SUPREME COURT LIMITS THE RIGHT OF STATES TO MAKE THEIR OWN DECISIONS AND LAWS

The U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision Monday that will limit the
ability of states to make their own decisions and create their own
laws.

The court ruled on a case regarding medicinal use of marijuana, but
the case was not about marijuana. It was about whether the federal
government or the people of the states have the right to make state
laws.

Ten states have decided to allow medicinal use of marijuana under a
doctor's prescription. Federal officials object to those laws and want
them to be superceded by a federal ban on the drug.

In a 6-3 decision, the court sided with the federal government. To
make this ruling, the justices twisted and stretched the interstate
commerce clause of the Constitution. This clause gives Congress the
right to govern business and commercial transactions that cross state
lines.

But the facts of the case include no interstate commerce. The case
involved two sick women who were prescribed marijuana by their
doctors. They grew small amounts of the drug at their homes and
consumed it there.

The six judges in the majority decided that any production of
marijuana affects the national supply of the drug and therefore can be
regulated by the federal government.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was joined in a dissent by Chief Justice
William H. Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas. They pointed out
that the court's ruling is a stretch of the interstate commerce clause
and an infringement on the authority of the 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 wrote.

They noted that states like California have the right to "come to its
own conclusion about the difficult and sensitive question of whether
marijuana should be available to relieve severe pain and suffering."

In the court's ruling, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that some
physicians would abuse the law by overprescribing marijuana for profit.

That's a good point. But it's a matter that should be discussed by
state legislatures as they debate medicinal marijuana laws. It is not
an excuse to throw out state laws that conflict with the federal will.

The court's ruling is an expansion of federal power. Its effect will
be to limit the ability of the people of the states to debate
difficult questions, come to their own decisions and create their own
laws.