Court says ‘no’ to medical pot

last updated 8 January 2015

The Supreme Court this week ruled that people who smoke marijuana for medical purposes can be prosecuted for violating federal drug laws. The 6–3 ruling overrides medical marijuana laws in California and nine other states that allow doctors to prescribe pot to ease the pain and nausea brought on by the treatment for cancer and other serious diseases. Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens said that while it was 'œtroubling' to deny pain relief to people with grave illnesses, Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce trumps any state law.

The Bush administration hailed the ruling, on the grounds that medicinal marijuana laws undermine the war against drugs. The administration also says that marijuana has no proven medical benefit, an issue the court did not address. But Angel Raich, one of two California women who brought the case, vowed to take her fight to Congress. 'œI'm in this battle literally for my life,' said Raich, who uses marijuana to ease the pain from a brain tumor and several other ailments.

Conservatives should be as alarmed by this ruling as liberals, said The Wall Street Journal in an editorial. The pot involved in the case was home-grown, was never bought or sold, and never left the state. What definition of 'œinterstate commerce' covers that? This ruling marks a major setback for states' rights, and sets a powerful new precedent for federal intrusion into local decisions. As Justice Clarence Thomas said in his dissent: 'œIf Congress can regulate [medical marijuana] under the commerce clause, then it can regulate virtually anything.'