Posted on 03/04/2005 5:15:52 PM PST by Know your rights
Can California have its marijuana and smoke it too?
Since voters passed the Medical Marijuana Act in 1996, the state law has been seemingly in contradiction with federal laws that say marijuana is an illegal drug under any circumstances.
The U.S. Supreme Court is now reviewing Ashcroft vs. Raich, in which a decision is expected any day regarding the federal government's authority over the matter.
And according to Americans for Safe Access, a group working for medical marijuana rights, now may be as good a time as any for a ruling to be made.
"Right now, the Supreme Court is definitely oriented towards state rights," said campaign director Hilary McQuie. "I don't want to make a bet, but that more than any other factor could be in favor of the Reich decision."
California resident Angel Raich, a prescribed medical marijuana user, sued the federal government in 2002 to challenge federal laws that banned her from using the substance under the Medical Marijuana Act.
After the act passed, federal agents began periodic raids in California to break up marijuana cooperatives, saying that the federal Controlled Substance Act (CSA) does not recognize medical marijuana.
While the US Constitution grants policing power to states, it stipulates that the federal government may intervene when the situation involves commerce between states.
According to court documents, the federal government believes it can override the state law using the CSA because there are sales taking place.
But a Dec 16, 2003 ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decided that using "the CSA is an unconstitutional exercise of Congress' Commerce Clause authority." The government's appeal of that decision landed the case in the Supreme Court in April of 2004.
Patrick Murphy, a California drug policy expert, says that the case could easily go either way at this point; regardless, Californians who support medical marijuana shouldn't panic if the court rules in favor the government.
"The notion of an individual in possession is now a question that a state can make a judgment on and this decision won't overturn that," Murphy said. "More likely, this could settle the question of whether state law is trumped by federal."
The Drug Free America Foundation, an umbrella group that filed a brief in favor of the government's position, did not return calls from The California Aggie for comment.
Despite the assurance that medical marijuana users would still be protected under state law, some wonder whether the federal government could use a win to conduct more frequent raids.
Murphy said the likelihood of such action is low, although the government may still decide to target doctors in an effort to make an example of them.
"But you have to have someone out there willing to make the arrest, and then you also have to have someone willing to prosecute it, and it's just not a very good use of resources," he continued. "Frankly, drugs just aren't a priority for the federal government anymore."
Even a ruling in favor of Raich, although viewed as a big boost for medical marijuana advocates, is something McQuie said is only a minor protection in the larger picture.
"It doesn't end the fight for medical marijuana if it wins because we need to have it rescheduled at the federal level," McQuie said. "But it is a move in the right direction."
Ain't nothin wrong w/ "potlove", not in the least.
Well if it's tiring, then why do you continue to join these threads?
...SCOTUS is more tilted toward international law than states rights...
So it would seem. The more I think about it the more I think that their recent decision on the DP is a sign of things to come. I think it's going to get ugly. There's a big power struggle brewing and the liberals are digging in their heels.
I think they might be prepared to shut down the Senate in order to stop the Repulican agenda on Judicial Nominees. They aren't exactly coming off as warm and friendly on the other major issues either. McCain said as much the other night on Hanity and Colmes. I don't think he was kidding. The gloves might just be fixing to come off.
Hmmmmmmm....that's very similar to an article I posted earlier today:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43114
Or sodomy? Or suicide?
Your RKBA is defined and protected by your state constitution, not the second amendment.
The second amendment is a restriction on the federal government only. And we should thank God every morning that it is so, and pray that it remains that way.
I do not want the federal government protecting my RKBA. No more than I want a fox protecting my hen house.
You can waste your time supposing all you want to. It's a free country.
He does have a point with respect to the Lopez and VAWA cases, but I will be very surprised if they rule in favor of Raich.
You could end up on general welfare by betting on the USSC making a principled decision.
Stop going off on your drugs. It's LAME. Go to some pro drug forum or erowid for God's sake.
He's right, stfu about this drug insanity. Go away.
Think you can stop me?????
Tobacco good, marijuana bad....
L
Oh no, I've mentioned on other threads that I smoke marijuana. I'll gladly go to jail for it, 'cuz I'll know that will leave one less bed for murders, rapists, & child abusers who deserve it much more than I do...& who would YOU prefer taking up jail space: REAL criminals like those, or non-violent pot smokers like me who minds his own business & are not a threat to others?
Are you a nicotine addict? I used to be; Just wait a few more years when tobacco may be a crime...or obeisity, fatty foods, speaking out against homosexuality, & all the rest.
Give me a break, you're a criminal NOW, not under your paranoid other crap.
Oh please....what'cha gonna do, bad boy? What'cha gonna do???
Really, there are people that care about you, even here. For your own sake and for your soul, just stop using drugs. Legally and morally, you know it's the right thing. Can't you stop?
Call me paranoid if you will, but haven't you been listening to the news lately? In Canada, it's already a crime to denounce homosexuality, & many folks in the US wanna see the same thing here. It's getting more difficult for people to smoke cigarettes in this country, & taxes on them are increasing all the time. I just heard a story on FOX about how some employers are firing employees for being too fat or not quitting smoking. I listened to a FL legislator say this evening on Joe Scarborough that the legal driving age should be raised from 16 to 18 (not to mention the fact that the FEDS will now get involved in issuing driver's licenses, which will eventually lead to a national ID card)....individual liberty in this country is decreasing as the size of government grows (but then again, the Founders knew that when you have more of one, the less you will have of the other).
Driving age to 18, well.... I don't know. It might be a good idea, it might not. Most accidents are from 16-21, but that might be because they are just new drivers. Adding the age may help, it may not. If it helps, then I'd agree with going to 18.
Nationalizing ID is scary. Will only punish the law abiding and not the illegals or other criminals.
Cigarettes are legal. Food service places should be able to allow or ban them at their whim.
The 1st amendment and 2nd amendment are non-negotiable to me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.