Pubdate: Thu, 23 Dec 2004
Source: Ventura County Star (CA)
Copyright: 2004 The E.W. Scripps Co.
Contact:  http://www.staronline.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/479
Author: Mark Moller
Note: Mark Moller is a senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato
Institute, and the editor-in-chief of the Cato Supreme Court Review.
Cited: Raich v. Ashcroft www.angeljustice.org/
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Cannabis - Medicinal)

MEDICINAL MARIJUANA USERS' DEFENSE PANICS SOME LIBERALS

In Ashcroft v. Raich, the Supreme Court will decide a lawsuit brought
by a pair of very sick California women, Angel Raich and Diane Monson.
Both grow marijuana in their back yards. Under California law, the
drug is legal under doctor's orders. Even so, the Department of
Justice says federal agents can prosecute both women.

To preserve their access to needed medicine, Raich and Monson
challenged the U.S. attorney general in court. Their basis for doing
so was the Constitution's Commerce Clause, which says government can
regulate "interstate" commerce. According to Raich and Monson, their
drug is grown at home for personal consumption. It's lawful under
California law. And it's not sold to people outside the state. So they
argue it's not "interstate" commerce that the federal government can
regulate.

The case has provoked a panic attack among some liberals. The New York
Times, for example, suggests the Commerce Clause argument could play
into the hands of conservatives, who want to squash government power.

But that objection is shortsighted: Ashcroft v. Raich is not just
about limited government. It's also about political accountability,
which should be dear to conservatives and liberals: That principle,
after all, is advocated by liberal law scholar Cass R. Sunstein, who
argues the Constitution is designed to promote "careful," "thoughtful"
(and hence "accountable") government action.

At a minimum, "accountability" means acting on "evidence" -- in this
case, that there's an "interstate" problem for the feds to address.
That's something the government hasn't tried to prove. As a number of
briefs before the Supreme Court observe, the Bush administration
offers "nothing in the way of evidence" that medical marijuana is of
national, as opposed to local, concern.

There's no excuse for this lapse of proof. California's law is hardly
a self-evident threat to anyone. Ronald Reagan's top constitutional
lawyer, Douglas Kmiec, characterizes the law as "circumspect." For
people with dire medical conditions, it may be too circumspect. It
doesn't "legalize" medical marijuana -- in the sense you could buy it
at a drugstore. It doesn't even necessarily save sick people from
arrest. In most parts of California, where there's no registry of ill
people needing marijuana, the law merely gives patients a chance to
persuade a jury that a doctor approved its use after they've been arrested.

There's no evidence the law will stymie other states' drug policies.
That's common sense: Interstate drug trafficking remains illegal,
subject to interdiction and prosecution.

There's also no reason to think the law will frustrate California
police. True, officers must sort sick people from recreational users,
but police do that all the time: as when Florida officials
investigated Rush Limbaugh for using black-market OxyContin. Indeed,
it would have been surprising if the federal government offered proof
to the contrary: The Constitution gives states, not the federal
government, "primary" control over criminal law enforcement. Criminal
law is an area of special state expertise.

All these considerations make this case the easiest of calls. In his
brief before the Supreme Court, Pepperdine University Professor Kmiec
stressed that the Commerce Clause serves a distinct purpose -- it's a
safety hatch when states are "incompetent" to protect national
interests. In a famous court argument, the legendary Daniel Webster
added that the feds must demonstrate that purpose -- by showing a need
to stop one state from harming another's citizens.

Faced with a moderate law, and no proof there's an interstate problem,
the case boils down to this: Can federal officials butt into local
affairs without showing they're needed or wanted at the local level?
Under a Constitution that prizes thoughtful government action, respect
for individual liberty, and deference to state policy, the answer
shouldn't be hard, even for The New York Times. It is, in a word, "no."

Mark Moller is a senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato
Institute, and the editor-in-chief of the Cato Supreme Court Review.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Larry Seguin