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."
You are admitting that you can quit smoking tobacco, but you can not quit smoking THC.
Also, Render upon Caesar which is Caesars, Render upon God's with is God's.
Both are saying to avoid illegal drugs. I can only pray that you follow the right path.
Sure, I can give it up for good...but I don't want to, & WON'T. I love how THC mellows me out. I love the taste, how it gives me the munchies, & just talkin & laughin w/ my friends while sharin a joint.
I read on the Jerusalem Post that the Israeli defense forces are using marijuana to help soldiers who suffer from PTSD...I say more power to them!
Justice Thomas' was addressing the substantial effects doctrine in all its applications, not just guns.
I ask again, do you agree with Justice Thomas' comments about the substantial effects doctrine?
Then he said to them, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's.”
That's the exact quote. I will wish you follow it. Forgive my bad memory quotes before.
If Thomas was saying drugs were legal, I'd disagree. If he's talking about the 2nd amendment, I'll agree.
You may 'love it', that's sad. I hope you'll be turned away from the evil it's introducing to your mind and body. Good luck sir.
And, you don't want to give up your drug. No addict does. It's very difficult to grow up and get beyond a chemical that runs your life as such.
I again pray that you will be able to.
Thomas was not saying drugs were legal, and the case did not involve the Second Amendment.
Now, do you agree or disagree with Justice Thomas' opinion?
You are picking and choosing at your whim a very long and drawn out discussion.
Do I agree with your rationalization of it? No.
Get a grip, dude...I know what addiction is like. I was a tobacco addict for 19 yrs! Going w/o nicotine had terrible effects on me b4 I finished the long process of kicking the habit--while going w/o weed doesn't bother me. You are comparing apples to oranges. Pray all you want to...if that's how you choose to waste your time, then so be it.
"At an appropriate juncture, I think we must modify our Commerce Clause jurisprudence. Today, it is easy enough to say that the Clause certainly does not empower Congress to ban gun possession within 1,000 feet of a school."
The conclusion however, I will agree with that.
Also, your "no addict does" remark doesn't make any sense either...'cuz when I quit being a tobacco addict, I had to prepare myself months beforehand. I had to set the goal of quitting, think about it regularly, set a quit date, tell my friends, family, & co-workers,& DO IT.
Even now I still go to the Stop Smoking Center's website to check my progress, even after all this time. Maybe just once a month now, but it still keeps me motivated.
Yes, but you can't stop pot. That's a true addict.
I just can't get thru to you, can I? I think you are in a state of denial, one that refuses to accept the fact that marijuana isn't addictive like nicotine is. But regardless of that, I know what I'm talking about. Are you one of those members in the Flat Earth Society?
You can't admit that you can't stop pot, can you? There's nothing more to it. You simply CAN NOT STOP!
This drug has a hold on you, you are unable to say 'I'll never do it again'. You'll say 'Oh, it's just cause I wanna'. Or whatever excuse.
You simply can't stop. No matter what laws you break or what awful economy you're supporting.
You just can not stop.
(sigh)......WHATEVER. If you say so. You crack me up, really. Good nite.
Ok, but you can't stop and you know it.
I hope the best for you, maybe you'll wake up someday and stop. The way you're acting though, I suspect you're a goner.
Hogwash. Clarence Thomas' argument is very straightforward. You just don't want to answer the question.
C'mon, step up to the plate!
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.