States' Rights for all! Unless you're California...

Here's something that both cancer patients & partying college kids will have interest in. If you haven't heard, the Supreme Court has heard oral arguments for a case involving medicinal marijuana (Ashcroft v. Raich). In 1996, California voters passed a proposition allowing for the medical use of marijuana. However, such an exemption from state criminal drug laws is in direct conflict w/ Federal criminal laws, which classify marijuana was Schedule I drug w/ no legitimate medical use. (I'm not exactly sure what "Schedule I" means, but it doesn't sound like a good way to break federal law.) I won't get into the issue of whether marijuna has medical value. However, you should keep in mind that many drugs are legal for medical uses, but are highly illegal for anything else.

This is a typical federalism case w/ an ironic twist. Most federal laws are passed under the commerce clause of the US Constitution, which gives Congress the power to regulate "interstate commerce." As you know, conservatives like Scalia are big states' rights advocates who want to limit the power of Congress. However, Scalia is also the least likely to allow states to pass their own laws allowing medical use of marijuana. (For those of you think that this is different b/c drug possession is normally a criminal act, Scalia agreed w/ decisions to invalidate 2 federal laws that criminalized gun possession around schools & violence toward women. The rationale in each case was federalism & states' rights.)

Scalia & his ideological brothers (Thomas & Rehnquist) seem to be in a tight spot. Deciding against the plaintiff, who might die w/o medical marijuana, means that the Court's staunchest conservatives are all for states' rights, unless that state is California. It would also imply that they don't believe that states in general have the ability to enforce their own drug laws w/o the federal government stepping in, which doesn't sound too conservative either. For even more irony, this case arises when Chief Justice William Rehnquist is taking a leave from the Court b/c of cancer. Although having a disease that might be helped w/ medical marijuna probably won't change his vote, I wonder if he's going to think about it more than he normally would.

Personally, I think this case is emblematic of how idiotic our nation's drug policy is. Compared w/ many legal substances, marijuana seems like a peculiar drug to criminalize. Few, if any, people die from it, it's not as addictive, & may actually have some medical use. Compare that w/ nicotine & alcohol, both of which are highly addictive, cause thousands of deaths a year in the US, & only have negative consequences for your health. Also, most individuals using marijuana for medial uses are seriosuly ill people who aren't getting high & only want to save their own lives. Not exaclty the types of people you'd normally want to put in jail. Many social conservatives would probably just ban all this stuff. I don't think that's the answer, but at least it's consistent. For their sake, I hope they don't get cancer or some other serious disease that might cause a crisis of conscience.

In any event, this is a case where the Supreme Court's hardline conservatives can get my respect. If they follow their convictions, as written in their previous opinions, they'll vote in favor of states' rights & medical marijuana. Voting this way has no cosnequence b/c the other 6 Justices are almost certain to vote for the federal government, ensuring that the conservatives will still get the result they want & medical marijuana is criminalized. On the other hand, if the conservatives vote for the federal government, they will only confirm the worst opinion of them as being hypocrites who only use states' rights when they actually like the state in question. Remember, it's the United States of America, not just the states you agree with.

For an interesting article about the case, click here.