Replies

Footnote to Thomas singular dissent opinion. He in essence says that since the SC rules that the medical marijuana case (Reich) violated the commerce clause and feds could control it, that has to be the prevailing rule here alsao, as this is more true to interstate commerce (prescription medicine)

He makes a valid point, and I can see his argument, but I agree with the majority. I just disagree with their opinion of it. I also disagreed with the Reich case ruling. That being said, Justice Thomas is a smart smart man.

The respondents in Raich were “local growers and users of state-authorized, medical marijuana,” who stood “outside the interstate drug market” and possessed “ ‘medicinal marijuana . . . not intended for . . . the stream of commerce.’ ” 545 U. S., at ___, ___, (slip op., at 5, 16) (THOMAS, J., dissenting). Here, by contrast, the respondent-physicians are active participants in the interstate controlled substances market, and the drugs they prescribe for assisting suicide have likely traveled in interstate commerce. If the respondents in Raich could not sustain a constitutional claim, then a fortiori respondents here cannot sustain one. Respondents’ acceptance of Raich forecloses their constitutional challenge.