breaking: Supreme Court rules against Med. Marijuana

While people here continue to navel gaze about Dean and pie ads, our Supreme Court in its infinite wisdom has decided the feds can indeed prosecute medical marijuana growers and users.

Justice John Paul Stevens, writing the 6-3 decision, said that Congress could change the law to allow medical use of marijuana.

This is a sad day indeed for so many ill people who rely upon this drug to ease the pain of their illnesses.

•  Why is it

  that there's such a thing as "justifiable homicide" (killing in self-defense) but puffing on a joint to defend one's health is verboten?

  by Outsourcing Is Treason on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 07:36:15 AM PDT

•  Fuck

  fuckfuckfuckfuckfuck.

  (Beat you to it, MSOC!)

  And how many people will suffer and die till Congress gets some balls and tells the drug czars to stuff it?

  They won't change the law...until Big Pharma figures out a way to make $$$$$$$ off of medical marijuana.

  They're all for "states rights" when it comes to abortion laws...but not when it comes to people's health.

  Might be time for the Left Coast to hope for that earthquake...so the rest of the US can sink into the Atlantic.
  

  by Cali Scribe on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 07:36:19 AM PDT

•  Some notes

  O'Conner was in the dissent.  I'm trying to find exactly who voted where, but I haven't found anything yet.

  I'm trying to find a rationale for the decision.  It's based on the interstate commerce clause and the superiority of federal law, but, at least according to the article, all marijuana is grown and sold in California.

  Perhaps if out of state people are going into California to get the marijuana, they could consider it interstate commerce, but I'd have to read the decision, which is obviously not posted yet since it came out like...10 minutes ago.

  by FleetAdmiralJ on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 07:37:44 AM PDT

  •  Another note

    I'm personally against medical marijuana - just because a drug has a theoretical medical use doesn't justify using it medically if the overall negatives offset the positives.

    However, that isn't the issue in this specific case.  The law in this case is simple: Can it be considered interstate commerce.  If so, federal law can be use to prosecute those who sell (and possible use) the medical marijuana.  If not, then it is a state's rights issue.

    by FleetAdmiralJ on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 07:41:23 AM PDT

    •  aoeu

      All drugs have side effects, it's just that in some cases the positive effects outweight the negative effects.  Don't you think a patient and their doctor should decide that person's course of medical treatment rather than you?

      by TealVeal on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 07:58:30 AM PDT

      •  The government already decides that...

        Your doctor can only prescribe medicines approved by the FDA or, in the case of new medicines, involved in a formal trial.
        
        In that sense, at least, the decision is affirming the right of the federal government to decide what drugs are OK.

        by Hoya90 on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 08:01:54 AM PDT

        •  aoeu

          I'm not stupid.  I was talking to Fleet about his own personal belief on when a drug should be allowed.

          by TealVeal on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 08:05:01 AM PDT

        •  Vioxx

          And the FDA is doing such a trusted job in making sure only safe medicines get to the market, right?

          by LoganFerree on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 08:39:48 AM PDT

        •  FDA

          Yeah the FDA did such a wonderful job with the food pyramid. All those carbs at the base of the pyramid did wonders for American obesity. We didn't evolve from eating processed foods.

          by political on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 09:41:28 AM PDT

      •  Yes, I know that

        Thats why I said the bad outweight the good, and doesn't necessarily have to be exclusively medically either.

        Don't you think a patient and their doctor should decide that person's course of medical treatment rather than you?

        Generally, yes, thus why the vast, vast majority of drugs are legal.  However, does that mean I think all drugs should be legal and then left up to a "patient" and a "doctor" to perscribe as they wish?  No, not when negatives so clearly outweight the positives. In such cases the government can and should prohibit those drugs in my opinion.

        by FleetAdmiralJ on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 08:06:58 AM PDT

        •  aoeu

          The bad might outweigh the good for normal healthy individuals, but that's not the case being considered when we are talking about medical marijuana.  Consider the case of the gentleman down thread.

          by TealVeal on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 08:10:27 AM PDT

          •  So, how to do determine

            Who is a "normal healthy individual"

            We have a problem as it is with people taking drugs that they don't need...and thats with drugs which are much, much safter and controllable than marijuana.

            The problem here is that, what is to stop a pot smoker from going to a doctor who will prescribe it to anyone, and getting a prescription so that they can enjoy their pot in their house "legally?"

            Also, you're arguement could also be used to justify cocaine or heroin, just as long as "the good outweight the bad" however you determine what that is.

            Also, since the drug is banned, I presume there is little to no FDA studies or anything along those lines.  Essentially this drug has been approved because some group of people have convinced the majority of the people in the state that "it works."

            by FleetAdmiralJ on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 08:21:20 AM PDT

            •  aoeu

              I see a lot of words, but nothing of substance.  When it comes down to it you think you know better than doctors.  Shrug.

              by TealVeal on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 09:54:55 AM PDT

              •  Do I personally know better

                no.

                Do the people who have run the dozens, if not hundreds of studies, which have shown that marijuana essentially does 0 good and a lot of bad, know better?

                Probably, since I'm sure many of them are doctors.

                by FleetAdmiralJ on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 07:15:36 AM PDT

            •  Your ignorance and lack of humanity are

              appalling my friend. According to the federal government, tobacco kills 340,000 to 450,000 Americans per year. Alcohol kills 150,000 people per year. Aspirin kills as many as 1000 people per year. Persription drugs kill between 14 and 27,000 people per year. Marijuana kills exactly zero.

              But of course it isn't just about "safety". The Wilson administration did not criminalize marijuana, cocaine, and heroin because they were hazardous susbstances (although clearly the latter two can be in certain circumstances), but because racist white southern Democrats needed an election issue in the 1910s to bring out the klan vote. And so began a concerted campaign to convince white southerners that cocaine and pot addled darkies were roaming the countryside raping the virginal daughters of middle class whites. And so began the drug war...

              Up until Mr. Wilson's crusade, all of these drugs - marijuana, cocaine, and heroin - were legal, widely available in patent medicines and at soda fountains, and heavily marketed. They were also not unwidely used. Are you really going to argue that America was a less economically productive or less socially cohseive place in the latter decades of the nineteenth century than it was after these drugs were criminalized in the 1910s?

              The state has no business telling me or anyone else what I can and cannot grow in my backyard and put into my body. As it happens, I don't use any drugs (anymore), and was never particularly fond of pot when I did, but I know people with serious chronic illnesses and injuries who don't respond to perscription pain medications (almost all of which are opiate based anyhow, much more addictive, and much more dangerous) who now in addition to suffering from their illnesses and injuries may be prosecuted by the federal government for seeking pain relief. For that reason alone you can take your idiot statism and shove it straight up your ass.

              by spot on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 10:24:47 AM PDT

              •  And of course, that depends on several things

                1. All the first things you listed wre legal, marjiuana is not.  That may or may not be a difference, but I have a feeling that it's hard to determine that someone died of something that they were using illegally. Not impossible by any means.  Hard, yes.

                2. If you want a direct cause of death, tobacco doesn't kill anyone either.  The side effects do, but tobacco itself does not.  

                Alcohol is similar. If you're looking at direct cause (as I think you are trying to do with marijuana), the only thing you can look at is something like alcohol poisening.  If you look at that, I'm sure the numbers will be far lower.

                3. I can't believe that 0 die anyway.  It's a drug. Someone must have overdosed somewhere at sometime, someplace.  If it's a drug, and so many people are using it, it is utterlly impossible for no one to have died from it.  If people have died from asprin, people have died from marijuana, considering aspirin is just about the safest drug ever created.

                4. If you take into effect side effects, or actions people do while under the influence, I'm sure that number will increase even more.

                he Wilson administration did not criminalize marijuana, cocaine, and heroin because they were hazardous susbstances (although clearly the latter two can be in certain circumstances)

                In certain circumstances? How about always?  If you can die after one use of something like heroin, I don't think "in certain circumstances" is exactly the right way to describe it's danger.

                Are you really going to argue that America was a less economically productive or less socially cohseive place in the latter decades of the nineteenth century than it was after these drugs were criminalized in the 1910s?

                Of course, if someone became unproductive because they were high, they would have just been fired and someone else hired for 10 cents a day, so even if a large percent of the working age population were druggies, what effect would it have? Not as much as it would today.

                The state has no business telling me or anyone else what I can and cannot grow in my backyard and put into my body.

                I tend to be in the "state has to protect people, even from themselves" class.  Obviously many people here are not.  This is the same type of argument used by people where I live to allow them to ride in the back of pickup trucks and drive motorcycles around without helmets so that they can wreck and split their head open without interference.  Hell, seat belt laws shouldn't even be allowed using your logic of, essentially, "i can do whatever the hell i want"

                but I know people with serious chronic illnesses and injuries who don't respond to perscription pain medications

                If you ain't responding to morphene, I have a feeling that you aren't going to respond to anything.

                And I brought this up in another comment...is it that it really cuts pain, or do they just get high enough so that they just don't care that they have pain.  If thats the case, I'd hardly call that pain relief.

                by FleetAdmiralJ on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 07:27:25 AM PDT

    •  Medical Marijuana

      Compare the side effects of medical marijuana to other drugs used to cope with chemotherapy. You have no idea what you're talking about.

      by political on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 09:37:04 AM PDT

      •  Medical Marijuana

        The only reason why medical marijuana is not legal is because Pfizer hasn't figured out how to make money from a weed that grows wild in nature.

        by political on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 09:38:39 AM PDT

      •  Of course

        With Chemo, you're treating something (cancer) of which you are presumably in immediate danger of dying from.

        Marijuana isn't being used to treat anything.  It is simply being used to treat pain (of course, I also have the suspicion that the "pain relief" has more to do with just not caring after getting high, but thats just me)

        by FleetAdmiralJ on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 07:12:51 AM PDT

  •  If I were...

    a betting man, you're going to see a seriously odd lineup in this case in the dissent (it could well be an O'Connor Scalia Thomas grouping) with the dissents coming from different perspectives--O'Connor taking a middle route, and Scalia and Thomas taking their "federal government can't regulate anything!" route.  There might also be a liberal dissent on an individual rights basis.

    And yes, this is absolutely the right decision on the question presented to the court.  A decision to the contrary would have further undermined the Commerce Clause.  The question presented to the court was not "is medical marijuana a good or bad thing," but "is the cultivation of marijuana something the federal government can regulate?"  To say "no" would have deeply, deeply undermined the federal government's powers.

    by profmatt on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 07:48:28 AM PDT

    •  Screw the Interstate Commerce Clause

      Why do I care if the federal government's powers to regulate interstate commerce are deeply undermined?  The conservatives on the court are already doing that in every other issue except for medical marijuana.  This ship is sinking already.

      by LoganFerree on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 07:54:40 AM PDT

    •  I agree, this could be a mixed bag

      I dont know what any of these justices has said or ruled on this topic before, but it could very well break down like

      Scalia, Stevens, Ginsberg, Souter, Kennedy, Rehnquist

      vs.

      O'Conner, Thomas, Breyer

      You're right, some people on the right still hold onto a states rights ideas, even if that means ruling against a practice they personally oppose.  Someone like thomas....maybe Kennedy...may rule that way.  I'll be surprised if Scalia rules in favor of a practice he personally opposes, but it's possible.

      by FleetAdmiralJ on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 07:55:37 AM PDT

      •  Breakdown...

        Stevens (lead majority) is joined by Souter, Ginsberg, Breyer, and Kennedy.

        Scalia concurrs only in the judgment, not joining the opinion.

        O'Connor joined by Rehnquist is the lead dissent.

        Thomas dissents separately (I assume on "no regulation of anything!" grounds.)

        by profmatt on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 08:01:24 AM PDT

        •  Interesting

          Well, the majority..the main 5, ruled on interstate commerce, and thus superiority of federal law.

          I'm not sure what rationale Scalia was using if he agreed in judgement but not on the reasoning.

          O'Connor and Rehnquist almost certainly said that it wasn't interstate commerce and thus is a state's rights issue.

          Again, not sure where Thomas is coming from if he didn't use that arguement.  To me there are only two ways to split: it's interstate commerce or it isn't.

          by FleetAdmiralJ on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 08:12:49 AM PDT

          •  I think...

            The O'Connor dissent is softer in tone, saying that a reversal follows from Lopez, while the Thomas dissent is considerably more strident, urging basically reexamination and scrapping of the whole Commerce Clause jurisprudence.

            Scalia's concurrence is actually an attempt to be nuanced--to explain how, in his view, this is right on the edge of constitutionality, and how the balance should be made--rather than a bludgeon.

            The majority goes with a straight commerce clause argument, which (IMHO) is completely correct.

            by profmatt on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 08:21:59 AM PDT

    •  Also...

      While Wickard v. Fillburn was the precedent must clearly under attack, the fact pattern here is somewhat similar to Katzenbach v. McClung.  In that case, a restaurant in the deep South called Ollie's BBQ said that they bought all their goods locally, catered to locals, and didn't engage in "Interstate commerce."  Therefore, they said, they could engage in discrimination without running afoul of the Civil Rights Act, since Congress can only regulate "interstate commerce."  SCOTUS rightly slapped them down.  This is the sort of stuff Scalia, Thomas, and the attorneys for Raich are attacking.  Their brilliance in this case is to attack a policy liberals dislike, thus creating a coalition of hard-core conservatives and lefties who are in it for different reasons.

      by profmatt on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 07:56:00 AM PDT

    •  Since the current use of the Commerce Clause...

      ...is excessively broad (though often in a liberal policy direction), I'm not really particularly concerned if it gets "further undermined" compared to its status quo irrational and unjustified expansion beyond any reasonable bound.

      The question presented to the court was not "is medical marijuana a good or bad thing," but "is the cultivation of marijuana something the federal government can regulate?"  To say "no" would have deeply, deeply undermined the federal government's powers.
      

      I have no problem with decisions that "deeply undermine" federal powers that have no rational basis in the text of the Constitution; there is a Constitutional basis for Congress' power to prohibit importation, exportation, or interstate transfer of marijuana. There is no reasonable Constitutional basis for Congress power to prevent in-state cultivation and distribution of marijuana.

      There are very good Constitutional bases for broad interpretations of personal rights and state powers (Amendments IX and X among them), and those same Amendments necessarily demand restrictive interpretations of federal powers.

      OTOH, there is a huge body of case law based on the same erroneos expansion of the Commerce Clause that makes it very difficult for the Court to shift directions, but I think the error is so clear and so damaging to the Constitutional order that it ought to notwithstanding the usual and proper bias toward stability and predictability in the case law.
      

      by cdicely on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 09:56:32 AM PDT

•  i've never understood the perks

  of medical marijuana.  it's not been part of the political debate, as far as I'm aware of, in Minnesota so I have very little information about why marijuana is preferred over other pain killers.

  I'm not surprised about the verdict.  We have a federal law making marijuana illegal.  Fed beats state and state beats local.

  by guyermo on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 07:40:45 AM PDT

  •  Interstate Commerce

    The federal law making marijuana illegal depends on the use of the interstate commerce clause in the Constitution.  The argument in favor of medical marijuana is that it's homegrown for personal consumption and therefore isn't interstate commerce.

    by LoganFerree on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 07:52:29 AM PDT

    •  If it is perscribed

      Then, presumably, unless there is something in the state law about it, you can perscribe it people who are not California citizens.

      If that is the case, given how expansive the interstate commerce clause has been made, that is probably enough to include prescribing marijuana as interstate commerce.

      by FleetAdmiralJ on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 08:23:28 AM PDT

  •  Uses of marijuana

    The complaints about "medical marijuana" are certainly not without foundation, but that said, there do appear to be effects of marijuana that are beneficial for certain conditions, apparently with fewer side-effects than competing medications.  Multiple Sclerosis has a variety of pain and cramp that MJ appears to ease, with fewer bad side-effects than the available prescription drugs.   By one survey of Scottish MS patients I was surprised to read that fully 70% had "experimented" with medical marijuana, and that nearly 50% reported some ongoing use.  Scotland?  Odd.  The Canadians recently began marketing an extract of marijuana, that the US is very leery of.  In general the US FDA is skeptical of medications that are derived from plants, as contrasted to those cooked up in a test tube.  That is a gross over-simplification, but I think not an entirely unfair one.  Big Pharma is a chemical industry, not a vegetable-processing industry.

    by arthura on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 08:01:11 AM PDT

    •  Plant derived drugs

      Plenty of plant derived drugs, some from plants much more poisonous than marijuana.  Some are now synthesized in the lab.

      For example:  digoxin (digitalis), from foxglove.  For congestive heart failure, though less popular than it used to be.  A couple of leaves of foxglove can kill you.

      taxol, from the yew tree,  chemotherapy.  inhibits cell division.  now synthesized, primarily because the original source, the Pacific yew) was decimated years before the discovery of taxol as a "trash tree."

      vincristine-from periwinkle.  another chemotherapeutic agent.

      The prejudice against marijuana has been political, not scientific.  There are many oncologists who have found that when their patients smoke pot, they have much less pain and nausea (a side effect of much chemotherapy is that it strips the lining of the stomach and intestines).  In smokable form, the patient typically titrates the dose (uses enough to get relief from the problem).  Injecting THC (one of the more active components of marijuana) does not give the same degree of relief and has more side effects.

      by barbwires on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 08:55:20 AM PDT

  •  What A Sad Post

    How can you have these two sentences side by side?

    Fed beats state and state beats local.

    Give me Liberty or give me death!

    The utter cluelessness of the history of this country and the development of American federalism that is inherent in your post is just sad. Just sad.

    by pletzs on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 08:13:33 AM PDT

    •  Well, he is right

      Federal law does beat state law, and state law does beat federal law.  That isn't the issue. That fact has been well established.

      The question here is whether it constitues interstate commerce.

      by FleetAdmiralJ on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 08:24:20 AM PDT

      •  doh

        Federal law does beat state law, and state law does beat local law.

        Hopefully the intent was obvious, but i kept trying to type "federal" everywhere.  Obviously i missed a place.

        by FleetAdmiralJ on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 08:25:53 AM PDT

      •  Oh, That's Right

        The revolution in 1776 was all about concentrating power to the central authority and insuring the degradation of local autonomy. Forgot about that.

        But I'm sure Dr. Dobson and Dick Cheney will continue to use the levers of centralized power responsibly and humanely.

        by pletzs on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 08:38:20 AM PDT

        •  The articles of confederation

          were about local rights.

          The constitution is about centralized (at least moreso) federal power, based on a completely different political philisophy that the declaration of independence and articles of confederation were based on.

          Thats why we had federalists and anti-federalists.  By the way, the anti-federalists lost.

          by FleetAdmiralJ on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 07:31:20 AM PDT

      •  Big No

        Read your correction about how "state law does beat local law" but you're still wrong.

        Constitutional federal law beats state law.

        There's a big difference.  The federal government cannot pass any legislation it wants and expect it to overrule the states.  

        Further state law beating local law would most likely depend on the state constitution and what types of limits it creates on state and local powers.

        Finally, I'm not so sure if regulation of interstate commerce allows for something as radical as outright banning of a substance.

        by LoganFerree on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 08:47:51 AM PDT

        •  Well, they don't really

          "outright ban" it necessarily.

          What they do is ban the transportation, sale, production, etc. of any drug that either is transported across state borders or, as this ruling established, could significantly effect such a market, even if the drug isn't transported across state borders.

          So, they aren't necessiarly just saying "its banned, period" but since they're prohibiting any action dealing with it, it obviously has the same effect.

          by FleetAdmiralJ on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 07:29:50 AM PDT

  •  now i'm not a doctor...

    in fact, i'm just a college student...a liberal arts college student, but i'll tell you this...

    my senior year of high school, my oldest and best friend was diagnosed with a rare form of muscle cancer I can't spell, pronounce or remember.

    the guy had to go through a year of intense chemotherapy treatment and it was really bad.

    constantly sick and throwing up, the poor bastard spent every weekend in the hospital for a year, getting out to play shows with his band from his wheelchair.

    none of the anti-nausea medicines worked for shit.  he lost weight, going from 190 pounds to under 150 in just a couple of months.

    eventually we convinced him to try smoking pot every time he had a chemo session.

    from then on, he could eat a steak dinner the same day as chemo, his weight and health increased quite a bit and today, a few years later he is back in school and playing music with no signs of cancer or ill health.

    we got the marijuana illegally, but we were high school kids.  I feel bad for older folks who have to deal with the treatment programs who must go into work and make a living to support themselves and/or their family while having to go to the bathroom every break they have to throw up.

    of course, that's just my experience with it...i'm sure there are opposite viewpoints :)

    by Meandering Fox on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 08:13:54 AM PDT

  •  The states have broad authority to regulate

    the sale and distribution of any number of substances, including alcohol. The commerce clause would certainly apply to those distributing marijuana over state lines, but there's no reason it should apply to people growing marijuana in their backyard and employing it for their own personal use (medical or otherwise).

    As I pointed out above, many people with chronic illnesses and serious injuries do not respond to traditional opiate-based or synthetic painkillers. Furthermore, virtually all perscription painkillers (which again are for the most part opiate-based - just like heroin - or opiate-like synthetics such as Limbaugh's preferred Oxycontin) are not only much more addictive than marijuana, but much more dangerous as well. Almost 30,000 people die from perscription psychoactive drugs (including painkillers) per year. Exactly zero people die from marijuana use and or abuse per year.

    I'm not a pot user, never particularly liked the drug, and quite frankly don't use any drugs anymore. However, marijuana (like cocaine and heroin) was at one time legal in this country, and was criminalized by the Wilson administration not because it was dangerous, but because racist, white southern Democrats needed a campaign issue in the middle part of the 1910s, and so decided to pander to racist white southern fears of negro men stalking the countryside high on cocaine and weed and raping their white virginal daughters. The war on drugs has brought untold misery and economic devastation to not insignificant swaths of the developing world (especially Latin America), widespread suffering to those caught and convicted of drug offenses in this country, and cost you and I the American taxpayer many, many hundreds of billions of dollars over the decades. And now people with chronic illnesses and serious injuries who don't respond to traditional painkillers and or don't wish to become percocet or vicodin addicts - including people I know personally - can now and certainly in some cases will be prosecuted by the federal government for seeking pain relief.

    by spot on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 10:47:19 AM PDT

•  I am so appalled

  at the politicization of this friigin court, at their lack of true wisdom and compassion for people who are truly suffering and rely upon marijuana.

  I am so outraged at this decision, and a few years ago it would have just been about the pot, but having lived in CA for many years and having met people who were truly ill and used marijuana medicinally, well my heart truly goes out to them.

  by mickey on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 07:44:35 AM PDT

  •  This must be the first post ever...

    ...Complaining about the politicization of Stevens.

    Okay, maybe not, but it certainly goes against the trend of complaining about how the conservatives are the ones politicizing the Court.  There is a difference between politics and law, after all, and this is a case where Stevens and others were addressing the law before the court, not the politics of the issue.

    by bam101 on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 07:52:32 AM PDT

    •  Exactly...

      The legal position taken by the majority here is the "liberal" position, reading the interstate commerce clause expansively.  If you're going to read the commerce clause expansively (as I think we must), you have to accept that the federal government has the power to regulate, even when we disagree as to the wisdom of those regulations.  This case is about whether the federal government has the power to regulate, not whether those regulations are good policy.  It's the difference between "can" and "should."  SCOTUS is only making the "can" decision, NOT the "should" (with the possible exception of Scalia, whose vote and separate concurrence signals to me we're in for some loopy logic along the lines of "well, it's not OK under the commerce clause, but since it's a morality regulation, I'll find another way.")

      by profmatt on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 08:10:46 AM PDT

      •  Exactly

        People seem to be misreading the ruling.

        someone gave me a 2 above, presumably because I stated my personal opposition to medical marijuana, and totally ignoring the may point of my post:

        The value of medical marijuana is not the issue here.  The only thing this case has to do with medical marijuana is that it is the product that is being used over.

        The actual question of law is whether the prescribing of medical marijuana is interstate commerce.  I can't say that I agree or disagree until I read the actual decision of the case.  I have some thoughts about how they decided like they did.

        However, like you said, I presume most people here take a liberal reading of the interstate commerce clause, and if we do that, we have to live it with.

        The one thing this does do is that it forces the progressive wing of the party (I still wont call them the "Democratic Wing" yet because I still think they're in the minority of the party) to bring the medical marijuana issue nationally, since they can't just go state-by-state now.

        I'm doubting any major candidate will come out in support, though.  The best way to make people think that you're a pot smoking hippy is to be, well, a pot smoking hippy.

        by FleetAdmiralJ on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 08:18:04 AM PDT

        •  [your] personal opposition to medical marijuana

          is exactly like personal opposition to abortion . . . you're entitled to it (don't use it if you don't want to).  But to presume that you have some "right" to impose your choice on others is . . .

          authoritarian/totalitarian/fascist/Republican/unacceptable

          Why do you hate liberty and freedom ? ? ?
          

          by Deward Hastings on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 12:17:51 PM PDT

          •  Because

            the idea that the government has no right to ban anything is completely unprecidented and will lead to anarchy if you take it to it's logical conclusion.

            The government has the right to protect society, and that includes banning drugs which have a severe negative impact on it.

            by FleetAdmiralJ on Tue Jun 07, 2005 at 07:14:28 AM PDT

      •  exactly

        It's important to separate the legal question here -- "does the federal government have the power to regulate this" -- from the policy one -- "should the federal government regulate this".  

        To say that the federal government shouldn't have the power to do this at all is to cast your lot with the Constitution in Exile folks.  To agree with the majority doesn't mean you like the results, but just that you recognize that the propriety of this regulation is for Congress to decide, and that the Court's job is just to focus on its constitutionality.

        by Adam B on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 08:33:03 AM PDT

        •  Its important to separate them...

          ...but that doesn't change that I am, if anything, more convinced that the "can" answer is "no" than that the "should" answer is "no", and that getting the legal answer wrong is a bigger problem for out country -- and liberalism -- than getting hte policy answer wrong.
          

          by cdicely on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 10:03:32 AM PDT

      •  There is nothing "liberal" about...

        ...reading the Commerce Clause expansively, which sacrifices personal freedoms to the federal government.

        Insofar as federal power is necessary to protect rights from state infringement, that power already exists within the 14th Amendment and other related amendments directly relevant to rights; reading the Commerce Clause expansively is lazy "liberalism" that is destructive to personal freedom; its also (given the 9th and 10th Amendments), IMO, clearly wrong.

        by cdicely on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 10:01:13 AM PDT

•  Looks Like today may be decision publishing day

  Another ruling, this one people here will find as better:

  Court Expands Scope of Disabilities Law

  This one is 5-4.

  by FleetAdmiralJ on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 07:47:09 AM PDT

  •  Two More Cases

    That makes four now today

    One which they actually heard:

    Supreme Court Rejects Women's Sports Case - High Court Won't Reinstate Suit Accusing U.S. Officials of Discriminating Against Male Athletes

    Another 5-4 decision.

    and one they refused to hear:

    High Court Declines to Review Libel Suit - Supreme Court Declines to Review Libel Lawsuit Over Dallas Weekly Newspaper's Satirical Article

    by FleetAdmiralJ on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 08:05:15 AM PDT

•  Apparently, pain and suffering require...

  an act of congress to alleviate. You can't just grow your own cure in your back yard.

  Nice.

  I wonder if Rhenquist has tried it.

  Aside, sorry for the dupe diary, but the "delete" function isn't working for me. But I'll keep trying. The dogging I'm experiencing on this site doesn't help, either.

  by RonV on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 07:57:05 AM PDT

  •  asft

    With deleting the diary...are you clicking the confirm delete check box?

    On the other note, while I stated above that this is an interstate commerce case, I get very queasy when it comes to "can't people grow their own drugs and use them themselves!"  just because the same logic could be used to say "i grow my own cocaine!" or "I make my own meth!" or something alone those lines.

    by FleetAdmiralJ on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 08:00:47 AM PDT

    •  I don't have any problems with any of that.

      As long as it's for my personal use.

      In fact, I'm planning to set up a Meth(...eglin) lab in my house this summer. Regular mead is so... 700's.

      by RonV on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 08:24:48 AM PDT

•  Silly feds.

  Marijuana should be legalized, and regulated, just like any perscription drug. I don't mind the government making taxes off it. Actually, given the amount of marijuana "farmers" that exist in the US, it might be a good way to generate state taxes... and it would certainly help those "red states" pull their weight income-wise. (Especially in the counties where no jury would ever find someone guilty of marijuana-related crimes.)

  As much as I hate the tobacco industry, a similiar model might be viable for a "pot industry", except with THC-based medication to help people, rather than cancer-sticks to kill people. I recall hearing that it's currently difficult for medical researchers to even get a hold of marijuana for research purposes; why ban pot research when potent poisons can easily and legitimately be obtained for medical research?

  by EsnRedshirt on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 08:00:57 AM PDT

•  Holy crap.

  O'Connor, Rhenquist and Thomas.

  Source

  State's rights it is.

  by RonV on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 08:01:27 AM PDT

  •  Well, I was right about Thomas

    Rhenquist I was flip-flopping on. I'm kind of surprised there isn't at least one libearl in the dissent.  States rights is just about the only defense you can make of this case, though, since it was a question of interstate commerce and superiority of federal law.

    by FleetAdmiralJ on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 08:08:41 AM PDT

•  Something to say...

  about this...  I have kidney cancer.  I have multiple brain tumors.  I have so many pancreatic tumors that there is virtually no healthy parenchyma left at all - with the exception of a funcitioning biliary duct.  I have continuous nausea - I vomit a lot.  I have a rough time keeping weight, which is crucial to maintaining "reserves" for when the big troubles with the tumors arise.

  All that being said, I am an advocate for medical marijuana.  In my medical history, I have been prescribed somewhere in the range of 50, that's fifty anti-nausea drugs.  None work for me.  NONE.  If you don't have an illness that causes symptoms that could be relieved by medical marijuana, you really don't have any justification for opinion on this issue.  

  One often forgotten side issue with pharmaceutical drugs versus marijuana is that many of those pharmaceuticals cause unneeded and unwanted side effects which in turn necessitate more drugs.  It can be an endless cycle of trying drug after drug to find an acceptable combination to alleviate all the symptoms.  For me, marijuana has taken the place of most all of my scripts (that means prescriptions).  

  Does someone like me benefit from legalized medical marijuana as it is here in Colorado?  YES.  Do I take advantage of our state law?  NO.  Why? Because of the fear of prosecution for my own feeble attempt at some physical well being.  So, fuck me for wanting to be healthy for my family.  But I do not want to be jailed for doing so.

  Nobody - not one single doctor I've met -- including all the heads of the neurologic and urologic cancer depts. at the NCI/NIH have ever suggested that I am wrong for doing what I do.  They are ALL amazed I am still alive after fighting renal cell cancer for FIFTEEN YEARS!  In my view, it is because I reject traditional western medical techniques and choose my own path in maintaing my health care management.  You can take that for what it's worth.  But I will do whatever it takes to maintain some sort of well being - it's my fucking body.  And fuck all those who wish to prevent me from doing so.  Sheesh.

  by Sol Fed Joe on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 08:02:22 AM PDT

•  Saying the seven words

  you can't say on TV.

  by shycat on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 08:09:01 AM PDT

•  I'm a medical marijuana user

  And I say screw 'em. If the federal cops are going to arrest me for a plant, then they'll have to deal with my vomiting all over them when I don't get it. Something tells me I'll be let go rather quickly.

  By the way, the MAXIMUM penalty for posession of under an ounce of Marijuana* in the state of California is a $100 fine and no jail time, so until they send the DEA in to bust all of us medical users directly (and good luck on finding us all!), most of us will still be safe.

  FACT: Marijuana is one of the only plants which is 100% illegal to grow in the United States. The opium poppy, where Afghanistan gets its heroin, is legal to grow. The san pedro cactus, a cactus with very high mescalin content, is legal to grow. It is legal to buy and sell psylocibin spores although not to grow the magic mushrooms themselves. Morning Glory and Hawaiian Baby Woodrose seeds are easily purchasable and both contan large amounts of LSA, an analogue of LSD. The hallucinagen DXM is found in many cough syrup bottles and pills and the even stronger hallucinagen 2c-I is totally unscheduled and purchasable from chemical suppliers. From my understanding, the only other plant which has such a status in this country is the Coca plant from which cocaine is derived. Unlike coca, marijuana has fairly indisputable benefits.

  I say all this as someone who would gladly give up marijuana forever right now if I were to never feel the discomfort and nausea I feel without smoking it again. I'm 28, I'm married, I like to think I'm fairly responsible. I won't say I never smoked pot before my medical condition made it a necessity, but I was by no means a regular smoker. The novelty of the 'high' has worn off long ago. I just want to live my life in relative comfort like most people. Unfortunately, this is my only option since all other medical routes have failed me.

  *For those who don't know, an ounce is a very large amount of marijuana for a single person. I smoke it (well, vaporize it actually, it's healthier) out of necessity at minimum once a day, sometimes two times, and at maximum on my worst weeks I go through maybe a quarter of an ounce every ten days. Recriational smokers could make the typical sale size of an eighth of an ounce potentially last a year.

  by Arken on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 08:12:00 AM PDT

  •  They wouldn't...

    be prosecuting you under California state law, but under federal law, which has much harsher penalties for possession.  Different universe.

    by profmatt on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 08:14:45 AM PDT

    •  That was my point.

      The DEA would have to bust all of us because the state and local cops aren't going to bother if it's just a small fine. I know people who have had baggies sitting in their car and no prescription and the cop just confiscates it and doesn't say another word. Too much paperwork for such a minor offense.

      by Arken on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 08:23:54 AM PDT

•  Opinions are up

  Stevens:

  http://wid.ap.org/scotus/pdf/03-1454P.ZO.pdf

  Scalia:

  http://wid.ap.org/scotus/pdf/03-1454P.ZC.pdf

  O'Conner:

  http://wid.ap.org/scotus/pdf/03-1454P.ZD.pdf

  Thomas:

  http://wid.ap.org/scotus/pdf/03-1454P.ZD1.pdf

  by Demomatt on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 08:20:11 AM PDT

•  Only one word for this decision

  Heartless

  by LisaDawn82 on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 08:33:38 AM PDT

  •  that, however, is the fundamental thing

    Do you want the Supreme Court to be basing its opinions on what it thinks the proper policy outcome should be, or do you want them to interpret and apply the Constitution?  

    Here's the briefs from the side opposing the regulation.  It is only in the last two pages of the main brief that they moved away from arguing about the interstate commerce clause to whether there was some affirmative right to use marijuana to protect life under the Due Process clause:
    

    This case involves a right that is enumerated in the Due Process Clause - the right to life itself. See J.A. 51 ("It could very well be fatal for Angel to forego cannabis treatment."). It also implicates the rights to avoid or mitigate severe pain and protect bodily integrity − rights that at least five Members of this Court have indicated may well be constitutionally protected. See Glucksberg 521 U.S. at 736-37 (opinion of O'Connor, J.) ("A patient who is suffering from a terminal illness and who is experiencing great pain" may have a "constitutionally cognizable interest" in "obtaining medication, from qualified physicians, to alleviate that suffering"); id. at 789 (opinion of Ginsburg, J.) (agreeing with Justice O'Connor); id. at 745 (opinion of Stevens, J.) ("Avoiding intolerable pain and . . . agony is certainly [a]t the heart of [the] liberty . . . to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life."); id. at 777 (opinion of Souter, J.) ("liberty interest in bodily integrity" includes "a right to determine what shall be done with his own body in relation to his medical needs"); id. at 790 (opinion of Breyer, J.) (Due Process Clause may protect right to "personal control over the manner of death, professional medical assistance, and the avoidance of unnecessary and severe physical suffering - combined."). Each of these rights has deep roots in "our Nation's history, legal traditions, and practices." Id. at 710. . . .

    The Federal Government has no compelling interest in condemning Angel Raich and Diane Monson to avoidable suffering and even death.31 To the contrary, the Federal Government "has an important interest" in enabling "patients with particular needs" that cannot be addressed with mass-produced conventional medications to use "medications suited to those needs." Thompson v. W. States Med. Ctr., 535 U.S. 357, 369 (2002). At stake are some of "the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy." Casey, 505 U.S. at 851. To deny Raich and Monson the medication recommended by their physicians as necessary to relieve excruciating pain, preserve bodily integrity, and extend their lives is to "demean their existence" and "control their destiny." Lawrence, 123 S. Ct. at 2484. Such "suffering is too intimate and personal for the [Federal Government] to insist . . . upon its own vision." Casey, 505 U.S. at 852.

    by Adam B on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 08:56:34 AM PDT

    •  Yes

      I'll be sure to print this out and wave in front of a person puking their guts out because they are ill.

      I'm a support the law type of person but some things just lack common sense.

      by LisaDawn82 on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 09:04:54 AM PDT

      •  I really don't think . . .

        . . . you want a Supreme Court that feels empowered to base its opinions on compassion and not law.  Or one which would neuter Congress from being able to regulate interstate commerce for the things that you'd agree were good -- like, say, the ability to punish gun possession within 1000' of a school.

        by Adam B on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 09:36:31 AM PDT

        •  Dude

          I'm venting.

          I'm not a friggen idiot.  I understand rule of law.  Nobody said that I had to like it so quit talking down to me.

          by LisaDawn82 on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 01:07:24 PM PDT

          •  sorry

            I don't like the policy results either, but I think that readers need to understand (and I wasn't directing it at you personally) that there's a proper place for these arguments, and it's not the courthouse.

            My apologies if I came off a little condescending there.

            by Adam B on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 01:16:47 PM PDT

            •  No biggie

              I absolutely support rule of law.  I just happen to think this one stinks.  So...now we just have to change the law.

              Like that'll ever happen.....

              by LisaDawn82 on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 01:30:07 PM PDT

•  Inhales

  i.e., sucks and swallows.

  I follow the logic the court is using, but the impact on many people who are suffering will be to make them suffer more.

  by barbwires on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 09:05:07 AM PDT

•  Please, let's not fall into the trap

  of deciding what one thinks of a Supreme Court opinion by looking only to whether we like the result rather than to the persuasiveness of the reasoning

  As a matter of social policy, I favor allowing the medical use of marijuana. As a matter of law, I am persuaded by Justice Stevens's reasoning. Moreover, a decision the other way would have allowed in a states' rights Trojan Horse with the potential radically to undermine Congress's regulatory power under the Commerce Clause.

  The majority, which included all the moderate members of the Court -- Breyer, Ginsburg, Souter, and Stevens -- plus Kennedy (Scalia concurred in the judgment), found the facts "troubling" but the law "well-settled."

  The users argued

  that the CSA’s categorical prohibition of the manufacture and possession of marijuana as applied to the intrastate manufacture and possession of marijuana for medical purposes pursuant to California law exceeds Congress’ authority under the Commerce Clause.

  Writing for the Court, Justice Stevens explained:

  Our case law firmly establishes Congress’ power to
  regulate purely local activities that are part of an economic “class of activities” that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. See, e.g., Perez, 402 U. S., at 151; Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U. S. 111, 128–129 (1942).

  Wickard, a unanimous decision by the New Deal Court, was particularly significant. There, a wheat farmer challenged a regulation promulgated under the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 that limited how many acres he could cultivate. Specifically, he argued that acreage used to cultivate wheat purely for his own family's private consumption was beyond the scope of the Commerce Clause. The Court disagreed:

  "The effect of the statute before us is to restrict the amount which may be produced for market and the extent as well to which one may forestall resort to the market by producing to meet his own needs. That appellee's own contribution to the demand for wheat may be trivial by itself is not enough to remove him from the scope of federal regulation where, as here, his contribution, taken together with that of many others similarly situated, is far from trivial." Id., at 127-128.

  Wickard thus establishes that Congress can regulate purely intrastate activity that is not itself “commercial,” in that it is not produced for sale, if it concludes that failure to regulate that class of activity would undercut the  regulation of the interstate market in that commodity.

  In Wickard, we had no difficulty concluding that Congress had a rational basis for believing that, when viewed in the aggregate, leaving home-consumed wheat outside the regulatory scheme would have a substantial influence on price and market conditions. Here too, Congress had a rational basis for concluding that leaving homeconsumed marijuana outside federal control would similarly affect price and market conditions.

  by one of the people on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 10:08:54 AM PDT

  •  I agree that the case law on this...

    ...is well-established. Error, oft repeated, does not cease to be error, though.

    by cdicely on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 10:18:37 AM PDT

    •  So, in terms of the law, what error

      did the Court make here and in the cases on which it relied?

      by one of the people on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 10:22:14 AM PDT

      •  In broad terms...

        ...I think that the evolution of Commerce Clause jurisprudence has extended it (combined with the Elastic Clause) beyond any recognition, in a way which is fundamentally destructive to the protections of state powers and personal rights in the 9th and 10th Amendments.

        But, ultimately, its one of those "line drawing" problems where its pretty hard to concretely define the point to which power should extend, but not one bit further.

        by cdicely on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 10:30:29 AM PDT

        •  How so? n/t

          by one of the people on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 05:36:35 PM PDT

      •  I think...

        he's taking the Thomas position that much (if not all) of the Commerce Clause jurisprudence dating back to Wickard is in error.  It's not an entirely unjustifiable position, and can be held by people with principles--that doesn't mean that I think it's right.

        by profmatt on Mon Jun 06, 2005 at 10:31:39 AM PDT