Pubdate: Tue, 07 Jun 2005
Source: Chicago Tribune (IL)
Copyright: 2005 Chicago Tribune Company
Contact:  http://www.chicagotribune.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/82
Cited: Gonzales v. Raich ( www.angeljustice.org/ )
Cited: Drug Enforcement Administration ( www.dea.gov )
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/opinion.htm (Opinion)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Cannabis - Medicinal)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topics/Raich (Angel Raich)

POT AND THE CONSTITUTION

Ten years ago, the Supreme Court surprised legal experts when it
struck down a federal law barring gun possession in school zones--not
because it was in favor of guns in schools, but because it said
Congress had no constitutional authority to legislate in such a
quintessentially local sphere. Ever since, the question has been: How
far will the court go to rebalance the powers of the federal
government versus the states? On Monday the court gave an answer: Not
very far.

Federal law bars the sale, possession or cultivation of marijuana. But
several states have chosen to allow cannabis use by seriously ill
people who can't get relief from conventional medicine. In 1996,
Californians approved a ballot measure allowing doctors to recommend
marijuana to patients and permitting patients to use it, under a
strict state-monitored program. That, however, didn't stop the federal
Drug Enforcement Administration from carrying out raids against
medical marijuana users in California.

One of those raids targeted plants grown for her own needs by Diane
Monson, whose physician had attested that pot was the only drug that
alleviated her severe spinal pain. She and another medical marijuana
user went to court arguing that the federal government could not
legally conduct such raids, because Congress had overstepped its
constitutional boundaries in banning this use of pot.

A federal appeals court agreed. The Bush administration said the raids
were conducted under Congress' power to regulate interstate
commerce--a provision that has long been the rationale for federal
intrusions into traditional state functions. But the 9th Circuit Court
of Appeals ruled that the "cultivation, possession and use of
marijuana for medicinal purposes and not for exchange or distribution
is not properly characterized as commercial or economic activity." If
there's no commerce, it concluded, the commerce clause is irrelevant,
leaving the federal government powerless.

But in the end, despite what it admitted were the "troubling facts of
this case," the Supreme Court bent over backward to give lawmakers in
Washington the benefit of every doubt. By a 6-3 vote, the court found
that marijuana grown in these conditions could possibly have an impact
on interstate commerce--even if the pot at issue never elicited a
payment or crossed a state line.

The key difference with past decisions limiting congressional power,
the court said, was that in the other cases, such as the Gun-Free
School Zones Act, Washington was not regulating economic activity, and
this time it was. That claim is certainly debatable, to say the least.
But Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, said the
connection was close enough for government work: "We have never
required Congress to legislate with scientific exactitude."

So the federal government has the power to punish sick people using
cannabis as medicine, on the advice of their doctors, even in states
where medical marijuana is allowed. What the federal government
doesn't have, even after this decision, is a good reason to do so. 
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake