FEDERAL LAW INVALID

Your Sept. 18 editorial acknowledges that many medical-marijuana advocates
see this as a states' rights issue. "Not so fast," you say, reminding
readers that "states' rights" were also asserted to justify racial
segregation during the civil rights era. I see a big difference, however.

For me, the key issue of medical marijuana isn't whether state law "trumps"
federal law whenever both could be valid. Rather, it is what to do when
federal law is invalid, restricting freedom in areas where the Constitution
gives the U.S. government no authority. The Controlled Substances Act 21
USC 13, Sec. 801, appears to be such a law.

The constitution grants no explicit authority or powers to approve or
prohibit food and drugs, and negligible authority over commerce that does
not cross state lines. Yet the law prohibits "Schedule I" drugs, including
marijuana, declaring them as having no legitimate value even as medicine.
It also defines all drug trade as "interstate commerce," subject to federal
control. Both declarations are convenient fictions.

Whenever the Constitution is silent in any given area, the Ninth and 10th
Amendments state clearly that the matter must be left to the states or the
people, respectively.

At present, it seems that only Libertarians actively insist that federal
prohibition of "controlled substances" exceeds constitutional authority. In
the past, eighth-grade civics students learned enough about the
Constitution to recognize the Controlled Substances Act as invalid. What
happened?

JAMES MERRITT

SANTA CRUZ