CaliforniaCalifornia andand Medical MarijuanaMedical Marijuana

Distributed by: Brendan Distributed by: Brendan Doyle and Daniel AyeroffDoyle and Daniel Ayeroff

Wickard CaseWickard Case Because of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of Because of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of

1938, farmers could only use a certain 1938, farmers could only use a certain amount of land for wheat productionamount of land for wheat production

This was to stabilize the price of wheat in the This was to stabilize the price of wheat in the national market by controlling the amount of national market by controlling the amount of wheat producedwheat produced

Roscoe Filburn was a farmer who produced Roscoe Filburn was a farmer who produced wheat in excess of the amount permittedwheat in excess of the amount permitted

The excess wheat was produced for his The excess wheat was produced for his private consumption on his own farm, so it private consumption on his own farm, so it had nothing to do with commerce at allhad nothing to do with commerce at all

The Court unanimously reasoned that “the The Court unanimously reasoned that “the power to regulate the price at which power to regulate the price at which commerce occurs was inherent in the power commerce occurs was inherent in the power to regulate commerce” to regulate commerce”

Similarities to Medical Marijuana Case

• The Supreme Court in Gonzales v. Raich relied heavily on Filburn in upholding the power of the federal government to prosecute individuals who grow their own medicinal marijuana pursuant to state law

• In Raich, the court held that, as with the home grown wheat at issue in Filburn, home grown marijuana is a legitimate subject of federal regulation because it competes with marijuana that moves in interstate commerce

Differences to Medical Marijuana Differences to Medical Marijuana CaseCase

The law in Wickard The law in Wickard exempted small exempted small operations, the operations, the Wickard case involved Wickard case involved commercial operations, commercial operations, and there was "proof" and there was "proof" of the impact on of the impact on interstate commerce. interstate commerce.

Marijuana is an illegal Marijuana is an illegal substance…wheat is substance…wheat is notnot

O’Connor said that although she would not have O’Connor said that although she would not have voted for the initiative in California, she believed it voted for the initiative in California, she believed it was an issue to be decided by the state, not the was an issue to be decided by the state, not the federal governmentfederal government

She thought that it was the states’ responsibility to She thought that it was the states’ responsibility to concern themselves with their peoples lives and concern themselves with their peoples lives and libertiesliberties

We disagree with O’Connor, because it is clearly We disagree with O’Connor, because it is clearly established in the Constitution that it is the established in the Constitution that it is the government is the ultimate decision maker when it government is the ultimate decision maker when it comes to dealing with interstate commerce, which comes to dealing with interstate commerce, which medical marijuana clearly falls into. Although Raich medical marijuana clearly falls into. Although Raich was not personally trafficking marijuana across state was not personally trafficking marijuana across state lines, there was no reason she couldn’t have.lines, there was no reason she couldn’t have.

Sandra Day O’Connor’s OpinionSandra Day O’Connor’s Opinion

State’s Rights!!

Majority DecisionMajority Decision The majority of the Supreme Court, consisting of John Paul The majority of the Supreme Court, consisting of John Paul

Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Antonin Scalia, and Anthony M. Kennedy, decided Breyer, Antonin Scalia, and Anthony M. Kennedy, decided that Congress’s constitutional authority to regulate the that Congress’s constitutional authority to regulate the interstate market in drugs, licit or illicit, extends to small, interstate market in drugs, licit or illicit, extends to small, homegrown quantities of doctor-recommended marijuana homegrown quantities of doctor-recommended marijuana consumed under California’s Compassionate Use Actconsumed under California’s Compassionate Use Act

This means that because marijuana can be sold across state This means that because marijuana can be sold across state lines, it is an interstate transaction that must be regulated lines, it is an interstate transaction that must be regulated by Congress, and thus Federal laws against marijuana use by Congress, and thus Federal laws against marijuana use trump state laws allowing ittrump state laws allowing it

Controlled Substances ActControlled Substances Act ( (CSACSA))

The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) is the legal basis The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) is the legal basis by which the manufacture, importation, possession, and by which the manufacture, importation, possession, and distribution of certain drugs are regulated by the federal distribution of certain drugs are regulated by the federal government of the United Statesgovernment of the United StatesIn 2003, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth In 2003, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled the CSA illegal as it applied to the use of Circuit ruled the CSA illegal as it applied to the use of medical marijuana in the case medical marijuana in the case Raich v. AshcroftRaich v. AshcroftHowever, the case was appealed to the Supreme Court However, the case was appealed to the Supreme Court by the federal government, and in 2005, the Supreme by the federal government, and in 2005, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the federal governmentCourt ruled in favor of the federal government

Clarence Thomas’s Opinion Clarence Thomas stated that if “the majority is to

be taken seriously, the federal government may no regulate quilting bees, clothing drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 states.”

He is saying that the federal government is reaching too far into local affairs. To make this decision legal, they should be consistent and regulate all these other issues.

We disagree with Thomas because marijuana is drastically different from all these other issues

Can Quilting Bees, Clothing Drives, and Potluck Suppers Affect Interstate Commerce? The Supreme Court could argue that in

cases near the borders of states, where people from different states could engage in commerce across a border, these examples would interfere with commerce because of lower prices

This is not justified, however, because the impact would be so miniscule

The Difference in Marijuana

There is a major difference in the examples Clarence Thomas cites and marijuana

Marijuana is not only publicly looked down-upon, it is a banned substance that can have harmful effects. Quilting bees and the like result in community bonding and a small cash boost, not an illegal and dangerous act.

DealersDealers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._FilburnWickard_v._Filburn

http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/2004/11/23/stories/2004/11/23/raichVAshcroftAGuideToTheS.htmlraichVAshcroftAGuideToTheS.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Substances_Act_of_1970#Controlled_Substances_Act_of_1970#Constitutional_disputesConstitutional_disputes

http://angeljustice.org/http://angeljustice.org/