California and Medical Marijuana

Document Sample
California and Medical Marijuana Powered By Docstoc
					 California and
Medical Marijuana
 Distributed by: Brendan
 Doyle and Daniel Ayeroff
               Wickard Case
   Because of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of
    1938, farmers could only use a certain amount of
    land for wheat production
   This was to stabilize the price of wheat in the
    national market by controlling the amount of
    wheat produced
   Roscoe Filburn was a farmer who produced wheat
    in excess of the amount permitted
   The excess wheat was produced for his private
    consumption on his own farm, so it had nothing
    to do with commerce at all
   The Court unanimously reasoned that “the power
    to regulate the price at which commerce occurs
    was inherent in the power to regulate commerce”
   Similarities to Medical Marijuana
                  Case
• The Supreme Court in
  Gonzales v. Raich relied
  heavily on Filburn in upholding
  the power of the federal
  government to prosecute
  individuals who grow their own
  medicinal marijuana pursuant
  to state law
• In Raich, the court held that, as
  with the home grown wheat at
  issue in Filburn, home grown
  marijuana is a legitimate
  subject of federal regulation
  because it competes with
  marijuana that moves in
  interstate commerce
    Differences to Medical Marijuana
                  Case
   The law in Wickard
    exempted small
    operations, the Wickard
    case involved
    commercial operations,
    and there was "proof"
    of the impact on
    interstate commerce.
   Marijuana is an illegal
    substance…wheat is not
Sandra Day O’Connor’s Opinion
   O’Connor said that although she would not have voted
    for the initiative in California, she believed it was an issue
    to be decided by the state, not the federal government
   She thought that it was the states’ responsibility to
    concern themselves with their peoples lives and liberties
   We disagree with O’Connor, because it is clearly
    established in the Constitution that it is the government
    is the ultimate decision maker when it comes to dealing
    with interstate commerce, which medical marijuana
    clearly falls into. Although Raich was not personally
    trafficking marijuana across state lines, there was no
    reason she couldn’t have.
                                    State’s Rights!!
                 Majority Decision
   The majority of the Supreme Court, consisting of John Paul Stevens,
    David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Antonin
    Scalia, and Anthony M. Kennedy, decided that Congress’s
    constitutional authority to regulate the interstate market in drugs,
    licit or illicit, extends to small, homegrown quantities of doctor-
    recommended marijuana consumed under California’s
    Compassionate Use Act
   This means that because marijuana can be sold across state lines, it
    is an interstate transaction that must be regulated by Congress, and
    thus Federal laws against marijuana use trump state laws allowing it
Controlled Substances Act (CSA)
 The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) is the legal basis
 by which the manufacture, importation, possession, and
 distribution of certain drugs are regulated by the federal
 government of the United States
 In 2003, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
 Circuit ruled the CSA illegal as it applied to the use of
 medical marijuana in the case Raich v. Ashcroft
 However, the case was appealed to the Supreme Court
 by the federal government, and in 2005, the Supreme
 Court ruled in favor of the federal government
Clarence Thomas’s Opinion
   Clarence Thomas stated that if “the majority is to
    be taken seriously, the federal government may
    no regulate quilting bees, clothing drives, and
    potluck suppers throughout the 50 states.”
   He is saying that the federal government is
    reaching too far into local affairs. To make this
    decision legal, they should be consistent and
    regulate all these other issues.
   We disagree with Thomas because marijuana is
    drastically different from all these other issues
Can Quilting Bees, Clothing
Drives, and Potluck Suppers
Affect Interstate Commerce?
   The Supreme Court could argue that in
    cases near the borders of states, where
    people from different states could
    engage in commerce across a border,
    these examples would interfere with
    commerce because of lower prices
   This is not justified, however, because
    the impact would be so miniscule
The Difference in Marijuana

   There is a major difference in the examples
    Clarence Thomas cites and marijuana
   Marijuana is not only publicly looked down-
    upon, it is a banned substance that can have
    harmful effects. Quilting bees and the like
    result in community bonding and a small
    cash boost, not an illegal and dangerous act.
                 Dealers
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Fi
  lburn
 http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/20
  04/11/23/raichVAshcroftAGuideToTheS.ht
  ml
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Su
  bstances_Act_of_1970#Constitutional_dis
  putes
 http://angeljustice.org/

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:10
posted:12/6/2011
language:English
pages:11