Kind of confused

...The USSC believed (rightly or wrongly, probably on the shrill arguments/panic mongering by the DEA) that marijuana, even if home grown specifically for use under a doctor's orders and supervision, could end up in "interstate commerce", and therefore the Feds have a compelling interest in regulating it.

FWIW, Congress has bouncing around in its bowels a bill that would amend the 1933 Controlled Substances Act to allow medical marijuana. Right now, that bill has a snowball's chance in hell of passing, but there is a relatively large amount of support in the House (supporters say they have 150+ votes currently; they need 215). Timing is everything in something like this, so we sit back and wait in the bushes (no pun intended) for the right time to spring it.

[link|http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/06jun20051130/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/03-1454.pdf|The Decision] (79 page .pdf).

There are at least 2 competing constitutional ideas in conflict in this case. There's the [link|http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment10/|10th Amendment]:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Since the Constitution doesn't say anything about medical marijuana, the states should be free to regulate it.

However, the [link|http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article01/28.html|Commerce Clause][1] of [link|http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article01/index.html|Article 1 of the Constitution] says:

Section 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

[...]

The Commerce Clause is what has been used to justify much of the federal regulation in the US, especially since the 1930s. (Link [1] above talks about the Commerce Clause in more detail.) One person's proper regulation to protect health and safety is another person's oppressive boot of the federal government.

In short, the USSC majority held that Congress has the power to regulate marijuana use. And if Congress decides to outlaw its use for medical purposes, then that regulation trumps any state law permitting it.

Footnote 37 of the decision (p.27-28) says:

37 We acknowledge that evidence proffered by respondents in this case regarding the effective medical uses for marijuana, if found credible after trial, would cast serious doubt on the accuracy of the findings that require marijuana to be listed in Schedule I. See, e.g., Institute of Medicine, Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base 179 (J. Joy, S. Watson, & J. Benson eds. 1999) (recognizing that \ufffd[s]cientific data indicate the potential therapeutic value of cannabinoid drugs, primarily THC [Tetrahydrocannabinol] for pain relief, control of nausea and vomiting, and appetite stimulation\ufffd); see also Conant v. Walters, 309 F. 3d 629, 640\ufffd643 (CA9 2002) (Kozinski, J., concurring) (chronicling medical studies recognizing valid medical uses for marijuana and its derivatives). But the possibility that the drug may be reclassified in the future has no relevance to the question whether Congress now has the power to regulate its production and distribution. Respondents\ufffd submission, if accepted, would place all homegrown medical substances beyond the reach of Congress\ufffd regulatory jurisdiction.

They argue against the Respondent's submission, saying that if it's accepted (as it was in the dissents), then Congress would have no power to regulate any "homegrown medical substances" - a position they flatly reject.

The majority opinion concludes with (p.33-34 of the .pdf):

Respondents also raise a substantive due process claim and seek to avail themselves of the medical necessity defense. These theories of relief were set forth in their complaint but were not reached by the Court of Appeals. We therefore do not address the question whether judicial relief is available to respondents on these alternative bases. We do note, however, the presence of another avenue of relief. As the Solicitor General confirmed during oral argument, the statute authorizes procedures for the reclassification of Schedule I drugs. 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.

Under the present state of the law, however, the judgment of the Court of Appeals must be vacated. The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

In this and in many other cases recently, it seems that in order to gain (or regain) liberty that's based on reason and science, it's necessary for us to petition Congress. That's reasonable and proper. But I wonder how much less the 10th Amendment will mean in coming years...

HTH.

Cheers,
Scott.

Post #210,065 by warmachine 6/6/05 2:29:05 PM Reply	Kind of confused 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 marijuana in question was homegrown, distributed to patients without charge and without crossing state lines. This would suggest old farts in a moral panic except that Justice John Paul Stevens, writing the 6-3 decision, said that Congress could change the law to allow medical use of marijuana. means they wanted to allow it but couldn't. Am I missing something here? Matthew Greet Choose Life. Choose a job. Choose a career. Choose a family. Choose a fucking big television, choose washing machines, cars, compact disc players and electrical tin openers. Choose good health, low cholesterol, and dental insurance. Choose fixed interest mortgage repayments. Choose a starter home. Choose your friends. Choose leisurewear and matching luggage. Choose DIY and wondering who the fuck you are on a Sunday morning. Choose sitting on that couch watching mind-numbing, spirit-crushing game shows, stuffing fucking junk food into your mouth. Choose rotting away at the end of it all, pishing your last in a miserable home, nothing more than an embarrassment to the selfish, fucked up brats you spawned to replace yourself. Choose your future. Choose life... But why would I want to do a thing like that? I chose not to choose life. I chose somethin' else. And the reasons? There are no reasons. Who needs reasons when you've got heroin? - Mark Renton, Trainspotting.
Post #210,223 by andread 6/7/05 11:03:55 AM Reply	Re: Kind of confused with a decision like this that seems to fly in the face of the constitution many things are possible as gay marriage can be considered economic it may be next the court whether from the right or left often massages the law to achieve the 'desired result' A Play I Some Music w/ Papa Andy Saturday 8 PM - 11 PM ET All Night Rewind 11 PM - 5 PM Reggae, African and Caribbean Music [link\|http://wxxe.org\|Tune In]
Post #210,224 by jb4 6/7/05 11:04:14 AM Reply	According to the various mejia talking heads... ...The USSC believed (rightly or wrongly, probably on the shrill arguments/panic mongering by the DEA) that marijuana, even if home grown specifically for use under a doctor's orders and supervision, could end up in "interstate commerce", and therefore the Feds have a compelling interest in regulating it. FWIW, Congress has bouncing around in its bowels a bill that would amend the 1933 Controlled Substances Act to allow medical marijuana. Right now, that bill has a snowball's chance in hell of passing, but there is a relatively large amount of support in the House (supporters say they have 150+ votes currently; they need 215). Timing is everything in something like this, so we sit back and wait in the bushes (no pun intended) for the right time to spring it. jb4 shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub* + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf.* BULLSHIT
Post #210,229 by boxley 6/7/05 11:31:55 AM Reply	is it possible that the weed in question could travel accross state lines, that gives the feds jurisdiction. That particular clause of the constitution is interpreted so widely as to be meaningless. It was the same clause used to justify not having a pistol near a school.Thankfully that was struck down. thanx, bill All tribal myths are true, for a given value of "true" Terry Pratchett [link\|http://boxleys.blogspot.com/\|http://boxleys.blogspot.com/] Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 49 years. meep questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #210,349 by Another Scott 6/7/05 8:46:27 PM Reply	Use the source! [link\|http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/06jun20051130/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/03-1454.pdf\|The Decision] (79 page .pdf). There are at least 2 competing constitutional ideas in conflict in this case. There's the [link\|http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment10/\|10th Amendment]: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Since the Constitution doesn't say anything about medical marijuana, the states should be free to regulate it. However, the [link\|http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article01/28.html\|Commerce Clause][1] of [link\|http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article01/index.html\|Article 1 of the Constitution] says: Section 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To borrow Money on the credit of the United States; To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States; [...] The Commerce Clause is what has been used to justify much of the federal regulation in the US, especially since the 1930s. (Link [1] above talks about the Commerce Clause in more detail.) One person's proper regulation to protect health and safety is another person's oppressive boot of the federal government. In short, the USSC majority held that Congress has the power to regulate marijuana use. And if Congress decides to outlaw its use for medical purposes, then that regulation trumps any state law permitting it. Footnote 37 of the decision (p.27-28) says: 37 We acknowledge that evidence proffered by respondents in this case regarding the effective medical uses for marijuana, if found credible after trial, would cast serious doubt on the accuracy of the findings that require marijuana to be listed in Schedule I. See, e.g., Institute of Medicine, Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base 179 (J. Joy, S. Watson, & J. Benson eds. 1999) (recognizing that \ufffd[s]cientific data indicate the potential therapeutic value of cannabinoid drugs, primarily THC [Tetrahydrocannabinol] for pain relief, control of nausea and vomiting, and appetite stimulation\ufffd); see also Conant v. Walters, 309 F. 3d 629, 640\ufffd643 (CA9 2002) (Kozinski, J., concurring) (chronicling medical studies recognizing valid medical uses for marijuana and its derivatives). But the possibility that the drug may be reclassified in the future has no relevance to the question whether Congress now has the power to regulate its production and distribution. Respondents\ufffd submission, if accepted, would place all homegrown medical substances beyond the reach of Congress\ufffd regulatory jurisdiction. They argue against the Respondent's submission, saying that if it's accepted (as it was in the dissents), then Congress would have no power to regulate any "homegrown medical substances" - a position they flatly reject. The majority opinion concludes with (p.33-34 of the .pdf): Respondents also raise a substantive due process claim and seek to avail themselves of the medical necessity defense. These theories of relief were set forth in their complaint but were not reached by the Court of Appeals. We therefore do not address the question whether judicial relief is available to respondents on these alternative bases. We do note, however, the presence of another avenue of relief. As the Solicitor General confirmed during oral argument, the statute authorizes procedures for the reclassification of Schedule I drugs. 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. Under the present state of the law, however, the judgment of the Court of Appeals must be vacated. The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. In this and in many other cases recently, it seems that in order to gain (or regain) liberty that's based on reason and science, it's necessary for us to petition Congress. That's reasonable and proper. But I wonder how much less the 10th Amendment will mean in coming years... HTH. Cheers, Scott.

Welcome to IWETHEY!