U.S. Supreme Court rules on mmj

[loves420]

MPP's release/

 

On June 6, 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6 to 3 that the federal government can continue arresting patients who use medical marijuana legally under their state laws. However, the court did not overturn state medical marijuana laws or in any way interfere with their continued operation.

 

At issue in Ashcroft v. Raich was whether the federal government has the constitutional authority to arrest and prosecute patients who are using medical marijuana in compliance with state laws.

 

In its ruling, the Supreme Court indicated that Congress—not the Court—must be the institution to change federal law to protect medical marijuana patients from arrest.

 

What the court has done is continue the status quo: Patients in the 10 states with medical marijuana laws are protected under state law but will continue to risk prosecution under federal law. In other words, the court's decision means that nothing has changed.

 

But it also means that—since it's now clear that patients cannot count on the federal courts for protection—the ball is now firmly in Congress' court, which means that we must push harder than ever for Congress to change federal law.

 

Ashcroft v. Raich Does Not Affect States' Ability to Pass Medical Marijuana Laws

Ashcroft v. Raich does not affect states' ability to pass medical marijuana law—and it does not overturn the laws now protecting the right of 57 million Americans living in Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington to use medical marijuana legally under state laws.

 

The issue in the Raich case was whether the federal government has the power, under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, to arrest, make seizures, and prosecute individuals for purely intrastate activities related to the use of marijuana in accordance with state law. The question of whether a state may make the possession of marijuana legal for medical purposes was not at issue. Under fundamental doctrines of federalism, it is and will continue to be completely within the power of a state to enact laws immunizing medical marijuana patients and their providers from arrest, seizure, and prosecution by state and local officials.

 

The decision simply confirms what has always been true about state medical marijuana provisions: that the federal government has the authority—but not the obligation—under federal law to arrest, prosecute, and seize marijuana from medical marijuana patients and providers even when they are acting in compliance with state law. This does not, however, affect the states' authority to enact and carry out medical marijuana laws; it just means that patients and providers following these laws could be arrested and prosecuted and have their marijuana seized by federal law enforcement officials. And not only does the case not affect state laws, but state laws will need to be passed regardless of the outcome of the case.

 

It also is important to note that this case was initiated by medical marijuana patients and caregivers in California who sought an injunction preventing the federal government from arresting them and seizing their property. The federal government has not challenged the validity or constitutionality of the state medical marijuana laws.

 

In sum, medical marijuana advocates are no worse off than before the litigation was launched—medical marijuana is legal under certain state laws but not under federal law.