Newsfeed
Printer-Friendly ModeCourt's ruling on marijuana clarified
July 19, 2005 —
The Supreme Court recently rendered a decision regarding medical marijuana that was largely misunderstood and, given that the issue at hand is often misrepresented, it is not surprising that their decision made little sense.
First and foremost, it is important to note that the Supreme Court does not make laws; the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution. When a pundit or politician uses the term “activist judges,” they mean that the judges are making decisions based on their personal opinions and not by a strict interpretation of the law. It is common for liberal judges to be labeled “activists” and conservative judges to be labeled “constructionist,” but of course “activist” really only means that one disagrees with the court’s legal interpretation.
In Gonzales v. Raich, the case at hand, it is difficult to argue that anyone was an “activist judge,” even if one disagrees with the decision. The positions in the drug debate can easily be divided into two categories: those opposed to legalized drugs and those against legalized drugs. However, the recent decision regarding medical marijuana was much more complicated. The 6-3 decision against medical marijuana was not consistent with the ideologies of the respective judges; the three dissenters – Sandra Day O’Conner, Clarence Thomas, and Chief Justice William Rehnquist – were all appointed by Republican presidents.
The Supreme Court did not vote for or against marijuana. In fact, they did not even decide that medical marijuana was illegal because that would mean they were making a law (and it would be appropriate to label them “activist”). What they really decided was that the Constitution allowed the federal government the authority to make laws regarding medical marijuana that essentially trump state laws.
For example, California and Arizona passed referenda to legalize medical marijuana in 1996, and seven other states also have laws in place that permit physicians to prescribe, dispense, or distribute marijuana for medical purposes. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Gonzales v. Raich allows the federal government to pass legislation that would ban medical marijuana, overriding laws of those nine states and allowing the federal government to prosecute physicians who administer medical marijuana to patients. There is a good chance that the federal legislature will eventually pass such a bill.
This decision has riled libertarians and states-rights advocates because it gives too much power to the federal government, which they argue is dangerous because it creates bigger government and leads to corruption. Considering the current administration that is in power, I can sympathize. Ideally, the federal government should only have jurisdiction over the states in issues pertaining to national security, individual rights, or interstate commerce; the majority chose the latter to justify their decision. According to Justice John Paul Stevens, “Congress’ power to regulate purely activities that are part of an economic ‘class of activities’ that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce is firmly established.” Because marijuana is often sold illegally across American borders, the Court determined that the federal government could regulate it.
Opponents of medical marijuana may or may not acknowledge the potential of medical marijuana, but they claim that the issue is really about legalizing all marijuana. After all, it would make marijuana more accessible to citizens. They claim that medical marijuana is just a smoke screen for proponents of legalized marijuana (and other recreational drugs), since a vast amount of the resources used to promote medical marijuana come from such advocates. It is given that these people will contribute to the cause, but their participation should not discredit the entire group. This issue is really about helping sick people, not whether one is for or against legalizing recreational drugs. People with AIDS, Multiple Sclerosis, Tourette’s syndrome, and glaucoma can experience a higher quality of life because marijuana relieves the symptoms associated with these illnesses.
The use of marijuana as a therapeutic ingredient in natural remedies has existed for thousands of years. While marijuana does not cure anything, it does help people with incurable diseases live more comfortably. It would be in the best interest of these victims, and society as a whole, to permit the use of medical marijuana.
The Supreme Court did not consider the advantages and disadvantages of medical marijuana because that is not their job. Instead, they examined the Constitution carefully and determined that the federal government had the authority to regulate medical marijuana.
Whether one agrees or disagrees with the majority, it is important to recognize that this was simply the system of checks and balances at work. The reasoning used in this case seems like a stretch because obviously marijuana is illegal, so it could not possibly be considered commerce of any kind. However, I can rest assured that this decision, for which I side with the dissenters, was reached democratically. Hopefully democracy will prevail in the end by citizens urging representatives to pass a bill that legalizes medical marijuana.