Drug Policy Opinion: Page 15

Home
Court Opinions
Topics & Themes
  Asset Forfeitures
  Conspiracy
  ›› Drug Policy Opinion
  Drugs: Types, Dosages, Effects
  First Amendment
  Justiciability
  Medicinal Marijuana
  Policy Considerations
  Proportionality
  Reasonable Expectation of Privacy
  Searches and Seizures
     Airports
     Borders
     Consent
     Drug Testing
     Dwellings
     Exclusionary Rule
     Grounds for a Search
     Informants
     Mail
     Nuances of Detention
     Personal Items
     Private Action
     Roads and Vehicles
     Tools and Augmentation
     Warrants
  Sentencing and Penalties
Authors
Trivia

Drug Policy Opinion

Statements found in Court opinions regarding illicit substances. Public policy considerations, individual predilections of the Justice writing the opinion, the objective and subjective views on the the drugs, the drug use and the drug war... All of these can be found in this section.

Pages: ‹1› ‹2› ‹3› ‹4› ‹5› ‹6› ‹7› ‹8› ‹9› ‹10› ‹11› ‹12› ‹13› ‹14› ‹15› ‹16› ‹17› ‹18› ‹19› ‹20› ‹21› ‹22› ‹23› ‹24› ‹25› ‹26› ‹27› ‹28› ‹29› ‹30› ‹31› ‹32› ‹33› ‹34›

Gonzales v. Raich (2005)
Justice O'Connor, with whom the Chief Justice and Justice Thomas join as to all but Part III, dissenting:

Relying on Congress' abstract assertions, the Court has endorsed making it a federal crime to grow small amounts of marijuana in one's own home for one's own medicinal use. This overreaching stifles an express choice by some States, concerned for the lives and liberties of their people, to regulate medical marijuana differently. If I were a California citizen, I would not have voted for the medical marijuana ballot initiative; if I were a California legislator I would not have supported the Compassionate Use Act. But whatever the wisdom of California's experiment with medical marijuana, the federalism principles that have driven our Commerce Clause cases require that room for experiment be protected in this case. For these reasons I dissent.

[...]

Gonzales v. Raich (2005)
Justice Thomas, dissenting:

On this traditional understanding of "commerce," the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), 21 U.S.C. § 801 et seq., regulates a great deal of marijuana trafficking that is interstate and commercial in character. The CSA does not, however, criminalize only the interstate buying and selling of marijuana. Instead, it bans the entire market -- intrastate or interstate, noncommercial or commercial--for marijuana. Respondents are correct that the CSA exceeds Congress' commerce power as applied to their conduct, which is purely intrastate and noncommercial.

[...]

Gonzales v. Raich (2005)
Justice Thomas, dissenting:

[Given the California's Compassionate Use Act built-in controls, we find unpersuasive] [T]he Government's assertion that placing medical marijuana outside the CSA's reach "would prevent effective enforcement of the interstate ban on drug trafficking." [...] Moreover, under the CSA, certain drugs that present a high risk of abuse and addiction but that nevertheless have an accepted medical use--drugs like morphine and amphetamines -- are available by prescription. No one argues that permitting use of these drugs under medical supervision has undermined the CSA's restrictions.

[...]

Gonzales v. Raich (2005)
Justice Thomas, dissenting:

But even assuming that States' controls allow some seepage of medical marijuana into the illicit drug market, there is a multibillion-dollar interstate market for marijuana. Executive Office of the President, Office of Nat. Drug Control Policy, Marijuana Fact Sheet 5 (Feb. 2004), http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/factsht/marijuana/index.html . It is difficult to see how this vast market could be affected by diverted medical cannabis, let alone in a way that makes regulating intrastate medical marijuana obviously essential to controlling the interstate drug market.

To be sure, Congress declared that state policy would disrupt federal law enforcement. It believed the across-the-board ban essential to policing interstate drug trafficking. 21 U.S.C. § 801(6). But as Justice O'Connor points out, Congress presented no evidence in support of its conclusions, which are not so much findings of fact as assertions of power. Congress cannot define the scope of its own power merely by declaring the necessity of its enactments.

In sum, neither in enacting the CSA nor in defending its application to respondents has the Government offered any obvious reason why banning medical marijuana use is necessary to stem the tide of interstate drug trafficking. Congress' goal of curtailing the interstate drug trade would not plainly be thwarted if it could not apply the CSA to patients like Monson and Raich. That is, unless Congress' aim is really to exercise police power of the sort reserved to the States in order to eliminate even the intrastate possession and use of marijuana.

[...]

Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal (2006)
Opinion by: ROBERTS

It is true, of course, that Schedule I substances such as DMT are exceptionally dangerous.

[...]