Pubdate: Tue, 07 Jun 2005
Source: Times Herald-Record (NY)
Copyright: 2005 Times Herald-Record
Contact: http://www.recordonline.com/services/contact.htm
Website: http://www.recordonline.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/2544
Source: Times Herald-Record (NY)
Cited: Gonzales v. Raich ( www.angeljustice.org/ )
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Cannabis - Medicinal)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/opinion.htm (Opinion)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topics/Raich (Raich v. Gonzales)

HIGH COURT FLOPS ON MEDICINAL POT

The justices should have left the issue where it belongs, with
individual states.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruling giving federal authorities the right to
prosecute people whose states allow their use of marijuana for medical
purposes is disappointing on several fronts.

First and foremost, as Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said in her
dissent, the federal government ought not be rooting around in
people's lives to the point where it is "a federal crime to grow small
amounts of marijuana in one's own home for one's own medicinal use."

O'Connor, along with Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice
Clarence Thomas, properly saw this as an issue that belonged with
individual states. "The states' core police powers have always
included authority to define criminal law and to protect the health,
safety and welfare of their citizens," O'Connor noted.

In this case, a California law allowing medicinal use of marijuana was
challenged by the Bush administration, which apparently has a visceral
need to go out and arrest terminal cancer and AIDS patients whose
doctors write them prescriptions for marijuana to ease their pain.
Next thing you know, the president will be putting these people on the
drug-lords list. That the Supreme Court gave credence to this
cold-hearted, shortsighted policy is truly disappointing.

And no, it doesn't help to point out, as Justice John Paul Stevens did
in writing the 6-3 majority decision, that Congress could always
change the law to permit medical use of marijuana.

Of course it can. It always could, but that still doesn't mean it
should even be bothering with this issue. There's no interstate
commerce to speak of and virtually all the prosecutions on marijuana
cases are handled by local and state officials. That's not going to
change even with this ruling, and one assumes all 10 states that allow
medicinal marijuana use will not change their laws because of it.

The court ruling says federal officials have the right under the
Constitution to arrest seriously ill people whose use of marijuana
makes their lives more livable. But why? One has to wonder about any
Justice Department, faced with the life-and-death responsibility of
defending the country against terrorism (not to mention all manner of
serious crimes), that would devote any kind of manpower to raiding
private homes for a handful of pot plants. These are not people who
drive under the influence or sell marijuana to children. These are MS
and spinal cord injury patients looking for a little relief.

There is one interesting, even encouraging, aspect to this otherwise
lamentable ruling: Critics of both liberal and conservative leaning
who regularly complain about activist judges fitting their rulings to
suit their political agendas have nowhere to go on this one.

The six-member majority included all the liberal/moderate justices on
the court, who would presumably favor the medicinal use of marijuana
as a cultural issue. The three dissenters are conservatives (although
O'Connor is a frequent swing vote), who, were they to respond in an
activist judicial manner, would presumably have voted to let the feds
kick down the doors.

This means independent thought is still possible on the highest court,
although it may still result in wrongheaded rulings.

States (including New York) should continue to look at allowing the
use of marijuana for medical purposes because it's sensible and
compassionate. And Congress needs to take Justice Stevens' hint and
scrap this intrusive federal law. 
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake