SCOTUS rules against medical marijuana patients and states rights

[Moooooo]

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

If people want to treat marijuana as a prescription drug, it should have to meet the same rigorous scientific standards as every other drug as set forth by the FDA.  Why do people think marijuana should get special treatment?  Voters are simply not qualified to decide whether or nor a drug is safe and effective via referendum.

[A18]

The Congress has no authority to regulate this, as it is not interstate commerce. Your statist opinions are irrelevant to the case here.

[J. J.]

OK, an honest question:
If medical marijuana is so effective, why don't it's advocates try to get FDA approval?  Why shouldn't it have to go through the same rigorous testing process as any other prescription drug?  Without this sort of legitimacy, they "medical marijuana" movement seems more like an attempt at backdoor general legalization than a bona fide medical treatment.

It is ridiculous to me that the legality of a prescription drug should be decided by statewide referendum.  Should the safety and effectiveness of the next Viagra clone or the next AIDS treatment be decided by majority vote?  Maybe it should be decided by doctors and scientists who have actual medical knowledge of how the drug works.

Nick G. raises a good point.

I'm going to note two things.

1.  The federal government seems to have the power to regulate perscription and non-perscription drugs.  Based on that, it seems the said that the federal was in force.

2.  I don't agree with the federal law is a "good law."  I'd like to see it repealed.  It appears to be a constitutional law, based on one.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

The Congress has no authority to regulate this, as it is not interstate commerce. Your statist opinions are irrelevant to the case here.

My statement was more of a policy critique of the the way the pro-medical marijuana people are going about their campaign.  The whole statewide referendum think just reeks of backdoor legalization, and is antithetical to the way the practice of medicine should be conducted.

From a legal standpoint, the Supreme Court has basically held that the federal government can regulate economic activity period.  It has been holding this way for 70 years.  Cases like Lopez don't turn on whether the activity was interstate, but rather whether it was commerce at all.

[Blue Rectangle]

A quote I heard on the news last night from an official who's opposed to medical marijuana:
"Marijuana is no more a medicine than crack or heroin."

That's kind of funny, considering that Novocaine is synthesized cocaine and heroin is derived from morphine.

[Beet]

OK, an honest question:
If medical marijuana is so effective, why don't it's advocates try to get FDA approval?  Why shouldn't it have to go through the same rigorous testing process as any other prescription drug?  Without this sort of legitimacy, they "medical marijuana" movement seems more like an attempt at backdoor general legalization than a bona fide medical treatment.

It is ridiculous to me that the legality of a prescription drug should be decided by statewide referendum.  Should the safety and effectiveness of the next Viagra clone or the next AIDS treatment be decided by majority vote?  Maybe it should be decided by doctors and scientists who have actual medical knowledge of how the drug works.

Good point. I have always suspected as much.

[A18]

The Congress has no authority to regulate this, as it is not interstate commerce. Your statist opinions are irrelevant to the case here.

My statement was more of a policy critique of the the way the pro-medical marijuana people are going about their campaign.  The whole statewide referendum think just reeks of backdoor legalization, and is antithetical to the way the practice of medicine should be conducted.

From a legal standpoint, the Supreme Court has basically held that the federal government can regulate economic activity period.  It has been holding this way for 70 years.  Cases like Lopez don't turn on whether the activity was interstate, but rather whether it was commerce at all.

This is not commerce either, but you're wrong. Lopez stated that the fed could only regulate action that substantially affects interstate commerce.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

The Congress has no authority to regulate this, as it is not interstate commerce. Your statist opinions are irrelevant to the case here.

My statement was more of a policy critique of the the way the pro-medical marijuana people are going about their campaign.  The whole statewide referendum think just reeks of backdoor legalization, and is antithetical to the way the practice of medicine should be conducted.

From a legal standpoint, the Supreme Court has basically held that the federal government can regulate economic activity period.  It has been holding this way for 70 years.  Cases like Lopez don't turn on whether the activity was interstate, but rather whether it was commerce at all.

This is not commerce either, but you're wrong. Lopez stated that the fed could only regulate action that substantially affects interstate commerce.

The Lopez opinion is almost entirely concerned with whether and activity is commerce, not whether it is interstate.  The Lopez court distinguishes Wickard v. Filburn while acknowledging it as good law; it does not overturn it.

In Wickard, the law at issue regulated the amount of wheat a farmer could consume from his own farm.  The court upheld the law, reasoning that if the farmer did not consume his own wheat, he might buy other foods that had entered interstate commerce instead.  Thus, allowing him to eat however much wheat he wanted would have a substantial affect on interstate commerce, even though the wheat itself never left his property.

In Lopez, the defendant is convicted of violating the Gun-Free School Zone Act.
In distinguishing Wickard, Rehnquist's Lopez opinion argues:

 "Even Wickard...involved economic activity in a way that the possession of a gun in a school zone does not." (514 US at 560),
and
"Section 922(q) is a criminal statute that by its terms has nothing to do with "commerce" or any sort of economic enterprise, however broadly one might define those terms."

The opinion never argues that the Act is unconstitutional because it could be applied to intrastate commerce, but rather because it's doesn't have an substantial effect on commerce at all.   "Interstate commerce" has during the past century evolved into a term of art in which only the "commerce" part is important.

Certainly, growing marijuana for local sale has at least as much affect on interstate commerce as consuming home-grown wheat.  Wickard is much more the controlling authority here than Lopez.  The court got this one absolutely right.

[Emsworth]

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

These don't seem to have anything to do with commerce at all, but then, neither does growing marijuana for your own private use, so I suppose we might as well let the Congress get away with these as well.

I imagine that some would argue that piracy discourages commerce, and that Congress can therefore punish it. (Strangely, a similar argument was once used when Congress attempted to outlaw rape: it was claimed that rape discourages its victims from pursuing interstate commerce, and that Congress could therefore step in.)

[A18]

The marijuana was never bought or sold. There is nothing remotely commercial about it.

It did not substantially affect the national market for marijuana, so there's really nothing interstate about it. Not that there is an interstate commerce clause in the first place. Just a "commerce ... among the several states" clause, which demands a much more narrow interpretation.

[David S]

I like Clarence Thomas' comment on this ruling:

In his separate dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas commented, “Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.”

[??????????]

I like Clarence Thomas' comment on this ruling:

In his separate dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas commented, “Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.”

He is right but the fact remains this is not a new abuse of govt powers at all. Same old sh*t different day really.

[The Duke]

The marijuana was never bought or sold. There is nothing remotely commercial about it.

It did not substantially affect the national market for marijuana, so there's really nothing interstate about it. Not that there is an interstate commerce clause in the first place. Just a "commerce ... among the several states" clause, which demands a much more narrow interpretation.

In Wickard, nothing was bought or sold either.  That's why Wickard is the controlling legal authority here.

[Bono]

The marijuana was never bought or sold. There is nothing remotely commercial about it.

It did not substantially affect the national market for marijuana, so there's really nothing interstate about it. Not that there is an interstate commerce clause in the first place. Just a "commerce ... among the several states" clause, which demands a much more narrow interpretation.

In Wickard, nothing was bought or sold either.  That's why Wickard is the controlling legal authority here.

How many times do I have to make the same post about descritive statements and normative statements?