Reefer madness

The U.S. Supreme Court ruling on medical marijuana was legally consistent but logically silly.
It doesn’t overturn the 12 state laws that guarantee access to medical marijuana, but it does give federal agents the right to harass these harmless and suffering tokers. Talk about mixed messages.
We have a meth epidemic in this country, among other serious drug problems. Doesn’t the Drug Enforcement Administration have better things to do?
This is your Supreme Court on drugs. Congress should intervene.
Posted by Randy Scholfield

One Comment

  1. Mark P. Schooley, M.D.
    Posted June 13, 2005 at 6:58 am | Permalink

    “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

    The plaintiff/respondent’s attorneys in Gonzales v. Raich should have forced the Supreme Court to focus on the Constitution’s Preamble, not the Commerce Clause. The Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, and the Controlled Substance Act of 1971 both have their genesis in the concept of government’s role in promoting the general welfare of the American populace. Prior to 1906, Americans were being poisoned by quack nostrums (as well as tainted food products), so Congress acted to protect Americans’ welfare. The illegal drug epidemic of the 1960’s threatened the nation’s general welfare.

    Had the Preamble been put on the table, the Supreme Court would have been forced to consider the concept of promoting the welfare of victims of terrible diseases, such as cancer, multiple sclerosis, and AIDS, who are American citizens, for whom marijuana seems to provide significant relief from suffering, and in many cases, enables them to be productive.

    In 1971, marijuana was classified as a Schedule I drug, i.e. one with zero medical utility. The medical establishment rendered this judgment. Today, the medical establishment finds that marijuana has some medical utility. Medical marijuana allowances were passed in 12 states not through irrationality, but only after careful study and strong support from healthcare experts. Were CSA enacted today, marijuana would be a Schedul II drug–subject to controlled restrictions, but available through prescription.

    It is troubling that Attorney General Gonzales didn’t accept the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, because this was a COMPASSIONATE ruling. It considered the alleviation of suffering, and found that such alleviation was worthwhile.

    Mr. Gonzales’ decision to challenge this ruling, we think likely with the President’s approval, forces any thinking person to wonder, just what does “compassionate conservative” actually mean?