U.S. Supreme Court: Government can bar medical marijuana use

Reuters / Yahoo ^ | 6/6/05

[Xbvalk]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The federal government has the power to prevent sick patients from smoking home-grown marijuana that a doctor recommended to relieve their chronic pain, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday.

The high court decided that a federal law outlawing marijuana applied to two seriously ill California women, even though California is one of at least nine states that allow medical use of marijuana.

Justice John Paul Stevens said for the court majority that the federal law, the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, was a valid exercise of federal power by the Congress "even as applied to the troubling facts of this case."

[JeffAtlanta]

Already several threads on this.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

So you guys are buddies?

Tell him it sure looks like he went out of his way to go along with the administration.

Liberal judges never arrive at the correct conclusion through faulty logic. Conservative judges don't either, unless they are sucking up, looking for the big promo. This is another faulty decision based on weak precedence and faulty logic.

[SittinYonder]

what- no right to "privacy"?

There is not right to privacy. It's a states rights issue.

[SittinYonder]

pharmaceutical companies took the day off to celebrate the decision

bttt

[stan_sipple]

Scalia concurrence
http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZC.html
Thomas dissent
http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZD1.html

[tacticalogic]

Scalia concurred in a separate opinion, agreeing with the socially liberal majority but refusing to buy off on their logic. I'll wager his decision is the most cogent and constitutionally-sound decision of the bunch. He has yet to disappoint.

I'm betting he agrees with Thomas in principle, but starts getting touchy-feely when it gets down to application.

[TBP]

What section of the Constitution do they think grants the Federal government this power?

This probably is a state matter.

[stan_sipple]

Thomas has said he wants to s***can the "dormant commerce clause" line of cases altogether, i say amen; it isnt the Supremes job to regulate the economy until Congress bothers to do its job, if necessary

[gieriscm]

Link to Main Opinion

BARF ALERT!

[stan_sipple]

Ill read later, anything Stevens says qualifies; even my ultraliberal lawschool professors used to laugh at Stevens' opinions

[stan_sipple]

Ill read later, anything Stevens says qualifies; even my ultraliberal lawschool professors used to laugh at Stevens' opinions

[Dominic Harr]

What section of the Constitution do they think grants the Federal government this power?

More 'Commerce Clause' insanity, apparently.

From Scalia's comments:

"Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce."

[AFPhys]

Thanks

[conserv13]

I agree with you. In fact, I think just about 90% of what is currently under Federal jurisdiction should be left to the states.

[conserv13]

"Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce."

The law needs to be changed.

[Paul C. Jesup]

U.S. Supreme Court: Government can bar medical marijuana use

Considering five of the nine Supreme Court Justices have various types of cancer, I am sure they are going to live to regret this.

[Wolfie]

Understood. My comment was aimed at the author.

[nonsporting]

From Scalia's comments: "Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce."

But how can "banning" commerce be "regulating" commerce? Heck, Amendment XVIII(18) was considered necessary to "prohibit the manufacture, sale or transportation of intoxicating liquors."

Apparently this present Court feels this amendment(18) was unnecessary and that Amendment XXI (21), which repealed XVIII, was also unnecessary.

I'm waiting to hear that "saving money" is a violation of Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce. Not spending my money has one tremendous effect on both intrastate and interstate commerce.

[TBP]

"Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce."

I love Scalia, but that is a very broad interpretation of "interstate commerce." Taken literally, that allows the Federal government to do just about anything it wants. I can see a Federal role in prohibiting drug importation under the Constitution, or even in carrying it across state lines, but this broad interpretation is dangerous. For example, people living in Maryland attend a church in Virginia (for historical reasons.) Near the church is a supermarket that has notably lower prices on meat and produce, so on Sunday afternoons, they buy there.

Now, they take those groceries home to Maryland. Does that mean the Federal government can interfere in their dealings with this supermarket? After all, their purchases there affect supermarket chains that have stores in both states and the stores near them. That sounds like it falls under Justice Scalia's interpretation.

This is a states-rights issue.

[barkeep]

Trust me, I am a big Scalia fan, but his dissent here is a disappointment. Check out the other decision today on Cruise lines and ADA, Inspector, I think. Maybe you can reconcile the difference in application of the Commerce Clause in each, I can't. Rehnquist and O'Connor went same way on both, Thomas ans Scalia swapped sides on the two issues.