WASHINGTON - Federal authorities may prosecute sick people who smoke pot on doctors"™ orders, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, concluding that state medical marijuana laws don"™t protect users from a federal ban on the drug.
The decision is a stinging defeat for marijuana advocates who had successfully pushed 10 states to allow the drug"™s use to treat various illnesses.
Justice John Paul Stevens, writing the 6-3 decision, said that Congress could change the law to allow medical use of marijuana.
Bush administration had appealed
The closely watched case was an appeal by the Bush administration in a case that it lost in late 2003. At issue was whether the prosecution of medical marijuana 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 "śinterstate commerce"ť that crosses state borders. The California marijuana in question was homegrown, distributed to patients without charge and without crossing state lines.
Stevens said there are other legal options for patients, "śbut perhaps even more important than these legal avenues is the democratic process, in which the voices of voters allied with these respondents may one day be heard in the halls of Congress."ť
California"™s medical marijuana law, passed by voters in 1996, allows people to grow, smoke or obtain marijuana for medical needs with a doctor"™s recommendation. Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington state have laws similar to California.
In those states, doctors generally can give written or oral recommendations on marijuana to patients with cancer, HIV and other serious illnesses.
O'Connor backs states
In a dissent, Justice Sandra Day O"™Connor said that states should be allowed to set their own rules.
"śThe states"™ core police powers have always included authority to define criminal law and to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens,"ť said O"™Connor, who was joined by other states"™ rights advocates.
The legal question presented a dilemma for the court"™s conservatives, who have pushed to broaden states"™ rights in recent years, invalidating federal laws dealing with gun possession near schools and violence against women on the grounds the activity was too local to justify federal intrusion.
__________________
You're only one post away from a federal watch list.
WASHINGTON - Federal authorities may prosecute sick people who smoke pot on doctors"™ orders, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, concluding that state medical marijuana laws don"™t protect users from a federal ban on the drug.
Although i'm totally against the use of illicit drugs, federalizing such things is a further erosion of the 10th Amendment.
Medical Marijuana is a totally different animal that I simply don't care about. If you have cancer, glaucoma etc. smoking rope has been proven to be quite helpful.
I mean look at it rationally, they give people with severe pain presciription drugs all the time -- drugs that would be illegal to buy on the street. So if the efficacy is proven, WTF wold you categorize rope as any different -- if it's prescribed.
Although i'm totally against the use of illicit drugs, federalizing such things is a further erosion of the 10th Amendment.
Yep, you nailed it. I can't believe that the SC feels it has any legal ground to prohibit medical marijuana sales or usage that doesn't have anything to do with interstate commerce.
__________________
Obamanfreude - 1. taking pleasure from the misfortunes of an Obama supporter as he or she is adversely affected by the policies of their Dear Leader.
Supreme Court wants sick people in jail!
