California voters passed Proposition in , allowing qualified patients to cultivate and use marijuana for designated medical illnesses. Gonzales v. Raich. Media. Oral Argument – November 29, ; Opinion Announcement – June 06, Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General, et al. On June 6, , the United States Supreme Court decided Gonzales v. Raich, a case that addressed the constitutionality of the federal Controlled Substances . The dissenters attacked the Majority opinion as a complete departure from the.
|Published (Last):||28 March 2014|
|PDF File Size:||8.85 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||1.41 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
In the CSA, Congress has undertaken to extinguish the interstate market in Schedule I controlled substances, including marijuana. The majority opinion did not address the contradiction that the respondent’s production of marijuana for personal use actually assists Congress’ interest in reducing the interstate trade in marijuana rather than confounding that regulation. In lpinion, the CSA regulates quintessentially economic activities: The majority placed heavy reliance on our decisions in United States v.
The Commerce Clause and Medical Marijuana: Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005)
See Lopezsupraat Stevens pointed out that both plaintiffs either had participated in the market for recreational use or were gonzaels participating in it. See Brief for Petitioners 21—22; cf. Thus, according to the Court, it was possible in Lopez to evaluate in isolation the constitutionality of criminalizing local activity there gun possession in school zoneswhereas the local activity that the CSA targets in this case cultivation and possession of marijuana for personal medicinal use cannot be separated from the general drug control scheme of which it is a part.
Commerce, or trade, stood in contrast to productive activities like manufacturing and agriculture. Attorney General preventing the prosecution of medicinal users pursuant to the CSA.
Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005)
The exemption for physicians provides them with an economic incentive to grant their patients permission to use the drug. This first important federal resort honzales the commerce power was followed in by the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and, thereafter, mainly afterby many others. On August 15,Butte County Sheriff’s Department officers and agents from the federal Drug Enforcement Administration destroyed all six of California resident Diane Monson’s marijuana plants, facing light resistance.
Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative Gonzales v. Moreover, even though Wickard was indeed a commercial farmer, the activity he was engaged in—the cultivation of wheat for home consumption—was not treated by the Court as part of his commercial farming operation. Brief for Respondents 22, They cultivate their cannabis entirely in opiniln State of California—it never crosses state lines, much less as part of a commercial transaction.
Angel Raich, a qualified medical cannabis patient, who was provided cannabis for medical use by two anonymous caregivers, used marijuana to treat her life-threatening chronic pain. Today the Court sanctions an application of the federal Controlled Substances Act that extinguishes that experiment, without any proof that the personal cultivation, possession, and use of marijuana for medicinal purposes, if economic activity in the first place, has a substantial effect on interstate commerce and is therefore an appropriate subject of federal regulation.
To support their contrary submission, respondents rely heavily on two of our more recent Commerce Clause cases. Monson goonzales Raich neither buy nor sell the marijuana that they consume. However, the DEA was determined gonzalws eradicate the medical marijuana co-ops in California, reflecting an understanding that the Controlled Substances Act pre-empted California laws. With respect to whether the legislative history contains congressional findings regarding the effects on interstate commerce, the court was able to cite findings relating to the effect that intrastate drug trafficking activity would have on interstate commerce.
The Court, in reaching its decision, specifically relied on Wickard v. Producing marijuana only for home consumption, moreover, was similar to the farmer’s production of wheat in the Wickard case because it had an effect on the national market for the drug.
See also Hipolite Egg Co. One need not have a degree in economics to understand why a nationwide exemption for the vast quantity of marijuana or other drugs locally cultivated for personal use which presumably would include use by friends, neighbors, and family members may have a substantial impact on the interstate market for this extraordinarily popular substance.
In their complaint and supporting affidavits, Raich and Monson described the severity of their afflictions, their repeatedly futile attempts to obtain relief with conventional medications, and the opinions of their doctors concerning their need to use marijuana. American Crystal Sugar Co. Raich previously Ashcroft v.
Filburnwhich held that the government may regulate personal gknzales and consumption of crops because of the aggregate effect v.gaich individual consumption on the government’s legitimate statutory framework governing the interstate wheat market. United States, U. Everyone agrees that the marijuana at issue in this case was never in the stream of commerce, and neither were the supplies for growing it. Prohibiting the intrastate possession or manufacture of an article of commerce is a rational means of regulating commerce in that product.
This decision marks a potential return in the Commerce Clause doctrine of the Court to the expansive understanding of Congressional powers under it in the midth century. The obvious importance of the case prompted our grant of certiorari. See Darbysupraat This class of intrastate users is therefore distinguishable from others.
Her doctor declared under oath  that Raich’s life was at stake if she could not continue to use marijuana.
Raich acts as a reminder of the power of Congress to determine public health policy. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Moreover, the CSA is a comprehensive regulatory regime specifically designed to regulate which controlled substances can be utilized for medicinal purposes, and in what manner. The majority apparently believes that even if States prevented any medical marijuana from entering the illicit drug market, and thus even if there were no need for the CSA to govern medical marijuana users, we opinionn uphold the CSA under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause.
RutherfordU. If I were a California citizen, I would not have voted for the medical marijuana ballot initiative; if I were a California legislator Gonzalfs would not have supported the Compassionate Use Act. In assessing the validity of v.raicu regulation, none of our Commerce Clause cases can be viewed in isolation.
Gonzales V. Raich: Implications for Public Health Policy
On its face, a ban on the intrastate cultivation, possession and distribution of marijuana may be plainly adapted to stopping the interstate flow of marijuana. Retrieved from ” https: The CSA is a statute that regulates the production, distribution, and gonales of commodities for which there is an established, and lucrative, interstate market.
Title II of that Act, the CSA, repealed most of the earlier antidrug laws in favor of a comprehensive regime to combat the international and interstate traffic in illicit drugs.