|
|
| It's State Law vs. Federal Law in MMJ Case |
|
Posted by CN Staff on November 29, 2004 at 21:05:24 PT By David G. Savage, Times Staff Writer Source: Los Angeles Times 
Washington -- The Supreme Court on Monday confronted a dispute between California's medical marijuana law and federal anti-drug policy, with a Bush administration lawyer arguing that the government's zero-tolerance law trumps the state measure."Smoked marijuana really doesn't have any future in medicine," acting Solicitor Gen. Paul D. Clement told the court. If thousands of Californians were entitled to smoke marijuana to relieve their pain, he said, the federal ban on this illegal drug could collapse. Eight years ago, California voters approved a limited exception to the state's drug laws. Seriously ill patients were given the right to use marijuana for medical purposes if they had a doctor's recommendation. Federal authorities, however, have all but ignored the state law -- as well as similar measures since enacted in 10 other states -- and insisted that they retain the power to raid the homes of Californians who grow marijuana for their own use. The Supreme Court took up the issue Monday, not to decide whether marijuana is a good medicine but to rule on whether the federal authority to "regulate commerce" extends to seizing homegrown drugs. Outside on the court steps, one group of protesters called for liberalized drug laws to protect patients. They were challenged by another sign-carrying contingent who said stiff laws were needed to protect young people from dangerous drugs. Inside the court, the justices debated the reach of their rules on federal authority. Although there was skepticism about the California law, no clear consensus emerged. In the past decade, the Supreme Court's conservative majority -- led by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist -- has insisted that the federal power to regulate commerce does not mean the federal government can regulate everything. In 1995, for example, the Rehnquist majority struck down a federal gun control law and said "mere gun possession" is not part of interstate commerce. In the medical marijuana case, the ideological tables were turned. Liberal advocates used Rehnquist's words to challenge the federal authority to seize homegrown marijuana. Snipped: Complete Article: http://www.freedomtoexhale.com/fedlaw.htm Source: Los Angeles Times (CA) Related Articles & Web Sites: Raich vs. Ashcroft Angel Raich v. Ashcroft News States' Rights Defense Falters in MMJ Case Must The Ill Be Made To Suffer for Meager Gain? Justices Appear Unlikely To OK Medical Use Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help |
 |
| Post Comment |  |
 |  |