AMBIGUOUS SUPREME COURT SWITCHES TACT IN RULING ON MEDICAL MARIJUANA

Let's be clear on this: States are not subject to the labor,
anti-bias and other laws that bind private citizens and
organizations, because - in the view of the U.S. Supreme Court -
states' rights trump Congress's legislative authority. However, that
same court has now decided the federal government does have the last
say on medical marijuana.

Although states can flout wage and discrimination laws (two of the
more egregious decisions in the high court's recent spate of states'
rights rulings), they cannot - the justices said this week - enact
measures that usurp federal law in order give sick people a right to
obtain marijuana for medical purposes.

There's something wrong here.

And while the immediate issue is medical marijuana, it's the broader
question of the court's strange and apparently inconsistent rulings
that's a real concern.

This simply doesn't make sense.

It doesn't make sense to tell citizens and private entities that they
must adhere to laws that states, in their roles as public employers
and businesses, can ignore.

It doesn't make sense to tell citizens that they'll be protected from
unfair labor practices (or, in a different case, from copyright
piracy) unless they have the misfortune of being victimized by a
state government or agency.

It doesn't make sense to assert that states' rights take precedent
over federal law, except where legislation banning marijuana
production and distribution is concerned.

And it's impossible to imagine that the opinion written by Justice
Clarence Thomas failed to discuss states' rights when they're plainly
at the heart of the matter. Yet the opinion did just that: Despite
the fact that the issue has been dear to many of the current
justices' hearts, the decision announced Monday neglected the subject
completely.

Well, both positions can't be right.

As we've argued before, the notion that states can operate in a way
that would be illegal for private organizations is absurd. It's
unfair to state employees. It's offensive to taxpayers who,
overwhelmingly, expect public institutions to behave responsibly.

For the court to say, 'it's OK for California to refuse to pay a
state worker overtime, but not to allow a state resident to buy
doctor-prescribed marijuana' makes the hypocrisy worse.

These issues need to be revisited in cases that will test the
disparate rulings as well as the court's failure to provide equal
protection to citizens injured by states' actions.

The California cannabis clubs aren't nearly as troubling as
government that's above the law or a court that's selective in
applying a principle like states' rights.