STATES' RIGHTS ARGUMENT NEEDED

Now that we've lost a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court decision on medical
marijuana, we need to think seriously about what we did wrong.

Remarkably enough, the court decided no important issues. Why? Because our
lawyers virtually omitted states' rights (and all other constitutional
questions) from their arguments, instead betting everything on statutory
interpretation -- i.e., what Congress intended to do, as distinct from what
Congress has a right to do. As a result, all the court decided was whether
Congress intended to allow a "necessity" exemption, because that's all the
court was asked to decide.

In footnote seven of the court's ruling, Justice Clarence Thomas emphasized
that the case did not present any constitutional issues, then gave an
example: "whether the Controlled Substance Act exceeds Congress' power
under the Commerce Clause."

In other cases (i.e., his concurrence in U.S. v. Lopez, 1995, 514 U.S.
549), Thomas has argued that Congress' jurisdiction over interstate
commerce does not include local commerce, so it's fair to say his note was
his way of hinting that states' rights over the local practice of medicine
is the issue he thinks we should be arguing.

By neglecting all constitutional arguments, we lost unanimously. By arguing
states' rights (among other constitutional issues), we'd at least get
Thomas's support, and very likely win the case, since he usually commands a
majority on Commerce Clause questions.

So what have we been waiting for?

Pebbles Trippet, Albion, California