Posted on 11/12/2004 5:01:33 PM PST by Wolfie
US Supreme Court to Hear Medicinal Marijuana Case
Doctors in some parts of the United States have prescribed marijuana to people suffering from a variety of medical conditions; from glaucoma patients to cancer victims undergoing painful chemotherapy. Though it is used for medicinal purposes in many parts of the world, marijuana remains illegal in most countries.
Eleven U.S. states currently allow the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes. The issue was also voted on in three states in the November election. It won passage in the northern state of Montana. But voters in the western state of Oregon turned down an initiative for strengthening an existing law that currently allows medicinal marijuana use. And an initiative for outright legalization failed in Alaska.
The case before the Supreme Court, Raich et. al. vs. Ashcroft, stems from a California woman's appeal of her conviction under a federal narcotics law - the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 - that prohibits the distribution and sale of marijuana and other illegal drugs across state lines. She and her co-defendants contend their home-grown plants were not being sold to people in other states and are therefore not in violation of the federal law regulating "commerce among the states."
Steph Sherer is the executive director of the advocacy group, Americans for Safe Access. She says the federal law should not be enforced, especially in the more than eleven states, including California, that protect medical marijuana users from being prosecuted for drug trafficking:
"The argument can be made for a patient who's living in California that's growing their own medicine, there's no interstate commerce that's happening. So therefore, the federal government does not have the jurisdiction to step in and interfere in these laws."
She says marijuana can be used for relief from a variety of illnesses, including multiple sclerosis.
"Everything from helping chronic pain to being used as an anti-nausea medication. It is also used by M.S. patients to stop tremors and muscle spasticity. Scientists in Israel have found that the cannabinoid in the marijuana plant could actually be the precursor to stopping the on-set of Alzheimer's."
Ms. Scherer's claims run counter to the view of U.S. government medical professionals. David Murray, with the National Drug Control Policy office, says marijuana in its dried leaf form - provides no proven medicinal benefits.
"Smoked marijuana has never qualified as an accepted or proved medicine, has never demonstrated, by the standard criteria any new drug would have to go through before being approved, that it is safe to be used and that it is effective."
But Mr. Murray adds that the U.S. government is still evaluating whether the chemical compounds in marijuana might be broken down for their possible medical value.
"Research is going forward to identify cannabinoid active ingredients that can be purified, regulated, standardized and dosed the threatening and risky elements removed and perhaps they could be turned into effective medicines for particular medical conditions. I think those trials are underway and so far, the results are promising but not convincing as yet."
In Britain, the law says cannabis can only be produced, possessed or supplied for research purposes under government license. G.W. Pharmaceuticals is one of the main British companies involved in cannabis drug trials. Company spokesman Mark Rogerson says G.W.'s product; called Sativex is currently awaiting regulatory approval in the United Kingdom.
"Approvals in the U.K. take between 12 and 18 months. That's par for the course if you like. The 18th month milestone was passed a month or so ago. So that's why we hope very much that we're in the final stages."
Mr. Rogerson says the medicine is derived from a whole plant extract, meaning it contains the two main ingredients of marijuana. It is administered as a mouth spray. If it is accepted in Britain, approval for other European countries' markets will likely follow. But he concedes the United States is a difficult and expensive market in which approval for the new drug is less certain.
"We fully recognize that the U.S. is a huge opportunity for us. But at the moment, our thinking is: let's work in areas where the practical barriers to entry are a bit lower, for example, the European Union and the Commonwealth. We'll save the United States for when we're a bit bigger and stronger."
The drug is also awaiting approval in Canada. In the meantime, the government's Health Canada agency says dried marijuana is distributed through legal avenues as a compassionate gesture to sick people. The drug is ordered from a government-funded and controlled cannabis plantation. But Canadian government scientists are still studying this program to make sure that the medical marijuana is both safe and effective.
An Israeli pharmaceutical company, Pharmos, is also testing a variant on the active ingredient in marijuana. The developer was scheduled to complete trials in September and hoped to follow with a U.S. Food & Drug Administration review that is expected to extend into 2006.
Experts are uncertain whether this month's Supreme Court hearing will lay the groundwork for tougher laws against medicinal marijuana use or provide a blueprint for future legal distribution of the drug. In either case, health activists, social policy makers and international drug companies will be awaiting the Court's final ruling with great interest.
Hi noob.
Are you a recycled Drug Warrior that wore out your welcome?
Oops. Don't post before coffee. (Another drug dependency.)
Interesting analogy. In fact, the reasoning used to expand the commerce clause could be expanded to child raising, since your son or daughter very well may grow up to move to another state and affect trade there.
Did the civil war erase the IX and X amendments?
Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the PEOPLE.
Amendment X: 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.
"Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God?" --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia, 1782.
GOD MADE HERB
GOD SAW THAT IT WAS GOOD
GOD GAVE IT TO MAN
Genesis 1:11
Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth"; and it was so.
Genesis 1:12
And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:29
And God said, "See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food.
Anyone wanting to get the federal back into confines of it's constitutional boundaries better be paying attention, too.
It is.
James Madison to Joseph C. Cabell
13 Feb. 1829Letters 4:14--15
For a like reason, I made no reference to the "power to regulate commerce among the several States." I always foresaw that difficulties might be started in relation to that power which could not be fully explained without recurring to views of it, which, however just, might give birth to specious though unsound objections. Being in the same terms with the power over foreign commerce, the same extent, if taken literally, would belong to it. Yet it is very certain that it grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government, in which alone, however, the remedial power could be lodged.
Yeah, seems Madison didn't seal that leak nearly tight enough, as some folks at the time warned. I love Madison, but "general welfare" and "interstate commerce" have hurt us bad.
They didn't hurt us bad until the New Deal, which was essentially a coup against the Constitution.
FDR is our Hitler, a man who's memory should be consigned to a special hell, and whos works should be undone with the assiduousness of the destruction of the gas chambers. Those who justify government powers today on the basis of New Deal novelties are no better than Nazis, and should be lined up and shot, as they have no legitimacy whatsoever.
Revolutionary indeed, at least in the post-New Deal America. Here's the precedent which the Bush administration is using to justify keeping homegrown weed a federal matter:
Wickard v FilburnIMO, this medical marijuana case is the most important case that'll be decided this year. At issue is where the line limiting federal power will be drawn. No doubt Rehnquist will author the opinion. This decision will pretty much be the grand finale of his federalism jurisprudence, and I can't wait to read it. I'm afraid the Court's gonna go along with the Bush administration on this though. It's too bad, really.
317 U.S. 111 (1942)Abstract
Argued: October 13, 1942
Decided: November 9, 1942Facts of the Case
Filburn was a small farmer in Ohio. He was given a wheat acreage allotment of 11.1 acres under a Department of Agriculture directive which authorized the government to set production quotas for wheat. Filburn harvested nearly 12 acres of wheat above his allotment. He claimed that he wanted the wheat for use on his farm, including feed for his poultry and livestock. Fiburn was penalized. He argued that the excess wheat was unrelated to commerce since he grew it for his own use.
Question Presented
Is the amendment subjecting Filburn to acreage restrictions in violation of the Constitution because Congress has no power to regulate activities local in nature?
Conclusion
According to Filburn, the act regulated production and consumption, which are local in character. The rule laid down by Justice Jackson is that even if an activity is local and not regarded as commerce, "it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce, and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect.'"
If they do, there's going to be some hairs split and re-split finding a bright line between Wickard and Lopez or Morrison to base it on.
I think you're right. The left side of the Court won't jeopardize the New Deal Commerce Clause and I expect Scalia and Rehnquist will find a "compelling government interest" in controlling drugs. As for O'Connor, who knows?
Clarence Thomas is the only solid vote I see against the Feds.
Now, say the Court rules for the Feds. That does not mean that the CA law is voided, correct? IOW, such a ruling means the Feds can make arrests, but CA can still have the program. Is that your understanding?
Justice Thomas, concurring.
The Court today properly concludes that the Commerce Clause does not grant Congress the authority to prohibit gun possession within 1,000 feet of a school, as it attempted to do in the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990, Pub. L. 101-647, 104 Stat. 4844.
Although I join the majority, I write separately to observe that our case law has drifted far from the original understanding of the Commerce Clause.
In a future case, we ought to temper our Commerce Clause jurisprudence in a manner that both makes sense of our more recent case law and is more faithful to the original understanding of that Clause.
Well the Court excels at hairsplitting. Anyway, this hair's been split before. Look at Lopez:
Section 922(q) is not an essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity, in which the regulatory scheme could be undercut unless the intrastate activity were regulated. It cannot, therefore, be sustained under our cases upholding regulations of activities that arise out of or are connected with a commercial transaction, which viewed in the aggregate, substantially affects interstate commerce.The Court will likely say that the opposite holds true with regard to medical marijuana, i.e., federal control of intrastate weed is an "essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity, and the regulatory scheme could be undercut unless the intrastate activity were regulated." Heck, the Controlled Substances Act says essentially the same thing right in the Congressional Findings section. Federal control will therefore be "sustained under [the Court's] cases upholding regulations of activities that arise out of or are connected with a commercial transaction, which viewed in the aggregate, substantially affects interstate commerce." That means, sustained under Wickard.
I think it'll be unanimous. Thomas will again concur with a disclaimer.
IOW, such a ruling means the Feds can make arrests, but CA can still have the program. Is that your understanding?
Pretty much. But expect a major crackdown by the feds once this is settled. CA may still have the program, but I doubt there'll be many participants.
I have to agree. The only thing that has kept it alive so long has been it no going before the Supreme Court.
IMHO, Thomas is going to have to do some backpedaling from Lopez to concur:
"The majority opinion correctly applies our decision in United States v. Lopez, 514 U. S. 549 (1995), and I join it in full. I write separately only to express my view that the very notion of a ‘substantial effects’ test under the Commerce Clause is inconsistent with the original understanding of Congress’ powers and with this Court’s early Commerce Clause cases. By continuing to apply this rootless and malleable standard, however circumscribed, the Court has encouraged the Federal Government to persist in its view that the Commerce Clause has virtually no limits. Until this Court replaces its existing Commerce Clause jurisprudence with a standard more consistent with the original understanding, we will continue to see Congress appropriating state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce."
Wickard v Filburn is the major point of departure from the orignal understanding, and it is indeed a case of Congress appropriating state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce. I don't see Thomas as the backpedaling type.
Congress neglected to substantiate their finding of substantial effects in the Gun Free Schools Act. In Lopez they had extensive documentation to support the claim, but the court didn't buy it.
When the CSA was passed, the standard was that a finding of "substantial effect" by Congress was sufficient in and of itself, and the court would defer to Congress on that finding. Wickard v Filburn gave Congress a blank check. It's time to close the account.
I totally agree. I just don't think it's gonna happen. Hope I'm wrong.
Why?
Hopefully CA will wise up, and de-centralize their program. No names, no cards, no records.
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.