Today the Supreme Court has decided Ashcroft, et al. v. Raich, et al. in which two medical marijuana patients and their caregivers had filed a complaint against John Ashcroft and the DEA Administrator.
Now the AP is reporting Court Rules Against Sick People. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the 6 – 3 decision.
The dissenters were Thomas, Rehnquist, and O’Connor. TalkLeft has more.
From the AP via Yahoo:
“Justice John Paul Stevens, writing the 6-3 decision, said that Congress could change the law to allow medical use of marijuana.
“The closely watched case was an appeal by the Bush administration in a case involving two seriously ill California women who use marijuana. At issue was whether the prosecution of pot users under the federal Controlled Substances Act was constitutional.
“Under the Constitution, Congress may pass laws regulating a state’s economic activity so long as it involves “interstate commerce” that crosses state borders. The California marijuana in question was homegrown, distributed to patients without charge and without crossing state lines.”
What a disappointment.
I’m not truly disappointed since I held no hope of it going the other way. The prohibition is far too big of an effort to put this kind of legal chink in it. None of it’s constitutional in the first place. And you’ll notice the dissenters were conservatives. The WoD has been a truly bi-partisan disaster. We’re going to have to work on our own politicians if we hope to get anywhere.
when every branch of a government is dominated by assholes. It’s way past time for Americans to wake up and clean house from top to bottom. No “reform” can begin to chip away the micromanaging crime families that now pollute the federal government from top to bottom. We need to throw it all out and start over or die trying.
here is the .pdf of the decision
A bit narrow? The following are from Griswold v. Connecticut:
And from Justice Goldberg’s concurrence:
In determining which rights are fundamental, judges are not left at large to decide cases in light of their personal and private notions. Rather, they must look to the “traditions and [collective] conscience of our people” to determine whether a principle is “so rooted [there] . . . as to be ranked as fundamental.” Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 105 . The inquiry is whether a right involved “is of such a character that it cannot be denied without violating those `fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions’ . . . .” Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 67 . “Liberty” also “gains content from the emanations of . . . specific [constitutional] guarantees” and “from experience with the requirements of a free society.” Poe [381 U.S. 479, 494] v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497, 517 (dissenting opinion of MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS). 7
I agree fully with the Court that, applying these tests, the right of privacy is a fundamental personal right, emanating “from the totality of the constitutional scheme under which we live.” Id., at 521. Mr. Justice Brandeis, dissenting in Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 , comprehensively summarized the principles underlying the Constitution’s guarantees of privacy:
“The protection guaranteed by the [Fourth and Fifth] Amendments is much broader in scope. The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the significance of man’s spiritual nature, of his feelings and of his intellect. They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the Government, the right to be let alone – the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men.” [381 U.S. 479, 495]
Seems unambiguous to me.
Thanks for posting this, rba. I agree that the whole drug prohibition flies in the face of our right to be “let alone.” That’s one of the reasons I don’t think they’ll budge on any small piece of the drug war — the rationale is too flimsy to be anything other than all or nothing. If you take any one piece away, the whole house of cards topples.
I’m unaware if any case against the prohibition has been brought to SCOTUS on the grounds of a fundamental right to privacy. Do you know of such a case? This case was brought using the interstate commerce laws.
Do you know of such a case?
No, that’s why I wondered about using the Commerce Clause instead of attacking them on privacy grounds.
I think if they attacked marijuana on privacy grounds, it would topple the drug war. It would set a precedent that could be applied to any drug one chose to use. They have too much invested in the prohibition to allow that to happen right now, but I think that ultimately that’s the real issue.
I believe they’ve already had a case based on religious practices. This one is part of an incremental strategy. They laid the groundwork with studies showing the medical benefits. Then states passed the measures allowing it for medical purposes.
That put state law in direct opposition to federal law. Technically, it’s supposed to be up to states to police themselves. The feds become involved, have jurisdiction, based on interstate commerce, RICO, or trafficking laws.
So this case was really a test — they established the medical grounds, had state law on their side, and didn’t cross any state lines. The DEA shouldn’t have any jurisdiction whatsoever.
I’m not a lawyer, so I’m probably missing a lot, but that’s my basic understanding of the ins and outs of it.
will be watching the supreme weasels trying to justify their next ruling upholding Bush-state rights. It’s hard to admit, but at least the hard right members of the court stood by their principles while the “center” dished out some the most supine, intellectually whorish, pandering to majority busybodies ever seen.
Maybe somebody needs to remind the slutty 6 that the Bill of Rights was put in there to protect the rights of the minority from the prejudices of the majority. But who gives a shit about rights when there’s Commerce to consider?
This decision makes it unanimous: all three branches have now officially flushed our Constitution down the toilet. If Americans still had balls, we’d be conducting riots that make the Koran ones look like tupperware parties. But then we might miss a rerun of american idol.
“all three branches have now officially flushed our Constitution down the toilet.”
I think that officially happened with the Bush v. Gore decision, but that’s just kibbitzing at this point. You’re quite right that this decision just blatantly ignores the constitution and prior legal precedent.
Not a problem in fact a fair outcome
the real battles are the upcoming bipartisian
These should get underway shortly.
State’s Rights bill submitted by Barney Frank, 36 co-sponsors (including Rohrabacher & Hinchey):
H. R. 2087 To provide for the medical use of marijuana in accordance with the laws of the various States.
http://thomas.loc.gov
well hell, so I’ll just have to roll one ; ), and I was really counting on buying them at the store….along with my Camel’s, my beer, Bailey’s, Biscuit and Gravy, oh yah…don’t forget that sausage dog ; )
The powers that be, have way too many rights, I would like to give them some lefts ; )
Also pending is a petition for administrative review of the classification of marijuana as a Schedule I Controlled Substance, brought under the procedure contained in the Controlled Substances Act itself. Extensive materials compiled by Jon Gettman at Drugscience.org