The Reasoning May be Correct, but the Result is Wrong

The Supremes came out and stated quite clearly that the federal government can over rule state regulations related to medical marijuana.

THE SUPREME COURT'S decision Monday in the case of Gonzales v. Raich is a defeat for advocates of the medical use of marijuana, because the court ruled that federal drug laws can be enforced against patients even in states that would permit them to light up. But the true importance of Raich has nothing to do with drugs; it relates rather to the balance of power between the federal government and the states. The government's crusade against medical marijuana is a misguided use of anti-drug resources; that doesn't mean it's unconstitutional. A Supreme Court decision disallowing federal authority in this area would have been a disaster in areas ranging from civil rights enforcement to environmental protection.

Unfortunately, the anti-drug extremists in this case get what they want irrespective of the needs of those who could and do medically benefit from the use of marijuana. Since marijuana isn't on the FDA's list of permitted narcotics, it is unlikely that medical use will ever be allowed. Cocaine on the other hand is on that list, though I would speculate that those who benefit from perception cocaine are far fewer than those that would benefit from marijuana.

The argument about abuse of the system for medical marijuana falls flat. Cocaine again being the drug of choice in the example. How often do you read about doctors being prosecuted for improper prescription of cocaine?

The thing to change in this case is the FDA listing of medicinal narcotics. Will that happen? Not a chance. The extremists on this point seem continually to have the upper hand and care not that there could be a justifiable use of this plant. Arguments end right there, because the Fed gets the last word.

I do believe the use of the commerce clause of the constitution is being over used. I find it unlikely that the original writers intended that clause to be used as carte blanche to give the fed preference over local control over most subjects. The article does point out:

Over the past decade, however, the court has tacked away from its most expansive vision of national power, emphasizing that the commerce power is not unlimited. The court said, for example, that Congress can't use the clause to legislate against sexual assaults or to regulate gun possession near schools.

I do find it disturbing that this is the route that was taken on the topic of medical marijuana. It is really no surprise that it failed. Unfortunately, those that need it, now must violate the law to find relief. (Or in cases of extreme pain relief, get a prescription for oxycontin and pay big $ and have to worry about getting killed for your prescription.)