an aunt that is in chronic pain and she would rather smoke pot than take vicodin or morphine (her prescriptions). I just dont understand this and I never have, smoking mar1juana (especially medically) only effects you and government should have no part in this. What is worse, however, is the trillions of dollars we have wasted on the so called war. On all of this, I side with the lefties.
The War on Drugs is not about waging war on drugs...it's about the powers that be getting you to take the drugs they want you to take....nicotine, alcohol and prescription pills.
I am always curious to see how US Supreme Court justices side with or dissent from one another in the high profile cases. I am not interesting in the merit of the medical mar1juana (never used, no intent to use, have no opinion about it whatsoever), however I do have some observations from reading the reports (mainly from AP) on this case. - You would think "liberal" justices are in favor of it, but surprise, surprise - led by John Paul Stevens, all "liberals" oppose the use medical mar1juana, albeit they did so mainly on its "technicality". "Liberal" justices siding with Bush administration, interesting. - Another surprise, Clarence Thomas is not in the same camp as Antonin Scalia. Extremely rare. The last much publicized case I can remeber in which Thomas disagreed with Scalia was whether the cross burning is considered criminal intimidation. - To Scalia, this time morality takes a higher priority over individual state's jurisdiction. So much for a self-proclaimed strict constitution interpreter.
Actually, there are far more conservatives than liberals who currently voice support for drug war reform. See the thread I posted today regarding Milton Friedman (conservative economist) calling for regulation of currently illegal drugs.
Did people really think the Supreme Court might decide that state law could trump federal law? That wasn't going to happen. If you want legal pot, you'll have to get it from Congress, not the courts. I'm happy with the decision because the Supreme Court recognized that it wasn't their place to legislate on drugs (ironic thread title, considering).
IIRC, the Feds couldn't put an outright ban on alcohol and had to resort to a Constitutional amendment to implement one. Later, they couldn't enforce a nationwide drinking age and had to threaten withholding interstate funds to keep the states in line. Doesn't this ruling reverse that precedent?
I have not read the opinion, yet. I've learned to refrain from judging legal decisions based solely on a newspaper report of what was decided. The media sucks, sucks, sucks at reporting legal updates like this.
OK I found a 1999 article pointing out during his first 5 years on the Supreme Count, Thomas only voted together with Scalia 80% of the time. Although I could not find any sources in more recent years, I have to admit I am somewhat biased (damn the liberal media!) towards thinking Thomas as more or less of a shadow of Scalia.
RMTEX- True but the fact remains that what is spent on pot, is insane both in the sum and the allocation compared to other drugs.
this decison doesn't really change anything, it really only maintains the status quo - it was state rights issue more than a debate over the merits of medical mar1juana as the Justices pointed out - the only way to change things is through Congress (gulp) there are a couple of bills out there that, if you support the right of sick people to have medicines that help them live a better life, you should call your representive about and tell them you support Barney Frank's States' Rights to Medical mar1juana bill (HR 2087), which would reschedule cannabis as a legally prescribable drug (like cocaine, methamphetamine, and angel dust). U.S. Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL), joined by Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Jim Jeffords (I-VT), have introduced the first-ever Senate bill to ensure that federal juries hear the full story when medical mar1juana patients and providers, operating legally under state law, are tried on federal mar1juana charges. ...In his statement introducing the legislation, Durbin noted, "This is a narrowly-tailored bill ... Under this legislation, defendants in the ten states with medicinal mar1juana laws could be found not guilty of violating federal law if their actions are done in compliance with state law." http://www.mpp.org/releases/nr20041118.html
I was listening to an analysis of this and the answer is that state police cannot because this law didn't overthrow the state laws and those remain on the books. The Feds can arrest you though.
Wasn't mar1juana made illegal because big tobacco plantation owners were afraid that it would cut into their tobacco profits? I'm suprised that mar1juana isn't legal now, considering the amount of money the big tobacco companies could make by selling it...
