Justice Antonin Scalia, frequent advocate of limited federal power, discovers sweeping federal purview in the case of medical marijuana, writing in a separate concurring opinion, "Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce."
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/227513_medweeded.asp
Supreme Court: Reefer mandamus Wednesday, June 8, 2005
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER EDITORIAL BOARD
The U.S. Supreme Court's refusal to allow state laws to protect medical marijuana users from federal prosecution seemed to be tied up in a somewhat arcane debate over the federal government's power to regulate interstate commerce.
But was it really? Hold the court's support of Congress' power to impose drug laws up against the same court's rejection of Congress' power to impose laws through the Gun-Free School Zones Act and Violence Against Women Act. The court majority views the local use of a locally grown herb as of more interstate interest than guns in schools or domestic violence.
Justice Antonin Scalia, frequent advocate of limited federal power, discovers sweeping federal purview in the case of medical marijuana, writing in a separate concurring opinion, "Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce."
The Supreme Court ruling on application of federal law should have limited if any real local effect in Washington and the 10 other states with such laws, unless overzealous law enforcement officers and prosecutors are so bereft of real crime to fight they find time and resources to go after sick people.
The decision's author, Justice John Paul Stevens, sent Congress a none-too-subtle hint that the overarching solution lies with sensible federal laws that permit the medical use of marijuana.
=30=