POT RAID DID NOT HAVE TO HAPPEN

I'M afraid that I must disagree with my colleague Larry Gerston's assertion
that the federal government had a legal right to raid the medical marijuana
farm in Santa Cruz County.

Gerston is correct that federal law trumps state law. However, as
conservatives are fond of telling us, the Constitution does not give the
federal government general police powers, such as the power to regulate
drugs. Those are reserved to state governments.

The Constitution does give the federal government the power to regulate
``interstate commerce.'' However, by all accounts, the marijuana farm in
Santa Cruz was not engaged in interstate commerce. It raised marijuana for
distribution to California citizens under California law. As a result,
Congress has no power to regulate it.

It is true that ever since the New Deal, the Supreme Court has generally
taken an expansive view of what ``interstate commerce'' means. However,
beginning in 1994, the court has reversed direction, significantly limiting
the power of the federal government in a broad sphere of activity. The
Supreme Court's unanimous 2001 decision to which Gerston refers did not
deal with the key federalism issue, but rather dealt with the much more
limited issue of whether a ``medical necessity'' exception to the federal
statue is permitted. It specifically did not address the issue of whether
the law itself was constitutional.

It is telling that federal authorities have decided not to prosecute the
owners of the Santa Cruz pot farm. I believe they reached this decision
because they are afraid that if the owners were convicted and appealed to
the Supreme Court, the federal government's actions would be overturned.

James Brent Associate professor of political science San Jose State University