From Join Together.org:
As the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that state laws don’t protect medical-marijuana users from federal drug prosecution, a U.S. House member said he would reintroduce legislation to prevent federal law-enforcement action against medical users of the drug.
The Hill reported June 7 that Rep. Maurice Hinchey (R-N.Y.) plans to introduce legislation barring the Justice Department from spending money to arrest and prosecute medical-marijuana users. The measure would be an amendment to a pending state, science, justice and commerce appropriations bill.
Last year, an identical measure was defeated in the House by a 268-148 vote. “We hope that the amendment will keep growing in support every year, but we are realistic that there probably won’t be a huge jump,” said Wendy Darwell, Hinchey’s chief of staff.
Good for Hinchey. Now, if someone would just introduce legislation reminding lawmakers (and certain justices) that the enumeration of powers described in Amendments IX and X to the Bill of Rights are supposed to act as a check on their ever-increasing powers, we could call it a week and hit happy hour early for some potato skins and pitchers of beer, and—in Oregon, at least—physician-assisted suicide, if that happens to be your bag…
****
More here, here, and, for a different take, William F. Buckley:
The easiest way is to treat laws banning medical marijuana about as anti-sodomy laws were treated for generations: Don’t repeal them, but don’t act on them. There is a theoretical objection to this escapist remedy  we like to think that laws are there to be obeyed. But to proceed under its empirical protection is an easygoing solution to hard, conflicting pressures.
Sure. It’s also a cop out. But do go on…
The relief  hinted at by Justice Stevens  that might be got by the Executive’s adjusting the proscribed list to permit medical marijuana is opposed by the hardliners in the administration.
These  in particular John P. Walters the drug czar  are relying on dogmatic positions which especially outrage those who have had relief from marijuana during their illnesses. Mr. Walters takes the position that it is not medically established that marijuana uniquely grants such relief as is being touted. Nothing is more infuriating to a person who has been relieved of crippling nausea than to be told that he has not been relieved. It is almost predictable, for reasons of political harmony and acuity, that the administration will dodge that problem by simply  doing nothing.
Which, if that’s the case, begs the question, why did the Justice Department feel the need to appeal the Ninth Circuit Court’s decision to begin with?
Nice try, but color me skeptical on this one, Bill.
So why hide the ultimate goal of legalization behind the whole medical use thing? I mean, its kind of like arguing that prohibition should have been ended because they wanted to use alcohol to disinfect surgical tools…
The fact is, marijuana is a minor , low impact, near harmless drug used primarily for recreation.
this is a product that could be and is enjoyed by many.. it could be yielding tax money and business opportunities for many Americans.. but instead it makes the big bucks only for the drug lords and politicians that are bought off and uses up billions of dollars in our existing taxes to enforces marijuana laws, in police wages, DEA wages, prosecution, imprisonment, advertising.
Why do we accept this from our government ?
We’re probably all too busy looking for the Doritos.
Because choosing to do nothing is not the same thing as allowing a legal precedent be established that states that the government cannot ever enforce the law. Its not an irrational choice.
Just out of curiosity, Robin, where were you on Lawrence?
Jeff, I think Lawrence is among the stupidest Supreme Court decisions I’ve ever read.
Or had to figure out how to teach.
Textually its an embarrassment ( Justice Kennedy has a long history of writing incoherent opinions IMO ). Conceptually it is dishonest. While I think sodomy laws are offensively stupid, I don’t think that they are unconstitutional.
I believe that’s exactly what I argued when I wrote about it here.
Interesting that you chose to frame the precedent that will be set here as “the government cannot enforce the law.” I prefer to frame it as “the government has no right to expand the commerce clause, and that in so doing, they’ve effectively vitiated two Amendments in the Bill of Rights.”
What’s being said is that the state of California cannot enforce it’s own laws. After all, medical marijuana is supposed to be legal here. But apparently the Federal government has nothing better to do than violate state law by enforcing Federal law.
Jeff, I think you misunderstood my point in my comment at 6:23. I didn’t mean to play any semantic games with respect to the meaning of the case or the decision. And I wasn’t defending the court’s opinion ( although its more honest than Lawrence … there’s damning with faint praise ). I’ve long believed that Wickard v. Filburn has been a cancer on our system of government.
I was responding on the narrow question of why would the government appeal the Ninth Circuit’s decision to the Supreme Court even if Federal prosecutor’s didn’t intend to start prosecuting every chemo patient with a stash.
I was trying to say that even if the DOJ wasn’t going to put these prosecutions on the top of the priority list, the government could rationally still wish to prevent the Ninth Circuit’s decision to stand preventing them from ever enforcing this law. I was trying to say that the choice wasn’t inherently inconsistent even if I don’t agree with it.
As for why the Bush admin wants to keep the Commerce clause caselaw so broad? Well, one of the stupid myths of the Democrats is to claim that George Bush is such a committed “extremist” conservative. You and I would obviously not find him committed or “extreme” enough.
There is another reason for the DOJ to appeal the Ninth Circuit. I believe that where the executive branch believes that a law is constitutional ( at least arguably ) but even if it disagrees with the policy being implemented, that the executive branch has a duty to defend the law in court.
Hmmm.
Because people were getting these “medical” exceptions for $200. If it were limited *entirely* to people who legitimately needed it then I’d support it wholeheartedly. I’ve experienced severe illness myself and know intimately what it’s like to not eat for days because loss of appetite.
But it is being abused and that cannot be allowed to continue. If that hurts the legitimate users then they should complain to those doctors that are selling these “medical” exceptions on the cheap.
…Or maybe the government can concentrate on busting those docs who are breaking the law abusing the exceptions, rather than punishing the sick folks who just want to smoke a plant to make themselves feel better.
… Or maybe the government should read the constitution once in a while and mind their own fucking business.
I don’t know if this link to streaming audio will work, but Bill Bennett had this interesting set of interviews on his radio show Tuesday morning.
Turing = chance, as in Dicey hyperlinks are a matter of chance on the ‘net.
Trivia: William F. Buckley succumbed to the temptation to smoke marijuana, back in the Sixties, IINM. But first, he sailed out into the Atlantic, beyond American territorial waters, so he wouldn’t be violating U. S. law.
Turing = peace, as in Make up your own hippy reference, I’m turning in. ‘Night, all.
If it were limited *entirely* to people who legitimately needed it then I’d support it wholeheartedly.
And who decides if the need is legitimate? A doctor?
Or the DOJ?
I am some kind of super predicting guy or something. See. If that guy’s getting ideas within a week, how the hell can Buckley think that congress won’t be into all kinds of crap over the next several years?
Duh. Congress is already into “all kinds of crap” and has been for six decades. For crying out loud, if you get a soggy spot in your lawn, its a federally protected wetland.
Sheesh.
You’re preaching to the choir Robin. My point was that the interstate commerce clause has been expanded to the point that there is now no longer any way for the public to beat their dirty hands back. Never mind the controlled substances act arguement that guy was making to chuck out assisted suicide. It seems to me that the feds can now chuck it out on the grounds that it afffects interstate commerce by reducing medical demand. What bothers me about that is that this kind of regulation subverts both democracy and republicanism and until this they weren’t able to do it.