We Update Daily!
Custom Search
Chris S. Kenoyer. Owner MMJ Patient, Medical Activist, Online Patients Advocate, Online MMJ News Journalist
My Personal Medical Bio
Follow Us Now On Twitter @MedicalMMJMan
Or Follow Us Now On Facebook
Email Us Here olpwebs@yahoo.com
Or Email Us Securely Here MedicalMMJMan@countermail.com NEW 100% Encrypted Email Server
OLP’s Free MMJ News EList Get The Latest In MMJ News
All Press Contact Info For Us!
Is CBD? A Possible Cure For Breast Cancer..? And All The Other Many Forms & Types Of Cancer..? Learn More About " CBD" Here
***************************
Advertise Here On OnlinePot Rates As Low As $50 a Year 24/7 – 365 Days A Year Of Sales!
***********************************
Website Navigational Links
Main Start Page 2
**************************
Latest Marijuana News Reports
*********************************
Parody’s Cartoons US Government Grown Pot, Term Papers, School Reports, & Thesis’s On Marijuana & Cannabis *********************************
Amsterdam A to Z ********************************
Canadian Marijuana Websites *******************************
Church’s & Pot Cannabis
*****************************
Co-Ops, Clinics, Dispensary’s *****************************
Marijuana Doctors & Clinics ****************************
Pot Cooking Recipes ****************************
Drug Testing A To Z ***************************
Pot Games
****************************
Pot Songs Video’s ****************************
100’s Of Grow Guides ***************************
Hash A- Z
***************************
Cannabis Legal Info, Drug Lawyers, State, Federal Laws, State & Supreme Court Rulings **********************
POW’s Of The MMJ War!
*****************************
Other Marijuana Websites Websites Link Exchange! ****************************
Medical Marijuana Studies, Research Report’s, Medical Cannabis Clinic Study’s ****************************
Parody’s & Cartoons When We All Need A Good Laugh!
****************************
Avoiding Online MOM Scammers Newly Re-Updated Info! *****************************
The Politics Of Contraband Medical Marijuana In The Mail? ******************************
The Hall Of Shame Section The Online MOM Scammers *****************************
Online MOM Providers Ads ****************************
Politicians & Voters Rights ****************************
Medical Marijuana, Strains ****************************
The OG Marijuana Strain Guide ****************************
800+ FAQ Growing Questions ****************************
Patients Spiritual Guidance, Free Online Crisis Help Center ****************************
Online Marijuana Seed Banks ****************************
Maximum Security Section Just Updated! *****************************
Traveling Tips, Guides, B & B’s ****************************
Vaporizers A To Z *****************************
Online Pot Video’s & Movies **********************************************
Please Visit Our Sister Websites!
Maine Patients Coalition.org
Reefer Madness Teaching Museum.org
Listen Right Here Online! To Original 1930-1950’s Reefer Madness Propaganda Radio Shows And Programs Before TV There Were "Radio Stars"
*********************************
Legal Disclaimer
Guest Book
Translate Text or Web Page Go To: Language Tools Google Translations
Article Submissions & News Reports Are Always Gladly Accepted Here.
1999-2013 Copyright © All Rights Reserved.
No part of this site maybe used or reproduced in whole or in part without the written consent of the Copyright Owner www.onlinepot.org
OnlinePot assumes no legal liability for any products, or information or news posted, services offered, Or any contests or give away’s offered.
|
|
STATES’ RIGHTS DEFENSE FALTERS IN MEDICAL MARIJUANA CASE AT SUPREME COURT
11/29/04
Return To OnlinePot’s Legal Section Main Page
Don’t Let This News Make You Give Up Hope, All This Means Is That We Are Right Where We Have Been All Along. With No Protection From Our Own National Government. Despite The Polls Saying That 74% Of ALL US Citizens Support Medical Marijuana. Chris
Washington — The effort by advocates of the medical use of marijuana to link their cause to the Supreme Court’s federalism revolution appeared headed for failure at the court on Monday.
During a lively argument, the justices expressed little inclination to view drug policy as a states’-rights issue by which California and other states that have adopted "compassionate use" marijuana measures can displace federal regulation of homegrown marijuana distributed to patients without charge and without crossing state lines.
The closely watched case, which drew a crowd to the court, is an appeal by the Bush administration of a ruling last December by the federal appeals court in California that the federal Controlled Substances Act was "likely unconstitutional" as applied to two women who used marijuana under their doctors’ care within the terms of Proposition 215, California’s Compassionate Use Act, adopted by the voters in 1996.
Nine other states have adopted similar measures that permit people with chronic pain or illnesses like cancer and AIDS to use marijuana under a doctor’s supervision.
By a 2-to-1 vote, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an injunction barring federal agents from seizing the women’s marijuana supplies. One patient, Diana Monson, grows her own marijuana and uses it to ease severe back spasms. The other, Angel McClary Raich, who suffers from a brain tumor and other ailments, is too sick to cultivate her own marijuana and receives it without charge from two anonymous individuals. The two sued for an injunction after federal agents arrived at Ms. Monson’s home in Butte County and, after a three-hour standoff with local law enforcement agents, seized and destroyed her six marijuana plants.
The Ninth Circuit panel held that under the Supreme Court’s recent federalism precedents, the noncommercial intrastate activity in which the women were engaged did not fall within Congress’s constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce.
But illegal drugs are fungible and exist within a national market, Paul D. Clement, the acting solicitor general, told the Supreme Court in arguing the administration’s appeal, Ashcroft v. Raich, No. 03-1454. "What we’re talking about here is the possession, manufacture and distribution of a valuable commodity for which there is, unfortunately, a ready market," he said.
Mr. Clement asserted that Supreme Court precedents dating to the New Deal made clear that "the relevant focal point is not the individual plaintiff’s activities" but rather the impact on the economy of an entire category of activity, taken as a whole, that Congress has chosen to regulate.
In fact, much of the debate in the courtroom on Monday centered on one particular precedent, Wickard v. Filburn, a decision from 1942 that upheld Congress’s effort to support wheat prices by controlling wheat production. The court held that even the wheat that a farmer cultivated for home consumption could be regulated under the Agricultural Adjustment Act’s quota system on the theory that all wheat production took place within a national market. That decision is regarded as one of the most far-reaching extensions of Congressional power that the Supreme Court has ever upheld.
Randy E. Barnett, a Boston University Law School professor arguing on behalf of the two women, told the justices on Monday that if they accepted the administration’s argument in this case, "then Ashcroft v. Raich will replace Wickard v. Filburn as the most far-reaching example" of Congress’s power over interstate commerce. Prohibition of "a class of activity that is noneconomic and wholly intrastate" was not essential to the government’s "regulatory regime," he said, adding: "There is no interstate connection whatsoever."
But the justices whom Mr. Barnett needed to persuade, those who have questioned federal authority in recent cases, were skeptical. "It looks like Wickard to me," Justice Antonin Scalia told him, adding: "I always used to laugh at Wickard, but that’s what Wickard says." He continued: "Why is this not economic activity? This marijuana that’s grown is like wheat. Since it’s grown, it doesn’t have to be bought elsewhere."
Mr. Barnett said that relatively few people would meet the medical criteria for legal marijuana use, and that any impact on the overall market for marijuana would therefore be "trivial." The administration, by contrast, has predicted that 100,000 Californians would avail themselves of the statute if the court upholds the Ninth Circuit’s ruling.
Justice David H. Souter asked Mr. Barnett for the population of California. The law professor shrugged. "Thirty-four million," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, a former resident of Sacramento, interjected.
In that case, Justice Souter continued, the government’s estimate of 100,000 was "not implausible" and Mr. Barnett’s prediction of a "trivial" effect "seems to me insupportable." Justice Souter said the circumstances of the two plaintiffs were "not a realistic premise on which to base constitutional law." His comment suggested that the marijuana advocates’ litigation strategy of telling their story through two sympathetic female plaintiffs, especially Ms. Raich, whose physical suffering is evident in her wraith-like features and whose doctor says she would probably die without access to marijuana, might have backfired.
Justice Stephen G. Breyer told Mr. Barnett that his clients should ask the Food and Drug Administration to reclassify marijuana as appropriate for medical use; a refusal could then be the basis for a lawsuit charging the agency with abusing its discretion. Such a lawsuit would be "the obvious way to get what they want," Justice Breyer said, adding, "I guess medicine by regulation is better than medicine by referendum."
Mr. Clement’s argument for the federal government did not go unchallenged. In decisions over the last few years invalidating federal laws dealing with gun possession near schools and with violence against women, the court has found that the activity Congress sought to regulate was insufficiently economic in nature to fall within the power to regulate interstate commerce. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who voted with the majority in those cases, told Mr. Clement that the precedents gave her "some concerns" about applying the Controlled Substances Act to the marijuana in this case.
In response, Mr. Clement said that in contrast to the national market in illicit drugs, the activities Congress addressed in those cases were essentially noneconomic. "This case is on the constitutional side of the line," he said.
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, who has been under treatment for thyroid cancer since mid-October, was not in court on Monday. Justice John Paul Stevens, presiding in his absence, announced that the chief justice would take part in the case by reading the briefs and the argument transcript.
|