420
Founder
The first thing to hold in mind when considering the U.S. Supreme Court's 6-3 ruling that federal law still prohibits any possession of marijuana, even for medical purposes, is that the decision does not - repeat, does not - invalidate any state's law allowing the use of marijuana ( or cannabis ) for medical purposes with a physician's recommendation. The second point is that even the court's majority decision conceded a great deal to proponents of legitimizing the medical use of marijuana.
Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, rather explicitly challenged reform advocates to work on Congress if they want the law changed. The medical marijuana laws in the 10 states that permit use ( North Carolina is not one ) are not affected because the Supreme Court is not allowed to rule on arguments or issues that are not brought before it, and no case has been heard - or even filed - that seeks to overturn those laws on the grounds that it contradicts federal law and federal law is supreme. The facts in the case are simple.
Two California women with serious illnesses who use cannabis under medical supervision, as is legal under that state's law, either grow their own cannabis or have friends grow it and give it to them. No money changes hands.
This all occurs within the borders of the state. The single issue before the court was somewhat esoteric - whether the Constitution's Commerce Clause gives Congress enough power to reach and regulate activities that don't look like commerce to the naked eye but might affect either interstate commerce or a system of regulating interstate commerce. The decision leaves the complex laws surrounding medical marijuana where they were before.
California law - and the law in nine other states - allows people with a doctor's recommendation to use marijuana medicinally. State, county and local officials are sworn to uphold state law. Federal law is different.
The decision reaffirms the fact that federal authorities have the power under federal law to go after medical marijuana patients and perhaps caregivers who supply cannabis - but not doctors who write recommendations. The open question now is how aggressively they will use that power.
Congress next week is likely to take up the Hinchey-Rohrabacher amendment, which would deny the Department of Justice funds to surveill, arrest or prosecute medical marijuana patients in states that have passed medical marijuana laws. That might not be precisely the congressional remedy Justice Stevens had mind, but it would be a good start.
Pubdate: Fri, 10 Jun 2005
Source: Burlington Times-News (NC)
Copyright: 2005 The Times-News Publishing Company
Contact: https://www.thetimesnews.com/letter_to_editor/splash.php
Website: Burlington Times-News: Local News, Politics & Sports in Burlington, NC
Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, rather explicitly challenged reform advocates to work on Congress if they want the law changed. The medical marijuana laws in the 10 states that permit use ( North Carolina is not one ) are not affected because the Supreme Court is not allowed to rule on arguments or issues that are not brought before it, and no case has been heard - or even filed - that seeks to overturn those laws on the grounds that it contradicts federal law and federal law is supreme. The facts in the case are simple.
Two California women with serious illnesses who use cannabis under medical supervision, as is legal under that state's law, either grow their own cannabis or have friends grow it and give it to them. No money changes hands.
This all occurs within the borders of the state. The single issue before the court was somewhat esoteric - whether the Constitution's Commerce Clause gives Congress enough power to reach and regulate activities that don't look like commerce to the naked eye but might affect either interstate commerce or a system of regulating interstate commerce. The decision leaves the complex laws surrounding medical marijuana where they were before.
California law - and the law in nine other states - allows people with a doctor's recommendation to use marijuana medicinally. State, county and local officials are sworn to uphold state law. Federal law is different.
The decision reaffirms the fact that federal authorities have the power under federal law to go after medical marijuana patients and perhaps caregivers who supply cannabis - but not doctors who write recommendations. The open question now is how aggressively they will use that power.
Congress next week is likely to take up the Hinchey-Rohrabacher amendment, which would deny the Department of Justice funds to surveill, arrest or prosecute medical marijuana patients in states that have passed medical marijuana laws. That might not be precisely the congressional remedy Justice Stevens had mind, but it would be a good start.
Pubdate: Fri, 10 Jun 2005
Source: Burlington Times-News (NC)
Copyright: 2005 The Times-News Publishing Company
Contact: https://www.thetimesnews.com/letter_to_editor/splash.php
Website: Burlington Times-News: Local News, Politics & Sports in Burlington, NC
