Pubdate: Thu, 09 Jun 2005
Source: Savannah Morning News (GA)
Copyright: 2005 Savannah Morning News
Contact:  http://www.savannahnow.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/401
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topics/Raich (Gonzales v. Raich )

COURT GOES TO POT

THE AWESOME powers of the federal government are like Tabasco sauce. A
little bit goes a long way.

Unfortunately, a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court gave the
Constitution an unhealthy soaking Monday with its heavy-handed ruling
about medical marijuana.

This case of Gonzales v. Raich wasn't about legalizing an illicit
substance, which many people oppose. It wasn't about interstate
commerce either, although that's how the majority argued it.

Rather, it was about respecting and preserving states' rights. It was
about giving states like California, where this case originated, the
constitutional leeway to enact laws as citizens there see fit without
federal interference.

The court, sadly, took the chilling position that Washington knows
what's best.

In its 6-3 decision, the court essentially turned back laws in 10
states that permitted the possession and cultivation of small amounts
of marijuana for medicinal use, often by cancer patients who are
seeking relief from the pain and nausea caused by chemotherapy.

Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, said the
Constitution gives the feds the final word in this case, which began
in 2002 when federal agents raided a home in California where a woman
with a brain tumor and scoliosis grew her own pot for her own use -
something that has been legal there since 1996, as long as the user
has a doctor's recommendation. He said homegrown marijuana can be
regulated as interstate commerce. That's a troubling use of federal
authority to trump state statutes.

It would be one thing if potheads in California and the other nine
states where medicinal marijuana is legal had set up a distribution
system to market weed nationwide. Indeed, such drug peddlers could be
prosecuted under numerous state and federal laws. But this case isn't
about drug dealing. It's about mercy and compassion for a few sick
people. It's about citizens in a handful of states enacting laws that
they believed would help relieve pain and suffering and offer comfort.

Citizens, of course, are free to agree whether marijuana should be
offered as a pain reliever of choice. But that's where state
governments play a role. States should have broad latitude to
experiment with these and other laws. Let the democratic process lead
the way to a consensus on difficult or controversial issues, not the
courts.

Obviously, a liberal-leaning state like California may have a
different way of looking at marijuana than a conservative-leaning
state like Georgia. But Georgia has a different take on gay marriages.
Part of the beauty of having 50 states is that each state is a
mini-laboratory, free to enact laws and serve as test cases for
national laws that Congress may consider. The Supreme Court should
nurture this process, not squash it as it did this week.

Sadly, using the majority's logic, the Commerce Cause could be used by
the feds to justify almost any intrusion into a state's business. We
applaud Justices Clarence Thomas and Sandra Day O'Connor, along with
Chief Justice William Rehnquist, for trying to keep Washington's
immense powers bottled up. 
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake