T
The420Guy
Guest
The Clinton Administration recently gained a conservative ally when
the Family Research Council joined the government's case
against a California medical marijuana law. The U.S. Supreme Court
will examine in United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers'
Cooperative whether federal law making marijuana illegal was
intended to preempt a state's ability to make an exception for
medicinal use of the drug.
The administration argues that federal law does preempt the state
law in this case. The FRC agrees that marijuana use is not an
issue for the states to decide. But others say regardless of
whether Congress intended to preempt such state laws, it's another example
of the
federal government overstepping its constitutional authority, this
time with support from conservatives.
"When the Republicans took over Congress in 1994, their big theme
was federalism and reducing the size of the federal government," said Timothy
Lynch, director of the Cato Institute's project on criminal
justice. "Yet, here we are, with the voters in the states saying we want to
adopt a different
policy in our state, and the federal government...says it's going
to arrest anybody who tries to use or prescribe medical marijuana," he said.
"A lot of the conservatives who have talked about federalism are
being exposed as hypocrites," said Lynch. "They're not criticizing the federal
government for dictating a one-size policy to all of the states."
Robert Maginnis, FRC's vice-president of national security and
foreign affairs, says interstate commerce powers and the importance of the
issue
trump federalism. "No doubt, there are interstate commerce
implications," said Maginnis, referring to Article I, Section 8 of the U.S.
Constitution,
which grants the federal government the power to regulate commerce
between the states. "Substances don't know boundaries, but people do," he
said. "If we're going to allow anyone to consume anything, even
though it has some very serious consequences, the social costs will be
astronomical" in terms of deaths from drug use.
"If we are not concerned about what a state does with regard to an
illegal substance, then what's going to keep one state from competing against
another?" Maginnis asked. "The federal law exists for a reason ...
and there are very credible reasons to protect the FDA process," said Maginnis.
"The Supreme Court should heed drug czar Barry McCaffrey's words
and see the smoke and mirrors of a 'carefully camouflaged, well-funded,
tightly knit core of people whose goal is to legalize drug use in
the United States,'" Maginnis added.
The motives for drug legalization notwithstanding, federalism
expert Michael Greve disagrees with Maginnis's interpretation of the interstate
commerce clause. "If this were a straightforward, constitutional
case [before the Supreme Court], there is no way in the world that the feds
could
regulate this," said Greve, a scholar with the American Enterprise
Institute.
"I could understand if the feds then said 'don't transport the
stuff,'" Greve continued. "Just because you're allowed to use it in one
state, even for
medical purposes, it doesn't entitle you to go scot-free if you
travel to the next state. If the next state criminalizes dope, you cannot
carry your home
state's law around you, like a shield around you, wherever you go,"
he said.
The bigger question that won't be challenged, according to Greve,
is whether the FDA has the constitutional authority to regulate marijuana
across
state lines.
Both Lynch and Maginnis believe the Supreme Court will rule against
the California law in a split vote, with the more conservative justices
voting to
strike it down and the more liberal justices endorsing the measure.
Justice Stephen Breyer has recused himself from the case because his brother,
U.S. District Court Judge Charles Breyer, previously ruled on the case.
Greve thinks the outcome will hinge on whether the justices think
the legislative language was clear in preempting state law.
Source: CNSNews.com
Author: Christine Hall, CNS Staff Writer
Published: January 16, 2001
Website: CNS News
Forum: https://www.cnsnews.com/forum/Default.asp?
Related Articles & Web Sites:
Oakland Cannabis Buyer's Cooperative
Welcome to PIDC's Home Page
Cato Institute
Cato Institute
Supreme Court To Decide Medical Marijuana Case
cannabisnews.com: Supreme Court To Decide Medical Marijuana Case
Supreme Court Accepts Medical-Marijuana Issue
cannabisnews.com: Supreme Court Accepts Medical-Marijuana Issue
Official Reefer Madness
cannabisnews.com: Official Reefer Madness
CannabisNews Medical Marijuana Archives
cannabisnews.com: medical related topics
Jeff Jones
Officer of the City of Oakland for the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative
PO Box 70401 Oakland, CA 94612
(510) 832-5346 Fax (510) 986-0534 www.rxcbc.org jeffj@rxcbc.org
the Family Research Council joined the government's case
against a California medical marijuana law. The U.S. Supreme Court
will examine in United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers'
Cooperative whether federal law making marijuana illegal was
intended to preempt a state's ability to make an exception for
medicinal use of the drug.
The administration argues that federal law does preempt the state
law in this case. The FRC agrees that marijuana use is not an
issue for the states to decide. But others say regardless of
whether Congress intended to preempt such state laws, it's another example
of the
federal government overstepping its constitutional authority, this
time with support from conservatives.
"When the Republicans took over Congress in 1994, their big theme
was federalism and reducing the size of the federal government," said Timothy
Lynch, director of the Cato Institute's project on criminal
justice. "Yet, here we are, with the voters in the states saying we want to
adopt a different
policy in our state, and the federal government...says it's going
to arrest anybody who tries to use or prescribe medical marijuana," he said.
"A lot of the conservatives who have talked about federalism are
being exposed as hypocrites," said Lynch. "They're not criticizing the federal
government for dictating a one-size policy to all of the states."
Robert Maginnis, FRC's vice-president of national security and
foreign affairs, says interstate commerce powers and the importance of the
issue
trump federalism. "No doubt, there are interstate commerce
implications," said Maginnis, referring to Article I, Section 8 of the U.S.
Constitution,
which grants the federal government the power to regulate commerce
between the states. "Substances don't know boundaries, but people do," he
said. "If we're going to allow anyone to consume anything, even
though it has some very serious consequences, the social costs will be
astronomical" in terms of deaths from drug use.
"If we are not concerned about what a state does with regard to an
illegal substance, then what's going to keep one state from competing against
another?" Maginnis asked. "The federal law exists for a reason ...
and there are very credible reasons to protect the FDA process," said Maginnis.
"The Supreme Court should heed drug czar Barry McCaffrey's words
and see the smoke and mirrors of a 'carefully camouflaged, well-funded,
tightly knit core of people whose goal is to legalize drug use in
the United States,'" Maginnis added.
The motives for drug legalization notwithstanding, federalism
expert Michael Greve disagrees with Maginnis's interpretation of the interstate
commerce clause. "If this were a straightforward, constitutional
case [before the Supreme Court], there is no way in the world that the feds
could
regulate this," said Greve, a scholar with the American Enterprise
Institute.
"I could understand if the feds then said 'don't transport the
stuff,'" Greve continued. "Just because you're allowed to use it in one
state, even for
medical purposes, it doesn't entitle you to go scot-free if you
travel to the next state. If the next state criminalizes dope, you cannot
carry your home
state's law around you, like a shield around you, wherever you go,"
he said.
The bigger question that won't be challenged, according to Greve,
is whether the FDA has the constitutional authority to regulate marijuana
across
state lines.
Both Lynch and Maginnis believe the Supreme Court will rule against
the California law in a split vote, with the more conservative justices
voting to
strike it down and the more liberal justices endorsing the measure.
Justice Stephen Breyer has recused himself from the case because his brother,
U.S. District Court Judge Charles Breyer, previously ruled on the case.
Greve thinks the outcome will hinge on whether the justices think
the legislative language was clear in preempting state law.
Source: CNSNews.com
Author: Christine Hall, CNS Staff Writer
Published: January 16, 2001
Website: CNS News
Forum: https://www.cnsnews.com/forum/Default.asp?
Related Articles & Web Sites:
Oakland Cannabis Buyer's Cooperative
Welcome to PIDC's Home Page
Cato Institute
Cato Institute
Supreme Court To Decide Medical Marijuana Case
cannabisnews.com: Supreme Court To Decide Medical Marijuana Case
Supreme Court Accepts Medical-Marijuana Issue
cannabisnews.com: Supreme Court Accepts Medical-Marijuana Issue
Official Reefer Madness
cannabisnews.com: Official Reefer Madness
CannabisNews Medical Marijuana Archives
cannabisnews.com: medical related topics
Jeff Jones
Officer of the City of Oakland for the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative
PO Box 70401 Oakland, CA 94612
(510) 832-5346 Fax (510) 986-0534 www.rxcbc.org jeffj@rxcbc.org
