COURT RULING LIMITS ECONOMIC FREEDOM

Presented with a challenge to California's dubious "medical marijuana"
law, the Supreme Court might have taken the narrow course of upholding
the federal government's authority to regulate dangerous drugs.

That would have taken care of the problem-and, make no mistake about
it, it is a problem.

But instead, the court hinged its decision on the precedent of an old,
badly flawed decision concerning limitations on wheat growers and the
federal government's authority to regulate interstate commerce. Back
in 1942, the Supreme Court upheld federal agricultural authorities'
power to limit wheat crops. In that case, a farmer raising wheat for
his own consumption challenged the rules. The court ruled that because
his little crop theoretically could have a minor impact on the larger
wheat trade, therefore the federal government could regulate even
crops not grown for commercial purposes.

Fast forward to 2005, and the court majority applies the same logic
concerning "medical marijuana." Because some people might be tempted
to divert medical marijuana into the illicit, interstate drug trade,
the court ruled, the federal government has the authority to regulate
marijuana grown for non-commercial purposes as well.

So much for states' right to experiment with local laws, or for
limitations on federal power under the Constitution's already loosely
interpreted commerce clause.

We hold no fondness for medical marijuana, the supposed efficacy and
safety of which is very much in doubt. The number of persons with
state marijuana permits where they have been issued suggests that more
than a few people exploit these systems to feed drug addictions. For
those who legitimately seek to alleviate pain and suffering related to
disease, there are other, safer and legal methods available.

That said, Justice Clarence Thomas, in his dissent, has it right: If
the court's majority opinion in the marijuana case "is to be taken
seriously, the federal government may now regulate quilting bees,
clothes drives and potluck suppers throughout the 50 states."

The court has just ruled that the federal government has virtually
unlimited power to regulate purely local matters, because even the
smallest local activity theoretically could generate ripple effects in
interstate commerce.

That's a dangerous notion and a threat to freedom, especially economic
freedom.