Raich v. Ashcroft

[pat]

There is a "meta-blog" discussion going on over at SCOTUSblog about today's medical marijuana decision.

My take? The Court's decision was entirely predictable. As much as one would want to think otherwise, marijuana is -- or has the capacity to be, even if home gown -- a subject of interstate commerce. The Court many years ago established the government's capacity to regulate agricultural activity even when used by the producer. And I think the medicinal/recreational use issue is of concern: if the government cannot regulate medicinal marijuana then they arguably cannot regulate recreational use. And the whole issue rests on the capacity of the government to regulate: unlike other cases such as pornography cases where there is an affirmative right such as speech at stake, there is no right to a given course of medical treatment.

Note: In saying that I think the Court reached the right decision, I am not making any representations as to whether I think the federal regulation of marijuana is a *good* thing, merely that it is supportable under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

Comments

[tenacious-snail.livejournal.com]

I saw a mainstream news article about the decision, and admit that I didn't see what the legal issue *was*. Like it or not, commerce clause can be used to cover just about everything. Thanks for the additional info/pointers.

[joedecker.livejournal.com]

Given precedent, I'd agree. I think the Court, or the framers, messed up long before here, now we're just seeing the inevitable outcome.