Monday, June 28, 2004

The Supreme Court, Medical Marijuana and the Commerce Clause The Supreme Court has decided to consider Ashcroft v. Raich. For details on the case, see my original post on the victory in the 9th Circuit. Basically this boils down to a challenge of the federal government's ability to interfere in the states using their authority under the interstate commerce clause, when no commerce or interstate is involved. The commerce clause in the Constitution, which gives the feds their power: The Congress shall have power... To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes; The particular case involved medical a marijuana cooperative in California and operating legally under state law, where patients grew their own medicine and it was not sold. A perfect and clean test of the erosion of the commerce clause (and boy, has it eroded since the Constitution was written). The 9th circuit saw the group's activities as "the intrastate, noncommercial cultivation and possession of cannabis for personal medical purposes as recommended by a patient's physician pursuant to valid California state law" and therefore not subject to the commerce clause. The case is so basic and so clear that I don't see how the Supreme Court can rule in favor of the government without completely eliminating any meaning to the commerce clause. It would then, in effect, read: The Congress shall have power... To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes; and to regulate anything else they wish within the several states. I'm certainly not the only one who feels this way. Randy Barnett, one of the principal attorneys representing Angel Raich and Diane Monson, writes at the Volokh Conspiracy: A ruling for the government in Raich would, in my view, represent the effective repudiation of Lopez and Morrison, for the government's reasoning would allow Congress it to reach whatever activity it chooses provided that its statutory scheme was sufficiently large enough. In other words, by the government's theory, the more power that Congress claims, the more justified is its claim of power. Therefore, if the Court reaches the merits, whatever it decides in Raich v. Ashcroft will be a landmark decision with enormous importance for the future of federalism. Since I cannot imagine that the Supreme Court would be willing to eliminate federalism and states' rights (as a ruling in favor of the government would effectively do), I can only believe that the Supreme Court will uphold the 9th circuit, effectively ending the federal government's harrassment of medical marijuana patients. The only question will be what limits are placed. For example, Circuit Judge Harry Pregerson wrote that states are free to adopt medical marijuana laws so long as the marijuana is not sold, transported across state lines or used for non-medicinal purposes. I guess that in the Supreme Court case, questions will be raised regarding whether growers of medical marijuana can be compensated, whether the marijuana can use seeds obtained from out-of-state, etc. It'll be an interesting ride. Oh, and you know why federalism is a good thing? "It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country." - Justice Brandeis What better way to test drug policy changes than through the states? 8:56:20 PM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []

Blessing Marijuana In Saturday's Washington Post: Blessing Marijuana for Mercy's Sake The United Methodist Church, the Union for Reform Judaism, the Progressive National Baptist Convention, the Episcopal Church, the Unitarian Universalist Association, the Presbyterian Church (USA), the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and the United Church of Christ have made statements supporting the controlled use of marijuana for medical reasons. "According to our tradition, a physician is obligated to heal the sick," begins a resolution adopted in November by the Union for Reform Judaism. The statement acknowledges the medical use of marijuana as a 5,000-year-old tradition and encourages the federal government to change marijuana's status from a prohibited substance to a prescription drug. The denominations have called for a reassessment of penalties for marijuana users trying to increase their appetites during chemotherapy or alleviate chronic pain. "We believe that seriously ill people should not be subject to arrest and imprisonment for using medical marijuana with their doctors' approval," asserted a Coalition for Compassionate Access statement endorsed in 2002 by the United Church of Christ. I understand just how big this is, considering I was raised in the home of a United Methodist minister. My dad's has always been strongly against any mind-altering substance, including marijuana, alcohol, and other drugs. Not all Methodist ministers have felt as strongly, but that sense has still been a strong part of the church (Historically, the Methodist church was heavily involved with the temperance movement.) Yet, at the same time, my dad and the church have always emphasized compassion, and current drug laws simply do not work with core church values. So it's perhaps not such a surprise that the United Methodist delegates voted a whopping 877 to 19 in favor of an amendment to drug-use guidelines that supports the drug's medical use in states that allow it. Now the churches are doing more than just voting on resolutions within their own confines: Religious activism on Capitol Hill began heating up in November with the founding of the Silver Spring-based Interfaith Drug Policy Initiative, whose purpose is to advocate "more just and compassionate drug policies," according to executive director Charles Thomas. This week, the initiative faxed letters to members of the House of Representatives asking support for an appropriations bill amendment coming up for a House vote after the Fourth of July break. The amendment, introduced by Rep. Maurice D. Hinchey (D-N.Y.) and co-sponsored by Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.), would prohibit federal funds from being used to arrest and prosecute approved medical marijuana users and caregivers in states that allow such use. A similar amendment introduced last summer was rejected by a vote of 273 to 152. ...Hinchey welcomes the support of the Interfaith Drug Policy Initiative and the denominations whose leaders have signed a statement endorsing the House amendment -- the United Methodist Church, the National Progressive Baptist Convention, the Union of Reform Judaism and the Unitarian Universalist Association. The statement reads: "Licensed medical doctors should not be punished for recommending the medical use of marijuana to seriously ill people, and seriously ill people should not be subject to criminal actions for using marijuana if the patient's physician has told the patient that such use is likely to be beneficial." In its letter-writing campaign, the initiative targeted members of Congress who are members of those and other religious groups that have taken a supportive position on medical marijuana. Letters included a subject line that began with the name of the denomination, as in: "United Methodist Church supports medical marijuana; please vote accordingly." General letters were sent to other House members, listing the organizations that support medical marijuana use. "No denominations have opposed medical marijuana," the letters assert. I'd like to see our drug czar face the United Methodist Church delegates and proclaim (as he so often has done) that medical marijuana is a fraud that's only used by groups looking to legalize drugs. Folks, If you haven't yet told your Representatives to support the Hinchey amendment, do so now. [Tip of the hat to David at What Would Dick Think] 8:11:10 AM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []

A letter Dear Michael Moore, Congratulations on breaking all sorts of records with the opening weekend of your film Fahrenheit 9/11. You're opinionated and controversial, and you've clearly found out how to make that combination work. Not everyone likes you or agrees with you, but even their criticism turns into heightened attention to the issues you promote. I'm excited to have had over 100,000 page views this year, but you reached millions with your message in one weekend. I'd like to suggest a topic for your next film: The War on Drugs. It's perfect for you -- tailor-made for your style of moviemaking. It's got pathetic government officials, worthy of ridicule. It's an issue where the government is out of step with the majority of Americans, yet the public has not gotten motivated enough to apply pressure on leglislators. It's a story with strong elements of racism and the destruction of families and inner cities. (In fact, about the only problem with you doing the film is that it's a story that also includes conservative values.) You can interview the families of innocent victims of the drug war. You can go to Washington and ask Congressmen who have sick relatives if you can take away their medicine. You can follow John Walters around and see how often he repeats the same lies. Those of us on the side of drug policy reform have the facts and the truth with us. But, to be perfectly honest, we have an uphill battle to convince the general population of the critical and urgent need for reform. You could change that with a strong and controversial movie. If you need some help, I could get some people to picket the theatres, or create some "Michael Moore's Drug War movie is un-American" web sites to help ratchet up the controversy -- but you're already a genius at getting the controversy marketing machine going. Please, please make a movie on the war on drugs. I don't care if you piss people off. I'd just like a boisterous national argument about drug policy reform. Thanks. 7:32:32 AM |  drug policy | Links | permalink | comment []