Tornado Alley (PROG)

[F6]

Federal Law Trumps State Approval of Pot, Court Rules

By David G. Savage
Times Staff Writer

7:37 PM PDT, June 6, 2005

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Monday upheld the federal government's power to seize and destroy marijuana that is used as medicine by seriously ill patients, ruling that strict federal drug laws trump California's liberalized policy on pot.

The Constitution makes the laws of the United States the "supreme law of the land," and "if there is any conflict between federal and state law, federal law shall prevail," Justice John Paul Stevens said for the court. It is up to Congress, he said, to change the law.

The 6-3 decision did not seek to resolve the dispute over whether marijuana may be good medicine. Instead, the justices focused on whether the federal government could enforce its zero-tolerance policy on marijuana in the 10 states -- most of them in the West -- where voters or lawmakers have opted to legalize marijuana used for medical purposes.

The court's leading liberals sided with the Bush administration and its federal drug enforcers, while three of its more conservative members, including Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, joined the side of the California marijuana users to limit the federal authority.

The decision weakens, but does not overturn, state laws that permit seriously ill people to use marijuana to relieve pain or nausea.

Federal drug agents, prosecutors and judges may arrest, try and punish those who grow or use marijuana, the high court said, even in states that have laws legalizing it.

However, state and local police need not assist in those efforts. And since most law enforcement is carried out by state and local officials, the liberalized medical marijuana laws should continue to have practical significance.

California Attorney General Bill Lockyer said the ruling "shows the vast philosophical difference between the federal government and Californians on the rights of patients. ... Taking medicine on the recommendation of a doctor for a legitimate illness should not be a crime," he said.

Federal law-enforcement officials sought to dispel the idea that drug agents would be unleashed on marijuana-using patients in California and other states.

"The vast majority of our cases are against those involved in trafficking, and major cultivation and distribution," Karen P. Tandy, head of the Drug Enforcement Administration, said Monday. "I don't see any significant changes in DEA enforcement strategies after today's decision. We don't target sick and dying people."

The case before the court was brought by two ill California women, one of whom had her personal marijuana confiscated by federal agents.

Angel Raich, a brain-tumor patient from Oakland, Calif., urged Congress on Monday to rethink its policy toward marijuana.

"I'm in this battle, literally, for my life," she said after the ruling. She called on Congress to "stop federal raids on sick and dying patients. ... I hope for myself, for my children and for other patients out there that our congressional leaders put compassion first. Our lives are literally in their hands."

There is House bill pending, sponsored by Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., that would permit physicians to prescribe marijuana as medicine. But it has been rejected several times, and its chances of becoming law are seen as slim.

In the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, Congress classified marijuana as a dangerous and illegal drug that had no benefits. Although many experts dispute that conclusion, Congress has made no move to amend the law. The statute makes it illegal to import, manufacture, distribute, possess or use marijuana.

In 1996, California voters approved a measure that said "seriously ill Californians have the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes" if they have a recommendation from a physician. Since then, Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington have passed similar laws.

The case decided Monday focused on patients who grew marijuana at home for their own use. It tested whether Congress' power to regulate "commerce among the states" extended to individuals who were not buying or selling marijuana.

Raich sued to defend her personal use of marijuana as medicine. She suffers from serious medical conditions, including an inoperable brain tumor, chronic back pain and muscle spasms. She and her doctor said cannabis was uniquely effective in relieving her pain. She sued along with Diane Monson after DEA agents raided Monson's Butte County, Calif., home three years ago and destroyed her marijuana plants.

Their lawyers argued that homegrown marijuana did not involve interstate commerce and therefore was beyond the authority of the federal government.

The case posed an interesting twist for the justices. In the past, the liberals have favored broad federal power because it was crucial in areas such as the minimum-wage law, civil-rights enforcement and environmental protection. The conservatives have favored protection of states' rights and limits on federal power.

In the case decided Monday, both sides were true to form, with two exceptions.

The court's liberal bloc -- Justices Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer -- agreed with the Bush administration's stand against the marijuana users. They were joined by conservative Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony M. Kennedy, who in the past have taken the side of states' rights.

The six-member majority said Congress had the authority to police the illegal national market in marijuana. "One need not have a degree in economics to understand why a nationwide exemption for the vast quantity of marijuana (or other drugs) locally cultivated for personal use ... may have a substantial impact on the interstate market for this extraordinarily popular substance," Stevens wrote. [F6 comment -- yah Stevens, you jackass, if anything such an exemption would limit/diminish that market -- the same obviously being precisely the primary objective of the 1970 federal law (as stated point-blank by Thomas in the quote from his dissenting opinion below)]

The court's majority made clear it was not endorsing the federal policy on marijuana. "The voices of voters allied with (these two women) may one day be heard in the halls of Congress," Stevens said.

Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas dissented in the case of Gonzales v. Raich. They said the Constitution should be read to "protect historical spheres of state sovereignty from excessive federal encroachment."

"This case exemplifies the role of states as laboratories," O'Connor said. Their voters and lawmakers should be given the freedom to set their own laws regarding "the health, safety and welfare of their citizens," she said.

Thomas questioned how a few patients could upset the national market for marijuana. "Congress' goal of thwarting the interstate drug trade would not plainly be thwarted if it could not apply the (federal law) to patients like Monson and Raich," Thomas said. "If Congress can regulate this ... then it can regulate virtually anything," he said.

Times staff writer Richard B. Schmitt contributed to this report.

Copyright 2005 Los Angeles Times (emphasis added)

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-scotus7may07,0,2073437.story?coll=la-home-headl...