Once again Our Robed Masters are seeking to save you from the laws of your state, which cannot be trusted to pass laws that differ from the will of The All-Powerful Few:
"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.
"Justice John Paul Stevens, writing the 6-3 decision, said that Congress could change the law to allow medical use of marijuana.
"The closely watched case was an appeal by the Bush administration in a case involving two seriously ill California women who use marijuana. The court said the prosecution of pot users under the federal Controlled Substances Act was constitutional.
"’I’m going to have to be prepared to be arrested,’ said Diane Monson, one of the women involved in the case."
Now, I am not a doctor, and so cannot comment on the possible legitimate medicinal usages for marijuana. What outrages me is that the United States Supreme Court can overturn any and all state laws with which it disagrees with virtual impunity, and has been able to do so for generations now. Ms. Monson, for example, should have been able, under our system of government, to be protected by her state. Now she stands alone and vulnerable, at a time when she is also seriously ill, before the unchecked might of the Men (and Women) In Black.
Our Founding Fathers would have been appalled.
The Supreme Court did not overturn the state laws, it said only that the federal government could continue to enforce its laws prohibiting marijuana use.
The Bush administration supported this view. Congress passed the relevant marijuana laws. So, while I believe the Supreme Court decision to be in error, in this case all three branches of the federal government are on the same page. I don’t know that this is a case of judicial supremacy, but rather judicial support for federal supremacy.
Spoiling for a fight in Kansas
TOPEKA — The cold war of words between the state Legislature and the state Supreme Court has s
It is time for our representatives in Washington to do their job. If the people do not like the federal law prohibiting marajuana use, it is up to the House and Senate to change the law. Representatives and Senators need to stand up and be accountable.
If the Supreme Court had given approval for the use of marajuana, it would have been in the position of making laws, not just interpreting the existing law.
This is an outrage!! I am tired of this judicial tyranny. This is an, um, outrage…did I say that already…um, the letters I press are magically appearing on the screen, COOL! Um, does anyone have any doritos?? 😉
Michael and Penny are correct. The court did not “overturn just any state law”. The court enforced duly passed and signed legislation by the federal government on a matter which falls under its constitutionally granted powers of regulating interstate commerce. As with same-sex marriages, a supreme court decision in favor of legalized marijuana would make other states laws outlawing it virtually unenforceable. In effect, the laws of a handful of states would overturn every other state law banning it.
Michelle, your outrage is misguided.
It is wierd to see basically the same crowd hollering to outlaw tobacco and at the same time liberalize marijuana laws. Smoking the stuff can’t be healthy. Until I see compelling evidence that marijuana is the only drug that could be used to achieve the desired effects I have to come down on the side of keeping it illegal.
Still, there are worse things. States ought to be able to determine (within reason) just how much they are willing to ignore for the sake of “domestic tranquility”.
“If the Supreme Court had given approval for the use of marajuana, it would have been in the position of making laws, not just interpreting the existing law.”
Nobody was asking the Supreme Court to “give[] approval for the use of mar[i]juana.” The respondents were merely asking the Court to declare that the application of the Controlled Substances Act in the particular circumstances of this case was beyond the authority of Congress under the Commerce Clause. Whether California wanted to approve it or not was California’s own business, which no one was asking the Court to approve or disapprove. (In fact, Justice O’Connor’s dissent indicated that she *disapproved* of the medical use of marijuana, but that she didn’t think the feds had any constitutional authority to ban it.)
“Whether California wanted to approve it or not was California’s own business, which no one was asking the Court to approve or disapprove.”
OK, I’ve really got to start editing my comments before I post them. Strike everything after the word “business.”
When I heard this story on NPR, the efficacy of marijuana was never called into question. I thing the best part were some of the quotes from the majority opinion. In answering whether the Drug Act of 1970 trumped the state laws, the answer was yes, but one of the Justices writing for the majority wrote something like, we can’t overturn laws Congress passes because they are dumb (I think the actual wording was more likek question the wisdom), only if they are not constitutional.
Now wouldn’t that be something in constitutional law, to ask not only if the law meets constitutional standards, but also if it is dumb or not?
Regarding Chris-2-4’s comment: Actually, had the Supreme Court decided otherwise, it would not have made other state laws prohibiting use of marijuana virtually unenforceable. It would have affected the *federal* government’s ability to enforce *its* laws. Each state would have been free to legalize or criminalize marijuana use — as they are still free to do under the Supreme Court decision.
Michelle,
You need to understand the technical legal issues better before you seize on a particular decision as an example of judicial tyranny. As the other commenters are pointing out, this is not a decision where the Supreme Court overturned a democratically enacted law because it didn’t like it. Rather, the Supreme Court affirmed that, at least in this particular area, the will of all the people (national laws) can be enforced despite the will of some of the people (state laws). It’s really a question of the powers of the national government and the supremacy of national laws over inconsistent state laws. That’s a dispute about which people (e.g. which level of government) can regulate which activities, not a dispute about whether the will of the people or the judges controls.
Thanks for the comments, everyone. My point is actually very narrow and is not solely aimed at the case in point: Under our system of government, as it was originally planned by the Founding Fathers, the Supreme Court should not be in a position of squashing the ability of states to legislate on matters such as this.
We shouldn’t have to have Congress legislate that marijuana is approved for certain medicinal usage. It should be enough for the citizens of states that permit it to be free to use it according to the medicinal guidelines duly legislated by that state. If citizens of other states want similar laws for their states, they should then lobby their state governments to pass them.
Regarding Michael’s comments regarding my comments:
Each state would have been free to legalize or criminalize marijuana use
Well, each State would be able to pass legislation regarding the issue, but given the free movement between the states it would be practically impossible to enforce. And furthermore, there would be a very realistic possiblity that those state laws will be overturned on the basis that the Supreme Court found a “Right” to medical marijuana which trumps the state’s right to legalize it.
I think the issue of state rights vs. federal authority is a sticky one, one that we have to be very careful about coming out on one extreme or the other of. Remember that before we had the Constitution we had the Articles of Confederation which gave too much authority to each state and as such undermined the ability of the federal government to operate effectively. We also risk significant problems by allowing the federal government to become all-powerful.
I would argue that we need to ask the following question for each issue we’re thinking of mandating at a federal level:
Does consistent application of the issue across all of the states provide a significant benefit to the country as a whole?
I believe that the regulation of medicine is indeed an issue that has significant benefits to being regulated federally.
Re Michelle’s follow-up: To the extent that the Supreme Court has failed to overturn a federal law that it should have under the Constitution, I agree that the decision is wrong. But I think you still may be laying more at the feet of the Court than is deserved. We do *not* need Congress to pass a law permitting medical marijuana use for the state laws to be given full effect. We need Congress to pass a law ending federal criminalization of marijuana use. The decision affected the state’s ability to permit marijuana use not one bit; what it did was uphold the asserted authority of the federal government to prosecute those who cannot be prosecuted under state law.
Regarding Chirs-2-4’s follow-up: I don’t get it. If Alabama criminalizes marijuana possession and Mississippi permits possession, how is it that Alabama can’t enforce its laws? For instance, gun laws differ greatly from state to state. Does that mean a more restrictive state can’t enforce its laws because another state has more liberal laws? All it means is that if you are carrying a gun in a liberal jurisdiction, you better leave it there when traveling to another jurisdiction. Same with marijuana.
And whether the Supreme Court may in the future find such a right is a far-cry from saying that the states would be unable to enforce their laws in the here and now.
I also don’t see why different states could not effectively enforce their own marijuana possession laws. In our state motorcycle helmets are not required, while in some neighboring states they are. People just take them off or put them on at the state line as needed.
Gay “marriage” laws are alot different because of the “full faith and credit” thing. You simply can’t have people’s marital status changing as they drive cross country.
Yes, there’s no reason that a State’s laws regulating the use of marijuana couldn’t be handled in a similar fashion to those regulating the use and possession of alcohol.
I think one could still legitimately be outraged at the Supreme Court for its continuing devotion to the idea that Congress not only has the right to regulate inter-State commerce but that it also has the right to regulate things which substantially effect inter-State commerce. That Justice Scalia found in favor of the federal government in this decision only cements my opinion that he is a legal positivist. Thank goodness for Clarence Thomas! He’s like the “Ratzinger” of the Supreme Court.
It would be nice if someone would challenge the federal marijuana legislation based upon history and the Marijuana Stamp Act of 1937.
Based upon the history that FIRST made it illegal to possess and consume marijuana. It was to control certain ethnic populations; a gross violation of now- racism and hate crimes.
Alas, this will never happen in 2005, as propaganda is considered fact and history is revisionist and facts are not looked into; well, not since the New York LaGuardia Commission on the Use of Cannibis of the 1930’s.
Tim J… regarding your state and motorcyle helmet laws. This is true to a point.
I think in states that do not pass motorcycle helmet laws, as well as mandatory seatbelt laws, that the Federal Gov’t has the right to withold federal highway funds. I know it is true for seat belts, and last I knew, it was true for helmets, too.
I think in states that do not pass motorcycle helmet laws, as well as mandatory seatbelt laws, that the Federal Gov’t has the right to withold federal highway funds.
Probably. That was how they forced States to raise the legal drinking age to 21 in those in which it was still 18 (New Hampshire, for example). States should respond to this federal thuggery by witholding the income taxes of their residents.
Yes, there’s no reason that a State’s laws regulating the use of marijuana couldn’t be handled in a similar fashion to those regulating the use and possession of alcohol.
Come spend some time in a dry county neighboring a wet county and you might begin to understand why the state’s ability to effectively (practically) enforce its laws is seriously impaired.
Chris-
I actually live in a dry county that borders 2 wet counties and, while it is possible for adults to obtain liquor by simply driving to the next county, the law does accomplish in large measure what it was intended to accomplish; booze is hard or expensive to come by for minors and the town as a whole seems more family friendly and is less attractive to vagrants or other n’er-do-wells.
Chris,
I understand your point, but I think your initial post was overselling the point (“virtually unenforceable”). I also believe that, if we are talking the practicability of enforcement, the federal law as it regards medical marijuana doesn’t change things much since it appears that the feds are not terribly interested in enforcing it anyway.
Finally, it is also an intersting question whether we should care that a federal non-enforcement scheme might tend to undermine the laws in the more restrictive states. A federal enforcement scheme undermines the more liberal states. It might be hard to achieve neutrality here, so by what criteria do we prefer the liberal to the restrictive state laws (or vice-versa)?
Come spend some time in a dry county neighboring a wet county and you might begin to understand why the state’s ability to effectively (practically) enforce its laws is seriously impaired.
I actually vacation every year in a resort town (Ocean City, NJ) that is dry (that is, sales of alcohol are not permitted but the private consumption of it is), and it is considerably more family-friendly than neighboring resort towns (Atlantic City, Wildwood) that are not dry. This despite the fact that there are liquor stores on the other side of both bridges off the island.
It also seems to me that States are not particularly interested in prosecuting marijuana-related offenses.
Another interesting, and possibly scary point was made in the dissenting argument.
Justice Thomas, dissenting along with Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice O’Connor wrote,
“Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can
regulate virtually anything, and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.”
I lean toward scary-ish.
In other scarry news…I agree with “timmy”. This was a badly worded decision. from the bits and drabs that I’ve read. Findlaw didn’t have the whole thing posted last time I checked. I’m going to have to go again later in the week. I frankly don’t understand Michelle’s article though.
nick and anyone else
the court’s decision, for and dissenting arguments, can be read in it’s entirety at:
http://wid.ap.org/documents/scotus/050606raich.pdf
timmy:
I tend to agree with Justice Thomas’s take on this matter, but in fairness to the majority, they purported to be leaving the Lopez and Morrison precedents intact, and to say that they were only upholding the federal statute because enforcement in this case was necessary for a comprehensive regulatory scheme involving interstate commerce, like the one in Wickard v. Filburn, which the Court hadn’t purported to overturn when it decided Lopez and Morrison. Randy Barnett (lawyer for the respondents) tried to show how this case should be distinguished from Wickard. Frankly, I thought his arguments were not slam-dunk winners. I am concerned, however, that the Court will use this decision as a step toward rejecting Lopez and Morrison and holding that “interstate commerce” really means any damn thing that Congress gets it in its mind to regulate.
I know of two people who use medical marijuana. Both of them have relatives sell it to finance their lifestyles. The cancer that they have doesn’t stop them from gambling, drinking, smoking or selling their legally (until now) obtained marijuana. Other cases may be different, but these are the two I know of.
This case doesn’t demonstrate the tyranny of the Supreme Court generally, but rather the political hackery of one Antonin Scalia.
At least you can say that most of the Justices in the majority hold a strong-federal-government constitutional philosophy.
And Rehnquist and Thomas remained true to their states rights ideology (which they only chose to shelve in Bush v. Gore).
But Scalia voting in favor of a federal override of state law is absolutely contrary to his professed ideology, especially given the fact that the marijuana in question in this case had absolutely no contact with interstate commerce.
He’s had less and less credibility over the years, and this opinion just seals it. He needs a long, long, duck hunting trip.
ajb…
I concur. Would that be a long, long duck hunting trip with or without President, er..um, Vice-President Dick “Haliburton” Cheney this time?