Marijuana.com

Plainsman1963

3 Southern officials say the U.S. lacks the right to limit such private use.

By Claire Cooper | sacbee.com | October 14, 2004

As final briefs were filed Wednesday in a critical medical Marijuana test case, set for argument in the U.S. Supreme Court next month, California got some unlikely allies.
A trio of Southern attorneys general submitted a brief saying that when states decide to let their citizens light up, the federal government should butt out.

"The question presented here is not whether vigorous enforcement of the nation's drug laws is a good criminal policy. It most assuredly is," says the brief filed by Alabama and joined by Mississippi and Louisiana.
"The question, rather, is whether the Constitution permits the federal government, under the guise of regulating interstate commerce, to criminalize the purely local possession of Marijuana for personal medicinal use. It does not."

Among the states filing the friend-of-the-court brief, only Louisiana permits even the most limited use of Marijuana as medicine.

Alabama, which makes about 10,000 arrests each year for Marijuana possession, made it clear that it considers California's medical pot law "profoundly misguided."

But the states-rights brief said all states have a fundamental right to regulate their citizens' health, safety, welfare and morals, and the federal government should stop interfering.

As expected, California's attorney general, Bill Lockyer, also filed a brief, urging the Supreme Court to leave room for state medical pot laws.

His friend-of-the-court brief, filed Wednesday, was signed by the attorneys general of Maryland and Washington state, which also have medical pot laws.

More surprising, however, was support for the pro-pot side of the case from the conservative Pacific Legal Foundation, which filed a brief earlier on what is viewed as the key legal issue - the scope of the federal government's power to regulate interstate commerce.

Though the Sacramento-based foundation pointedly weighed in on the case "in support of neither party," its brief says the federal power should extend only to endeavors that are economic and substantially affect interstate commerce.

Known as Ashcroft v. Raich, the case was initiated by two Northern California medical pot patients, Angel Raich of Oakland and Diane Monson of Oroville.

Monson grows her pot in her small garden. Raich receives hers from two anonymous grower-caregivers, also parties in the case, who reportedly scrupulously avoid involvement with commercial drug traffic.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in the plaintiffs' favor, saying their activity appeared to be noncommercial and, therefore, probably was beyond the federal government's legal reach.

The court directed a judge to enjoin U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft and other federal agents from interfering with Raich's and Monson's pot supplies.

If the Supreme Court upholds the ruling, it could provide a blueprint for state-sanctioned medical Marijuana operations that have been plagued by federal raids, arrests and seizures of drugs and other assets.

The federal government outlined its legal position when it filed its brief two months ago.

The brief argues that even purely local Marijuana possession and distribution directly affect the nation's $10.5 billion-a-year illegal pot market.

It cites the flat ban on Marijuana in the 1970 U.S. Controlled Substances Act and argues that in passing the law, Congress determined that local drugs "contribute to swelling the interstate (drug) traffic."

Lockyer's brief takes on that argument. It says the federal statute was aimed at hard-core narcotics pushers and was enacted 26 years before the first medical pot laws were passed in California and Arizona.

The 1970 Congress "could not have determined that state-regulated, personal medicinal Marijuana usage had an effect on the interstate Marijuana trafficking as a whole, because there was no state-regulated medical Marijuana program in existence at the time," the brief says.

[Plains: For a related article, please read This.]

__________________


"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." - Claire Wolfe

Posting Guidelines

 

RightWingStoner

"More surprising, however, was support for the pro-pot side of the case from the conservative Pacific Legal Foundation, which filed a brief earlier on what is viewed as the key legal issue - the scope of the federal government's power to regulate interstate commerce."


This is essentially the same argument that Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana are presenting. This is where true right wing political idiology shows its face. Unlike the illogical, illnatured and altogether futile War On Drugs that my party refuses to let go of, true Republicans realize that its the states' rights (dont even bring up the Confederacy or any other such thing- I'm not proposing the South should rise again!) to regulate "their citizens' health, safety, welfare and morals, and the federal government should stop interfering."

Thats one reason why I'm a RightWingStoner: because i dont believe we should increase the scope of the national government.

Politics aside, I'm looking forward to the case and anything else that is bringing the issue of legalizing medicinal marijuana to the forefront- where it should be. Until then, peace

__________________
I'm a Republican weed-smoker. I completely disagree with my party's infamous "War", but that single policy is not enough to sway my vote. peace

AlucardOrange3

You (and I as well) definitely agree with Republican ideals. The problem that I see is that the party leaders rarely if ever carry out those ideals (same problem with the democrats). They claim they want less government, more freedom, less taxes, etc. How the hell do you promote lower taxes when you're actively f*cking over the education and health systems while stuffing the defense budget like it's a fat kid in a candy store?

In the 1950s, Americans paid around 2-3% of their incomes to federal taxes, on average. Now? 25-35%. And the schools have gotten worse. The healthcare system has gotten worse. The military? State of the f*ckin art. So basically we are a much less educated, less healthy, and yet better armed nation than we were 50 years ago. All you have to do is follow the money, right into the Oval Office, right into the G.O.P. pockets, right into the Democratic Party pockets, right into the pockets of all the people running our country. Do they mention the money? No, they tell us what we want to hear, about fighting terrorism (which kills less people in a decade than aspirin and caffeine do in a year), about being 'tough on crime', about lower taxes and better healthcare and school lunches for everybody. If they actually meant this sh*t and possessed the intelligence and strategy to implement it, then why, after 100 years of extremely similar promises from BOTH major parties are they still promising (and failing to do) the same old sh*t? Sure, what Bush says SOUNDS great sometimes, but a lot of the sh*t that Clinton said SOUNDED great too. Problem is, they've already been bought and paid for, the one that gets elected just happens to be better at pretending otherwise...

In a blunt summary, my vote DOES count and I'll be one of about a dozen people voting Libertarian this year ;-)

AO3

__________________
"When a true genius appears in the world, you shall know him by this sign; that all the dunces are in confederacy against him." Jonathan Swift

RightWingStoner

"In a blunt summary, my vote DOES count and I'll be one of about a dozen people voting Libertarian this year ;-)"

All last year I called myself Libertarian as I, like yourself, was fed up with the two-party monopoly on our nation. Each party has their ideals, yet fail to implement them because their own spite for each other ruins any hope of getting anything progressive accomplished. What we are left with is a congress in stagnation, courts in conflict and politicians left with nothing better to do than scam money while they are still in office.

This is something I really need to come to terms with. I dont trust either of the two major parties, but get way too disheartened to vote Libertarian. I basically pick the lesser of two evils. Either way, I dont see the Democrats or the Republicans having to abdicate their position anytime soon. I think this is just something that is going to crash and burn with time. This two-party rut we are stuck in.