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.

6- Your own argument

6- Your own argument.  Did you agree or disagree with the ruling.  Provide some authority for your argument. 

I Disagree with the ruling, specifically in the case of Ashcroft vs. Raich.  According to the CSA, which was written in 1970, It seems obsolete to conclude that Marijuana has no medical purpose according to the CSA(federal level). 

I feel that the respondents, within the State level (California) Proposition 215 – Compassionate Use Act, which allows the use of Marijuana for Medical purposes, was totally legal.  With a Doctors recommendation (opinion)  Marijuana may be used for a given number of symptoms.  Since its inception (1996) the goal of prop 215 was to provide a safe and affordable system for the use and distribution of marijuana.  Prop 215 enabled the State of California to some degree do its own “research” on Marijuana, as a medicine, as a market.  Since 1996, the market for medical marijuana has grown and advanced as a science.  Because of its allowed use on a state level, more findings become available publicly.  

The respondents were terminally ill and needed Marijuana in order to stay alive and deal with her illness(brain tumor).  And I don’t agree that her cultivation or use of Marijuana affected the national market detrimentally to the CSA.  I believe that it is merely a formality within the CSA that needs to be amended.

 

The following study was conducted around 2002.

  

 

Summary of 2480 Medical Marijuana Patients

 Interviewed by Dr. Tod Mikuriya

 

Source:  Dale Gieringer, "Medical Use of Cannabis in California," in Franjo Grotenhermen, M.D. & Ethan Russo, M.D.,  ed.,  Cannabis and Cannabinoids: Pharmacology, Toxicology and Therapeutic Potential,  Haworth Press, 2002

 

           

Nausea & Appetite Loss

  Total:                                                              113    = 4.6%

hepatitis                                                             42

AIDS/HIV                                                        25

cancer*                                                               29

nausea, other                                                    17

* includes chemotherapy patients w/ nausea & others w/ post-operative pain, etc.

 

Spasms, Convulsions                                        

  Total                                                               228    =9.2%

head, brain injury                                            45

epilepsy                                                             25

spasm                                                                23

quad/paraplegia                                              21

lower back pain                                               20

MS                                                                      15

colitis                                                                  19

pylorospasm                                                      9

post-Polio                                                            7

 others                                                               44

(cerebral palsy, Tourette¹s, et al.)

                                                                               

Analgesia / ³Immunomodulatory Anti-Inflammant²

 

  Total                                                            1133    = 45.7%

 

(A) Migraine and Neuralgias                          

      Subtotal:                                                    179    = 7.2%

migraine                                                          127

neuropathy                                                       22

sinusitis                                                              12

psychogenic pain                                              5

other pain,  neuralgias                                    13

 

(B) Arthritis                                                         

   Subtotal                                                        433    =17.5%

arthritis, post-traumatic                                      318

arthritis, degenerative                                        37

fibromyalgia                                                         21

arthropathy                                                          22

myofascial pain                                                    11

rheumatoid arthritis                                            10

psoriatic arthritis                                                  5

other arthritis                                                       9

   (inc. lupus, polyarthritis et al)

 

(C) Spinal & Skeletal Disorders:

   Subtotal                                                        366    =14.8%

lumbosacral back disease                                   175

disks & vertebra diseases                                   88

scoliosis                                                                 33

spondylolisthesis                                                 12

spinal stenosis                                                      7

spondylosis                                                           6

other spinal                                                           12

sacrum disorder                                                   11

other skeletal                                                        22

 

(D)   Injury, trauma

   Subtotal                                                          57    =2.3%

sprain, whiplash                                               36

carpal tunnel                                                     12

other trauma                                                      9

                                                                               

(E) Gastrointestinal:                                          

   Subtotal                                                          68    =2.7%

gastritis                                                              50

peptic ulcer                                                       10

Crohn's Disease                                                 5

other intestinal                                                   3

 

(F) Other Inflammatory                                 30    =1.2%

   (endometriosis, panniculitis, pruritis et al.)

 

 

                                                                               

Mood Disorders                                                 

  Total                                                               660    = 26.6%

post-traumatic stress disorder                     274

depression                                                      162

anxiety disorder                                               73

dysthymic disorder                                         46

bipolar disorder                                               34

schizophrenia                                                   26

attention deficit disorder                                15

obsessive compulsive  disorder                      8

panic disorder                                                    5

other psychiatric                                              17

 

Insomnia                                                              

   Total                                                                71    = 2.9%

                                                                               

 

 

Harm Reduction / Substitution

   Total:                                                             136    = 5.5%

alcohol dependency                                      118

opiate dependency                                            8

others                                                                10

 

Glaucoma & eye diseases

   Total:                                                               24    = 1.0%

glaucoma                                                          15

others                                                                  9

(drusen cyst, disease of conjuntiva, et al)

 

Asthma:

  Total                                                                 53    =2.1%

 

Miscellaneous:

   Total                                                                62    = 2.5%

Pre-Menstrual Stress                                       24

Lyme disease                                                      8

hypertension                                                      7

others                                                                23

   (tinnitus, Meniere¹s disease, diabetes, chronic fatigue syndrome, et al.) I was personally apart of such market.  I was recommended by my doctor and was written a prescription to use marijuana for medical purposes.

 

http://canorml.org/prop/MMJIndications.htm

www.canorml.org

5 – Rule of law - a concise summary of the main precedent established.

5 – Rule of law - a concise summary of the main precedent established.                     

In this case, under the Supremacy Clause, pursuant to the Controlled Substance Act, of which lists Marijuana as a Schedule 1 drug, federal government(congress) may regulate such Cultivation, and usage of Marijuana on the local level because it affects the national marijuana market(commerce) even if they are purely local activities performed by respondents.

4 - Reasoning of the Court

4 – Reasoning of the Court  - analysis of the thinking process and logic used by previous judges

 

Opinion by Judge Stevens

This case comes to us from the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

California is one of at least nine states that authorize the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes.

The question presented in this case is whether the power vested in Congress by Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution its authority to regulate interstate commerce includes the power to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana in compliance with California law.

Respondents are seriously ill California residents.

Their doctors have concluded after unsuccessfully prescribing a host of conventional medicines that marijuana is the only drug available that provides effective treatment.

Both women have been using marijuana as a medication for several years pursuant to their doctors’ recommendation, and both rely heavily on cannabis to function on a daily basis.

While respondents’ activities do not violate California law, they do violate the Federal Controlled Substance Act of 1970, a comprehensive regulatory statute which, among other things, categorically prohibits the manufacture, distribution, or possession of marijuana for any purpose.

After agents from the Drug Enforcement Administration seized and destroyed their cannabis plants, respondents filed this action to prohibit enforcement of the federal statute to the extent that it prevents them from cultivating marijuana for their personal medical use.

The District Court denied relief, but the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that as applied to their activities, the CSA exceeded Congress power under the Commerce Clause.

Because of the obvious importance of the case, we granted certiorari.

The case is extremely troublesome because respondents have made such a strong showing that they will suffer irreparable harm if denied the use of marijuana to treat their serious medical illness.

But the question before us is not whether marijuana does in fact have valid therapeutic purposes, nor whether it is a good policy for the Federal Government to enforce the Controlled Substances Act in these circumstances.

Rather, the only question before us is whether Congress has the power to prohibit respondents’ activities.

California law does not really affect our answer to that question for it is well-settled that the outer limits of congressional power under the Commerce Clause are defined exclusively by federal law.

The Supremacy Clause unambiguously provides that if there is any conflict between federal and state law, federal law shall prevail.

The federal power can neither be enlarged nor diminished by the exercise or non-exercise of state power.

Our case law firmly establishes that Congress has the power to regulate purely local activities when necessary to implement a comprehensive national regulatory program.

Neither the fact that respondents used locally grown marijuana for medicinal rather than recreational purposes, nor the fact that their use for such purposes is permitted by California Law, justifies a constitutionally-compelled exemption from the comprehensive regulatory scheme created by the Controlled Substances Act.

For the reason stated at length in an opinion filed with the Clerk, we therefore vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings.

Justice Scalia has filed an opinion concurring in the judgment; Justice O’Connor has filed a dissenting opinion in which the Chief Justice and Justice Thomas have joined except for part three of, and Justice Thomas has also filed a dissenting opinion.

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2004/2004_03_1454/opinion

Reasoning of the court was upheld by the Controlled Substance Act(commerce clause – Defined by federal law).   It was riterated that the local activites of the respondents, even though purely local, may affect interstate commerce and there fore affect the national marijuana market(Marijuana is Schedule 1 Drug under CSA).  In Which Congress does have the power to regulate purely local activities(that of which is the activities of the respondents) under the commerce clause, even if there is a discrepancy between state and federal law in this case.  Pursuant under the Supremacy Clause, in any case that there is a conflict between State and Federal law, Federal law prevails over the State.  California law does not affect decision of the court.