Medical Marijuana Ruling Unclear
Last updated Monday, June 6, 2005 10:16 PM CDT in Opinion
Ten states have chosen to allow the legal use of marijuana for medicinal purposes. On Monday, the United States Supreme Court said that federal authorities may prosecute people for possession and manufacture of marijuana despite those state laws protecting such activity.
In a 6-3 decision, the court ruled that the federal prohibition on the use of marijuana for any purpose supersedes state laws that allow a person to use marijuana to relieve symptoms and pain related to afflictions such as cancer, HIV, glaucoma and other serious illnesses.
Anytime a federal court imposes its will over that of the electorate in any state, it's controversial. On some issues -- civil rights, for example -- the courts have appropriately overturned state laws. In other cases, the court's direction is not so clear. Count this case among those.
Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, said the court makes no value judgment on whether the medicinal use of marijuana is right or wrong. The court simply says that the federal government can prosecute someone for growing, possession or selling marijuana even if a state law permits it. To change that, the majority of the court said, Congress must act. Stevens was joined by the moderate and liberal justices on the court: David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony Kennedy and Stephen Breyer. Ironically, the most conservative justices on the court -- Clarence Thomas, Sandra Day O'Connor and Chief Justice William Rehnquist -- found themselves backing states' rights, but not the stated objectives of President Bush's Justice Department to keep all marijuana use illegal.
O'Connor wrote that the states -- in this case, Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington -- should have the right to establish their own rules defining criminal law and protecting the health, safety and welfare of its citizens. That would include the doctor-approved use of marijuana for specific medical symptoms.
O'Connor has it right. States should have the ability to set their own course, so long as that course doesn't deny anyone their Constitutional rights or interfere with interstate commerce.
Those who oppose the use of medicinal marijuana have valid reasons for their position. The research on marijuana's medical benefits is, at best, inconclusive. But that's a case that needs to be made to the voters in those 10 states, rather than nine Supreme Court Justices.
Reader Comments (No comments posted.)
The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsibility of their authors. The Morning News does not review comments before their publication, nor do we guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by our comment policy. If you see a comment that violates our policy, please notify the web editor.
Not already registered?
