OTHER VIEWS: DOPE DISTINCTIONS

It's hard to know which part of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
decision to celebrate most: the part that grants medical marijuana users new
protections from federal prosecution, or the part that uses constitutional
states' rights arguments to do so.

In a 2-1 decision, the court ruled that patients who use marijuana for
medical purposes are free to do so, as long as the marijuana was grown
themselves or was given to them by growers. In that way, the federal
government would have no pretext to arrest them, given that the feds had
used the Interstate Commerce Clause to justify their efforts to prosecute
individuals under federal drug laws.

No interstate commerce, no federal prosecution. That's great news, and
experts believe it will finally make Proposition 215, the 1996 California
initiative legalizing medical marijuana, a functioning law. State and local
governments have generally followed the proposition, but medical-marijuana
users have long feared prosecution by the feds.

"Although (Tuesday's) decision simply overturned the district court's
earlier denial of a preliminary injunction against the federal government,
the panel found that the plaintiffs are likely to win on the merits and so
are entitled to a preliminary injunction pending adjudication on the
merits," explained Cato Institute Vice President Roger Pilon. A Cato
attorney had presented arguments on behalf of the plaintiffs.

The panel ruled "that enforcement of the act in cases like this would extend
Congress' power beyond the limits authorized by the Constitution," Mr. Pilon
added. "The opinion is thus consistent with the Rehnquist court's recent
federalism decisions, which have sought to limit the reach of Congress'
power to regulate interstate commerce."

Federal drug warriors haven't looked too kindly on California's leniency
toward people who use marijuana to relieve pain for medical conditions, so
they invoked the Interstate Commerce Clause to justify their meddling in
decisions typically afforded individual states.

The feds argued that the clause applies because the marijuana could possibly
be sold outside of California.

But the court said: "Yet, if in seeking to prohibit some form of interstate
commerce, Congress attempts to prohibit the wholly intrastate commerce of
particular goods on the unsupported speculation that such goods might leak
out of a state and into interstate commerce, or because there is no way to
distinguish between goods produced within a state and those imported from
other states, that would effectively give Congress the plenary police power
over all commerce."

The justices further said that, "Here the state of California, and its
people through the initiative process, have determined that the health and
safety of the state's citizens are best served by allowing seriously ill
patients access to cannabis for medical purposes. ... (T)he court should
respect the choice made by both a sovereign state and the sovereign people
of the state."

We wish liberal and conservative judges would consistently apply states'
rights doctrine on behalf of all issues, regardless of their ideological
views of those issues. Given that perfect world won't be with us anytime
soon, we're happy enough when any judges make the right decision for the
right reasons, regardless of their overall consistency.

This was the right decision, made with the right constitutional rationale.
Let's hope it withstands any further judicial scrutiny.

The Orange County Register