Medical Marijuana Users Can Be Prosecuted - SCOTUS

UPDATE...... AP is reporting that The Supreme Court has outlawed the use of marijuana for medical reasons. This decision is a defeat for marijuana advocates in 10 states where the use was allowed for various illnesses. It looks as if Justice John Paul Stevens in his writing of the decision wants the Congress to make the decision, not the Judiciary. Justice John Paul Stevens, writing the 6-3 decision, said that Congress could change the law to allow medical use of marijuana. The closely watched case was an appeal by the Bush administration in a case that it lost in late 2003. At issue was whether the prosecution of medical marijuana users under the federal Controlled Substances Act was constitutional. Under the Constitution, Congress may pass laws regulating a state's economic activity so long as it involves "interstate commerce" that crosses state borders. The California marijuana in question was homegrown, distributed to patients without charge and without crossing state lines. I am outraged by this decision. It doesn't even question the Dr.'s right to order this form of treatment, all it does do is allow Congress to meddle even more into the private decisions of individual citizens and their physicians. All it accomplishes, is to allow the Feds can prosecute sick people who use a proven treatment and will stop them from possibly the only treatment that will let them live their lives free of pain and/or nausea . Further, it seems to me that this would be a "states rights" issue which the Supremes seem to have supported in other decisions. Stevens went on to say: "but perhaps even more important than these legal avenues is the democratic process, in which the voices of voters allied with these respondents may one day be heard in the halls of Congress." The California law which was passed by voters in 1996, allowed people to grow, smoke, or obtain marijuana for their medical needs only by a Dr.'s recommendation. The other states with laws similar to Califoria's are Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington State. AP goes on to report that in writing the dissenting opinion: Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said that states should be allowed to set their own rules. "The states' core police powers have always included authority to define criminal law and to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens," said O'Connor, who was joined by other states' rights advocates. The legal question presented a dilemma for the court's conservatives, who have pushed to broaden states' rights in recent years, invalidating federal laws dealing with gun possession near schools and violence against women on the grounds the activity was too local to justify federal intrusion. O'Connor said she would have opposed California's medical marijuana law if she was a voter or a legislator. But she said the court was overreaching to endorse "making it a federal crime to grow small amounts of marijuana in one's own home for one's own medicinal use." MORE....