FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD ENJOY NO JURISDICTION OVER STATE MARIJUANA LAWS

The Supreme Court heard arguments in the case of Ashcroft v. Raich
yesterday. The Court must decide whether the Commerce Clause in the
Constitution allows the federal government to ban the use of medical
marijuana. If they decide the federal government does in fact have
that power, it will only be through a severe misinterpretation of the
Commerce Clause. That clause allows Congress "[to] regulate commerce
with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the
Indian Tribes." But the medical marijuana in question is entirely
grown within the state of California, and has nothing to do with
interstate commerce. The only way anyone gets away with calling the
ban constitutional is by interpreting the Commerce Clause to mean the
federal government can regulate any commerce that can affect the
national economy.

That is clearly not what the clause says. And besides, the Founding
Fathers did not intend the Commerce Clause to give the federal
government that much power. They wrote the Constitution to limit the
government's power, and that interpretation of the Commerce Clause
basically gives the government the power to regulate commerce
anywhere, anytime. That kind of power is something you'd expect to
find in Cuba, not the land of the free.

The ban on medical marijuana isn't only unconstitutional. It is
immoral as well. The Supreme Court case will determine the fate of two
California women who are in desperate need of medical marijuana. Angel
Raich suffers from paralysis, seizures, a brain tumor, chronic pain
and grave weight loss. Diane Monson suffers from chronic back pain and
muscle spasms due to a disease of the spine. Their physicians
concluded their pain could not be relieved with conventional
medication, and medical marijuana was the only thing that could help
them. There are thousands more like them. It is truly heartless to
deny these people the liberty to relieve their pain using a relatively
harmless substance. Those who wish to ban medical marijuana on the
grounds that the ban is good for society have no respect for
individual rights and freedom. This is America, and we are supposed to
be free from government telling us what to do with our own bodies.

I also want to address the concern of Tuesday's editorial, "Drug
regulation must remain federal" (CT, Nov. 30), that a decision in
favor of Raich and Monson will undermine the authority of the FDA. In
my view, that is a good thing! The FDA is an unconstitutional body
that prevents people from exercising their individual rights. The
individual, not the government, is the best judge of what is good for
him or her. If an individual decides the risk of taking a new,
experimental drug is worth it, it is their right to use it. By denying
this right, the FDA has caused the deaths of tens of thousands. A
study by Arthur D. Little, Inc, estimated that 10,000 Americans died
for lack of the drug propranalol every year the FDA prevented their
doctors from treating them with it (the drug was later approved). The
FDA is unconstitutional because the Constitution does not give the
federal government the power to control the use of drugs, so by the
Tenth Amendment that power is reserved to the states or the people.

Michael Hugman

sophomore, engineering