Medical Marijuana

Yesterday’s SCOTUS decision in Raich is an interesting read, but I have to admit the more subtle issues are somewhat lost on me. Is this a signal of anti-federalism, or merely a blip on radar due to the specific issue? For much more on these subjects than you could possibly want, check out the SCOTUS Blog which bats the issue from all sides.

Interestingly, I think the most interesting point was made in Thomas’s dissent. He comes closest, I think, topointing out the medical marijuana is somewhat of a red-headed step child. He essentially says this: We allow people to use drugs far more addictive than marijuana, under doctor’s supervision, and no one would claim that this somehow undermines the Controlled Substances Act. Because it would be politically suicide for Congress to deny people in pain morphine for fear that some of that ‘legal use’ drug would find itself in the illegal drug trade.

The difference is, of course, that Congress says those drugs are okay, but marijuana is not which is why the legal argument is framed by the Interstate Commerce issues – but the common sense view is that the only practical difference is stigma. If congress had any decent values, it would correct the issue.

I found it interesting, as well, that there seems to be a ‘screw the law’ mentality of some of the medical marijuana users. I think there’s a political landmine here. Certainly, I find it hard to believe anyone - the FBI or local police, are going to do raids on cancer victims and charge them with possession. Glaucoma patients, on the other hand, aren’t quite as sympathetic. So, we’ll most likely end up selectively prosecuting people who we think aren’t quite ‘sick enough’ to make us look bad.