What we are seeing with the Medical marijuana case being reviewed by the US Supreme Court is very similar in many respects to a case the Court heard thirty years ago: Roe vs. Wade.
Prior to 1973, each state determined its own laws on abortion. Roe, who lived in Texas, was pregnant and wanted to have an abortion. Way back then, in the olden days, she could have gone to New York or California and had the abortion. Many women did. Those states had laws allowing it, and Texas did not except in extreme cases. She wanted to stay in Texas and have one, thus the lawsuit.
So, the all-knowing federal government decided, by judicial fiat, that every state must allow abortion on demand.
Today, California law allows doctors to prescribe marijuana to relieve pain. Personally, I agree with Neal Boortz that “The cause of medical marijuana would be helped a lot if so many of the people who were using medical marijuana didn’t look like drug-crazed zombies.” But who am I to dispute the laws in California? I live in Texas.
The all-knowing federal government has decided to take charge. And the argument before the court today is almost identical to the one thirty years ago, although the litigants are now on opposite sides. Those who wanted federal intervention then don’t want it now.
When I wrote about the greatest threat to our nation the other day, I briefly mentioned this as an outcome. The Constitution gives the federal government authority to do certain things, and specifically leaves all other powers with the states. In 1973, the Supreme Court ruled against the states.
Will they do the same this time?
Well put. I don’t support any of the state laws for pot use, although I’m not all that concerned by any of them either, but I believe the fed should step back, and the courts should return to states regulating themselves, or to Constitutional federalism. It is odd, that Federalism may return in defense of marijuana after its near death in the Roe decision (and a several preceeding it).
Comment by Marvin — December 2, 2004 @ 6:26 pm