Tuesday, June 7th 2005
War on Drugs Freedom Continues
Putting aside the topic of race and diversity for a while, here’s something else that has pissed me off:
Medical marijuana patients and providers can be arrested and prosecuted under federal law, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday, effectively ending an Oakland woman’s legal odyssey and moving the issue from the courts to Congress.
The 6-3 decision essentially concluded that even marijuana grown in back yards for personal medical use can affect or contribute to the illegal interstate market for marijuana and therefore is within Congress’ constitutional reach. The dissenters — some of the court’s most conservative voices — said the majority is letting the federal government overstep its proper bounds.
Here is what passes for a “criminal” in this day and age:
Angel McClary Raich of Oakland, one of two patients who brought this case, said Monday she had no regrets…
Raich says without the drug’s appetite boost, her wasting syndrome causes rapid, dangerous weight loss. She also suffers from maladies including an inoperable brain tumor and nonepileptic seizures, and on Monday she announced she’d been diagnosed in April with precervical cancer for which she’ll need a hysterectomy.
Halting her marijuana use would be fatal, she said, and she no longer considers moving to a country where her medicine is legal. Her 19-year-old son departs for U.S. Army training next week, she said: “I have to stay here and fight for my life for him.”
Click more for much, much more.
Here are some local opinions:
- ABC7: Political Impact Of Medical Pot Ruling
Robert Maccoun, U.C. Berkeley: “I think what they fear is that these buyers clubs are a slippery slope towards Dutch-style cannibis coffee shops.
Robert Maccoun teaches public policy classes at U.C. Berkeley’s law school. He notes the Supreme Court’s decision encourages Congress to act on the issue of medical marijuana. But he doesn’t think that’s likely.
Robert Maccoun, U.C. Berkeley: “And I think we’ll see a lot of timidity. For example, I think there’s a strong case to be made for rescheduling marijuana as a schedule two drug but I don’t think there’s the political willpower to make that happen.”
- LA Times: Marijuana Patients Remain Defiant
But advocates of medical marijuana, and some patients, expressed worry about what might happen to the organizations that have sprung up to distribute the drug in the state. The court victory might embolden federal prosecutors to go after such groups, they said.
Dr. Frank Lucido, a Berkeley family practitioner who specializes in medical marijuana recommendations, predicted the federal government might raid a few “high-profile clubs, probably those with lower standards.”
- San Diego Union Tribune: Medical pot users can be prosecuted, justices rule
Jesse Choper, a professor at the Boalt Hall School of Law at the University of California Berkeley, said the ruling maintains the status quo.
“Those who want to use medical marijuana are no worse off than they were before,” he said. However, “there’s no legal question any longer that if you dispense marijuana for any purpose, you’re in violation of federal statute.”
More litigation is inevitable because so many other issues must still be resolved, Choper said.
- Contra Costa Times: Supreme Court ruling does little to stifle pro-marijuana advocates
The possibility of a sweep will not deter Dr. Tod Mikuriya, a Berkeley psychiatrist who says he has recommended marijuana for about 9,000 patients who suffer from chronic pain and related depression.
Mikuriya recently was placed on probation and fined $75,000 by the Medical Board of California, but that hasn’t stopped him from continuing to recommend marijuana for some of his patients.Nor, he said, would Monday’s ruling.
“My patients are very concerned, of course, because they don’t want to be singled out for persecution,” Mikuriya said. “I’m encouraging everybody to contact (Lockyer) to get him to reaffirm his support for our state law and ask him what he’s going to do about this mess.”
Thank you Justices Thomas, Rhenquist, and O’Connor for doing the right thing. The rest of them, especially Scalia, should be ashamed of themselves.
You know who is to blame for this (besides Ashcroft and the Bush Administration)? FDR. This whole thing is because of the New Deal. That little piece of work has been causing serious economic and social damage for 70 years. And some people still think it was a good idea… From Wikipedia:
Wickard v. Filburn, 317 US 111 (1942) was a United States Supreme Court decision which related to the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution which allows the United States Congress “To regulate Commerce … among the several States.”
During the New Deal, under the Agricultural Adjustment Act, Roscoe Filburn was a farmer who argues that his wheat did not fall under production quotas as the excess never left his farm, being consumed there. The Supreme Court held that even though it was not part of interstate commerce, it affected national markets, thus was part of “Commerce … among the several States.”
The case has recently (as of 2004) been revived in the case of Ashcroft v. Raich about the Controlled Substances Act and medical marijuana.
Abuse of the Commerce Clause has been used to implement all sorts of restrictions on our liberties. Justice Thomas is one of the very few who have the courage to speak out against it. His dissent:
Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything–and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.
He notes that this kind of power is totally out of step with American ideals:
Certainly no evidence from the founding suggests that “commerce” included the mere possession of a good or some purely personal activity that did not involve trade or exchange for value. In the early days of the Republic, it would have been unthinkable that Congress could prohibit the local cultivation, possession, and consumption of marijuana.
Political sidenote: I guess that my wish that Bush promotes Thomas to Chief Justice won’t be happening anytime soon. Thomas did the right thing, even though he knew he might have to suffer the consequences. I really don’t like Scalia.
This makes me worried about Bush’s potential nominees to the Supreme Court. Rhenquist is definitely leaving the court real soon. And there’s a chance that O’Connor would be next to go. So that would leave Thomas as the sole defender of liberty on the Court. Would a future Bush court rule 8 to 1 on related issues? I hope not, but I can see it happening… Bush has nominated some terrific candidates (ideologically near to Thomas) to lower courts. So there is a chance that he could put a winner on the Court, but he could also gives us another dud.
Actually, we have little hope for liberty in the near future. Bush needs to bring in Thomas-type conservatives/libertarians to replace the retiring ones. But we also need to have two of the leftists retire and be replaced by freedom-loving justices. That gives liberty a 5 to 4 majority. Yeah, it’s a long shot…
For more informed opinion, check the Volokh Conspiracy, Hit & Run, and the SCOTUSblog.
Saving lives with the munchies. Nice.
Comment by B.A.D. — 6/7/2005 @ 12:29 pm
I must say I agree…. at worst, the medical marijuana case should be established on a case-by-case basis. Its between a doctor and a patient. I don’t condone its use for … more frivolous purposes, but people cannot disregard the medical aspect of it. Furthermore, above and beyond this, it is simply not the government’s place to do this. This falls firmly within the realm of the states. All rights not expressly given to the government in the constitution belong to the states.
Comment by tigerhawkvok — 6/7/2005 @ 4:35 pm
to: tigerhawkvok
“but people cannot disregard the medical aspect of it”
Then please show us the studies that prove it helps- only in peer reviewed academic journals, please!
Comment by anon — 6/7/2005 @ 5:11 pm
It’s a shame that you don’t like Scalia. Maybe you should have read his concurring opinion, because it debunks your new deal obsession. Scalia did not fully agree with the majority, and had his own reasons for his vote. Look at this part:
“In the CSA, Congress has undertaken to extinguish the interstate market in Schedule I controlled substances, including marijuana. The Commerce Clause unquestionably permits this. The power to regulate interstate commerce “extends not only to those regulations which aid, foster and protect the commerce, but embraces those which prohibit it.” Darby, 312 U.S., at 113. See also Hipolite Egg Co. v. United States, 220 U.S. 45, 58 (1911); Lottery Case, 188 U.S. 321, 354 (1903). To effectuate its objective, Congress has prohibited almost all intrastate activities related to Schedule I substances–both economic activities (manufacture, distribution, possession with the intent to distribute) and noneconomic activities (simple possession). See 21 U.S.C. § 841(a), 844(a). That simple possession is a noneconomic activity is immaterial to whether it can be prohibited as a necessary part of a larger regulation. Rather, Congress’s authority to enact all of these prohibitions of intrastate controlled-substance activities depends only upon whether they are appropriate means of achieving the legitimate end of eradicating Schedule I substances from interstate commerce.”
Notice the citations are from the early 20th century?
Scalia also relies heavily on McCulloh vs. Maryland
“Congress need not accept on faith that state law will be effective in maintaining a strict division between a lawful market for “medical” marijuana and the more general marijuana market. See id., at 26—27, and n. 38. “To impose on [Congress] the necessity of resorting to means which it cannot control, which another government may furnish or withhold, would render its course precarious, the result of its measures uncertain, and create a dependence on other governments, which might disappoint its most important designs, and is incompatible with the language of the constitution.” McCulloch, supra, at 424.”
And there is it is…from the smartest man on the court.
Comment by anon — 6/7/2005 @ 5:27 pm
Scalia isn’t a bad guy. Much better than the leftist justices, that’s for sure. But Thomas is way ahead of him when it comes to defending freedom.
Here is the main reason why. Thomas cares about the true intent of the Constitution, and if a previous ruling goes against that intent, he’ll disregard it. Scalia cares more about maintaining the status quo.
And of course there were abuses of the Commerce Clause before the New Deal. The New Deal was just one of the biggest. I bring it up because the majority opinion used Wickard to back their ruling. But do you really think those early 20th century cases that Scalia referenced stay true to the spirit of the Constitution? Thomas doesn’t think so. I mean if you want greater federal control over our lives, you’re entitled to that opinion. I’d rather see limitation of federal power, and so does Thomas.
Comment by patr — 6/7/2005 @ 6:05 pm
Interesting how you put words in my mouth. Scalia is all about original intent and he defines it quite well. His recent speech which was recorded and shown on CSPAN demonstrated just that.
Truth is Thomas is just a cheap Scalia knock off. It is nice that he can actually vote independent of Scalia; maybe he has finally earned his wings. Whatever the case, Scalia goes by original intent, even if you don’t agree with him on this case. This case concerns state actions that can go directly against federal aims. This decison does not strike down state law. The Federal government has the right to enforce this law because the federal government cannot be sure that states can actually enforce their own laws. Scalia has the quote from McCulloh for his evidence, to show just how old that argument is.
Comment by anon — 6/7/2005 @ 9:46 pm
To: Anon
When I refer to medical purposes, I refer primarily to the pain relief that it brings. How does it do this? It mimics the brains own chemicals that provide pain relief and, as a side effect, give you a high (like dopamine is a natural high for a human being). Thats all any drug (in the literal sense) does…it tries to mimic what your body already does. I don’t like the idea of its abuse any more than anyone here–but the fact is, its effects on the brain are undeniable. Morals vs. Pragmatism? I rely heavily on my morals in my everday life, and believe very strongly in a number of things. But, somtimes, what I believe has to fall prey to the facts of life.
Comment by tigerhawkvok — 6/8/2005 @ 8:26 pm
Scalia…Man, I don’t like that guy’s opinions.
To Patr:
I’m curious, did I read this wrong, or do you really believe that the two leftists on the court should be replaced by two more leftists? Why do you believe that? Is it because people in the status quo will be more content with a seemingly fair supreme court that typically leans to the right? Or, is there some other reason?
Comment by Conservative 771 — 6/9/2005 @ 2:13 am
771: You read it wrong. When I said the leftists should be replaced by “freedom-loving justices” I was implying that the leftists weren’t “freedom-loving” and should be replaced by ones that are more like Thomas. If we use this ruling as a baseline, 6-3, then my side will need a net gain of two justices to become the majority. Rhenquist will be out, and some think O’Connor will leave as well. They need to be replaced with similar-minded justices, but that still leaves us with the 6-3 status quo.
Now when a leftist retires, the Democrats are going to want to maintain the status quo by calling for another leftist to replace the retiring one. So it will be very hard for Republicans to change the balance of power. The Dems will grudgingly confirm to replace the conservatives with conservatives. But the real confirmation battles will be if/when Republicans try to replace a lefty with a righty. What we have seen with judicial blocking will be nothing in comparison to what we’ll face.
Comment by patr — 6/9/2005 @ 3:35 pm
Once again we have a case of a material solution instead of adressing the causes of these people’s conditions. All medical marajuana can do is deal with symptoms of disease, and albeit cheap and somewhat useful, shouldn’t the rest of you science types support the cure or prevention rather than simply the treatment?
I dislike articles like this, because it takes the focus away from the debate about marajuana use and focuses on pathos. Debates where feelings are concerned usually go nowhere and people get angry etc. I can’t really comment on the judicial part because I’m pretty sketchy there, so I’ll leave that to you all.
Comment by funsize — 6/9/2005 @ 10:48 pm
funsize: Good points. Yes, we should always focus on remedying the underlying causes of any problem instead of just the symptoms. In this case, I hope medical science will make great advances so as to make cancer and other afflictions history. But we’re not there yet, and there is basically nothing that we can do for these terminal patients. It borders on inhumane to force these people to live out the remainder of their lives in constant, agonizing pain.
On the subject of pathos and such (Now those two Rhetoric classes that I took can really pay off!): Yeah, it can be a gimmick sometimes. When you have nothing substantial to back up your opinions, you can always use emotional arguments. But you can also inject a bit of humanity into an already logically sound argument.
Drug use is one of those touchy subjects where one side or the other will almost always fall back to an emotional argument. It’s hard to appeal to logos/logic if the other side wants to play by other rules. Thus we have cases focusing on terminally ill medical marijuana users, and our televisions are filled with public service announcements about how some guy smoked pot and crashed his car into someone (or something like that).
So the drug debate will always turn into one focusing on morality rather than logic. You can run through a laundry list of facts detailing how alcohol or tobacco is more dangerous than marijuana, but if your audience is filled with people who are dead set against pot, you’ll get nowhere. But maybe showing them terminally ill patients who have no other alternative might change a couple of minds here and there. This approach seems to be working, as almost 80% of the American public supports legalizing the use of medical marijuana.
BTW, this case was less about medical marijuana and more about what is the extent of federal government power. That is why Justice O’Connor ruled in favor of the medical marijuana side, though she made it clear that she does not approve of it. And some of the liberal judges ruled against it in order to retain as much power for the federal government as they could, though they personally support medical marijuana.
Comment by patr — 6/10/2005 @ 12:20 am
Well, everyone pulls teh 14th amendment as a reason for the government stepping in everything. *Sighs*. People seem to forget that all powers not expressly granted to the government is given to the people and to the states.
But on the actual Marijuana bit, I think I should make it clear that I’m totally against marijuana for non-medicinal purposes, and only for it on medicinal purposes because, well, look at the Caulkin case. Two of the drugs he was abusing was legal, anyway, just presciption. It won’t really make any difference if its made a precription last-chance drug. Rather sad….it gets abused either way. I also have a close friend who has an aunt who is one of those that requires marijuana for medical use. *Shrugs*. I personally don’t condone it, but I can see its use.
Comment by tigerhawkvok — 6/11/2005 @ 12:56 am