7- The Dissent

7- Dissent – The case was decided 6-3 in favor of the petitioners. 3 Justices dissent.

“The Supreme Court handed down its decision today against Raich. The vote was 6-3 to reverse the 9th Circuit with the decision written by Stevens. O'Connor, Renquist, and Thomas dissented.”

“This case exemplifies the role of States as laboratories. The States' core police powers have always included authority to define criminal law and to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens. Exercising those powers, California (by ballot initiative and then by legislative codification) has come to its own conclusion about the difficult and sensitive question of whether marijuana should be available to relieve severe pain and suffering…”

Since California took the initiative to legalize Marijuana on the State level, the states, through ballot have chosen to some degree to experiment on how to handle marijuana and regulate it without compromising the health, safety and welfare of the citizens. On a state level concluding weather they may use marijuana for medicinal purposes. “States as Laboratories” which imply that they are doing their own research and development regarding Marijuana. Which I think includes cultivation, possession, use, economical effects, regulation, health effects. Since 1996(prop 215 – legalize Marijuana for medicinal purposes) it is becoming more accepted in the state of California.

“ Today the Court sanctions an application of the federal Controlled Substances Act that extinguishes that experiment, without any proof that the personal cultivation, possession, and use of marijuana for medicinal purposes, if economic activity in the first place, has a substantial effect on interstate commerce and is therefore an appropriate subject of federal regulation...”

However on the Federal level, with the application of the Controlled Substace Act(Marijuana as Schedule 1 drug) It totally “extinguishesʻ the States initiative and or research and development on Marijuana. The thing that popped out of my mind is the argument on the petitionors side it is “without any proof that the personal cultivation, possession, and use of marijuana for medinial purposes, if economic activity in the first place, has substantial effect on interstate commerce and is therefore an appropriate subject of federal regulation.” ʻWITH OUT ANY PROOF”

The CSA does not reason, does not have any compassion toward its uses for someone with Brain Cancer(respondent – Raich)…and is not specific on marijuana commerce alone. Which means, there is no way of knowing if in fact it does or does not affect interstate commerce, and/or the national marijuana market. Rather, the CSA is merely a comprehensive act which placed Marijuana in that category to regulate on a federal level, Injunction with the Supremacy Clause(federal over state).

“In so doing, the Court announces a rule that gives Congress a perverse incentive to legislate broadly pursuant to the Commerce Clause -- nestling questionable assertions of its authority into comprehensive regulatory schemes -- rather than with precision. That rule and the result it produces in this case are irreconcilable with our decisions in Lopez, supra, and United States v. Morrison, 529 U. S. 598 (2000). Accordingly I dissent. [...] “

The courts ruling on this case goes in favor of congress, in which she included that it is a ʻperverse incentive to legislateʻ. ʻnestling questionable assertions of its authority into comprehensive regulatory schemesʻ RATHER THAN WITH PRECISIONʻ

We would do well to recall how James Madison, the father of the Constitution, described our system of joint sovereignty to the people of New York: "The powers delegated by the proposed constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. . . . The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State." The Federalist No. 45, pp. 292[^]293 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961).

- from the dissent by Justice O'Connor”

- http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/2004/11/23/raichVAshcroftAGuideToTheS.html

“The powers by the proposed constitution to the federal government are FEW AND DEFINED.”

“Those(powers) which are to remain in the state government are NUMEROUS AND INDEFINITE.”

“The powers to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State”

These few statements reiterates the dissent opinion. Reinforcing my opinion on that the CSA, a comprehensive regulation, is not Few and Defined but rather ambiguous.

The following statement was by Justice OʻConnor. One who actually ruled against the respondent(Raich). It sounds like some sort of mild dissent. However I thought it was interesting to include it.

“We do note, however, the presence of another avenue of relief. As the Solicitor General confirmed during oral argument, the statute authorizes procedures for the reclassification of Schedule I drugs. But perhaps even more important than these legal avenues is the democratic process, in which the voices of voters allied with these respondents may one day be heard in the halls of Congress.

Under the present state of the law, however, the judgment of the Court of Appeals must be vacated. The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered.

- from the opinion by Justice Stevens”

I gained a greater understanding of this case while understanding the dissent alone. It sounds like this is just a small part in effort to legalize Marijuana not only for use, cultivation, possession(state level), but for commerce too, specifically interstate commerce(federal level) It was interesting to read the dissents and what the opinion implied about the CSA and that its regulation is “opinion” based(theory) and not “research” based(evident). I really feel that the CSA is obsolete and it may be amended in the future. The dissent makes it one step closer.