Court: The dying can be charged for using marijuana

[jackofallgeeks]

Wait. What?

The Supreme Court ruled against Raich two years ago, saying that medical marijuana users and their suppliers could be prosecuted for breaching federal drug laws even if they lived in a state such as California where medical pot is legal.

Article Here

Comments

[higheststar.livejournal.com]

It violates the commerce clause of the constitution. If ya really want the explanation let me know.

[jackofallgeeks.livejournal.com]

Really want the explanation. ^_^ In gory, gory details, if you're up for it. I mean, someone using a drug medicinally in a state where the drug is legal to be used medicinally can be charged with a federal offense for using the drug? That seems to offend not just reason but the right of states to govern themselves.

[higheststar.livejournal.com]

Ok, without getting toooo much into constitutional law here goes. The Constitution gives Congress the right to makes laws regarding interstate commerce. So for a while there was no cases on this. But then all the sudden in the 19th century the SC gets commerce clause happy (they go through phases, those temperamental judges).

So for example, a HUGE case is about this guy who grows his wheat for his own consumption beyond limitations imposed by Congress. He's a farmer (duh). The court holds that Congress may reulate local activities which in the aggregate have a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce. Applied to the case, farm production is intended for consumption on the farm is subject to Congress commerce power since it may have a substantial economic effect. This was in 1942.

Fast forward to present day and the court takes on the commerce clause again in 95 when the try to apply it to a gun-free school zone case and law that would allow rape victims to sue for civil damages. Supreme Court says no go. (Morrison and Lopez were the cases if interested). But then this Raich case appears again and they say okay, here the commerce clause applies. The Controlled Substance Act (the subject of Raich) is a consitutional use of the commerce clause because Congress could have rationally concluded that the aggregate impact on the national market of all the transactions exempted from federal supervision in unquestionable substantial. Thus it meets the rationale basis test the Supreme Courts uses on such laws to see if they are Constitutional.

Sooo...in English, because if you allow people in California to freely make marijuana, it will economically affect the marijuana use elsewhere which can be regulated by Congress.

Questions?

[jackofallgeeks.livejournal.com]

No, I think I got it. It still seems stupid, though.

[higheststar.livejournal.com]

A lot of supreme court cases you sit there after and think to yourself, okay, i got it, and that is the stupidest reasoning I ever heard of.

[dikaiosunh.livejournal.com]

I think higheststar covered it pretty well. I just wanted to add that saying that medical marijuana in CA is "legal" is a bit misleading. The ability to regulate interstate commerce is one of the clearly enumerated powers of the federal government in the Constitution, so if it's true that federal drug laws are examples of such legislation, then they're squarely within the federal powers, even on a very narrow reading. So, CA wouldn't have the power to make marijuana legal, any more than CA has the power to declare war.

Now, maybe you think that using interstate commerce for drug laws is stupid... that's a whole different argument.

[jackofallgeeks.livejournal.com]

That would be the proverbial head of the nail you just hit.