News (Media Awareness Project) - US CA: Editorial: Courting Medical Marijuana |
Title: | US CA: Editorial: Courting Medical Marijuana |
Published On: | 2004-07-02 |
Source: | Orange County Register, The (CA) |
Fetched On: | 2008-08-22 06:27:21 |
COURTING MEDICAL MARIJUANA
The U.S. Supreme Court seldom explains why it decides which cases it takes,
so it is hard to know why it agreed to hear an appeal from a key 9th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals ruling on medical marijuana last December.
Whatever the reasons, the high court will face a fascinating dilemma.
In Raich v. Ashcroft last year, the 9th Circuit found that the federal
government had no authority to arrest or prosecute two medical marijuana
patients, Angel Raich of Oakland and Diane Monson of Oroville, and the two
anonymous caregivers who supplied them with cannabis.
The reason? The patients get their cannabis without buying it or crossing
state borders and obtain it in compliance with state law. Therefore there
is no interstate commerce going on, and without interstate commerce the
federal government has no justification to interfere with their medical
regimen.
As a result of the 9th Circuit decision, other courts have effectively
ended what looked like a concerted campaign by the U.S. Justice Department
to subvert California's medical marijuana law by arresting patients. In
March a judge decided to allow a San Bernardino couple to tell a jury the
marijuana they grew was for medical purposes. In April a patient was
released from federal prison pending appeal under the Raich decision, and a
federal judge issued an injunction against federal interference with the
Wo/Men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana in Santa Cruz.
The Justice Department asked urgently for an appeal to the Supreme Court.
The dilemma? The high court has issued several recent decisions (notably in
the Lopez and Morrison cases) limiting the ability of the federal
government to use the interstate commerce clause as justification for
micromanaging local matters. Chief Justice Rehnquist is said to consider a
restoration of states' rights and privileges to be a major personal goal,
as part of restoring more balance to the federalist system.
Will the court affirm federalist principles or give the Justice Department
a green light to torment sick people? We're rooting for federalism.
The U.S. Supreme Court seldom explains why it decides which cases it takes,
so it is hard to know why it agreed to hear an appeal from a key 9th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals ruling on medical marijuana last December.
Whatever the reasons, the high court will face a fascinating dilemma.
In Raich v. Ashcroft last year, the 9th Circuit found that the federal
government had no authority to arrest or prosecute two medical marijuana
patients, Angel Raich of Oakland and Diane Monson of Oroville, and the two
anonymous caregivers who supplied them with cannabis.
The reason? The patients get their cannabis without buying it or crossing
state borders and obtain it in compliance with state law. Therefore there
is no interstate commerce going on, and without interstate commerce the
federal government has no justification to interfere with their medical
regimen.
As a result of the 9th Circuit decision, other courts have effectively
ended what looked like a concerted campaign by the U.S. Justice Department
to subvert California's medical marijuana law by arresting patients. In
March a judge decided to allow a San Bernardino couple to tell a jury the
marijuana they grew was for medical purposes. In April a patient was
released from federal prison pending appeal under the Raich decision, and a
federal judge issued an injunction against federal interference with the
Wo/Men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana in Santa Cruz.
The Justice Department asked urgently for an appeal to the Supreme Court.
The dilemma? The high court has issued several recent decisions (notably in
the Lopez and Morrison cases) limiting the ability of the federal
government to use the interstate commerce clause as justification for
micromanaging local matters. Chief Justice Rehnquist is said to consider a
restoration of states' rights and privileges to be a major personal goal,
as part of restoring more balance to the federalist system.
Will the court affirm federalist principles or give the Justice Department
a green light to torment sick people? We're rooting for federalism.
Member Comments |
No member comments available...