Author: Sarah Riordan

I’d like to apologize in advance to all the potheads (and Michael Phelps) out there, but marijuana is in fact, contrary to popular belief, a dangerous drug.  So despite all the supposed economic benefits of legalizing and taxing marijuana, having a bunch of slow moving burnouts doesn’t exactly paint a picture of a booming economy. As a result, an attempt to legalize it is like, dude, such like, a bad idea man.

California legislators are proposing that marijuana be taxed and legalized in bill AB390. Despite its legalization for medical purposes in many states, as a recreational activity, marijuana has remained a controversial subject.   In a recent New York Times/CBS Poll, 41 percent of Americans now support legalizing the drug.  Yet, it remains illegal for a reason. 

Pastor Scott Erlich is the chaplain for Valley Hope a 30-day rehabilitation center in Boonville, Mo.  As someone who daily counsels people with drug addictions, Erlich is against the legalization of marijuana but also against standard treatment for the problem. 

“There are three main reasons why I’m against the legalization of marijuana. The first reason is that this is not your father’s drug.  Marijuana has grown stronger and more potent in form overtime.  It’s far more dangerous now than it was for the hippies. The second reason is that there is good scientific evidence that indicates the drug is addictive. The third reason is that I’ve seen time and again how it is a gateway drug.  People who use marijuana are far more likely to experiment with other drugs.  That’s supported by countless statistics. That having been said, it’s important to note that if marijuana stays illegal, prison time is not the answer.  Drug addicts need help.  Sending them to prison will make their addiction to even marijuana worse,” Erlich said.

According to a recent study conducted by a Harvard medical research team, the negative affects of marijuana still outweigh the positives. The research shows that even using the drug for medical purposes is dangerous.  Though it’s often used to treat AIDS victims and cancer patients, marijuana is actually harmful to the immune system.  Though the drug may give patients the illusion that they’re feeling better, it adds to the ailment by making a patient with an already weakened immune system more susceptible to disease.   The research also shows that, like cigarettes, marijuana is harmful to the respiratory system and is just as likely to lead to lung cancer. 

Though the Harvard study includes some research on the mental effects of marijuana usage, there’s plenty of additional research that reveals the truly frightening psychological consequences.  Online information for the Marijuana Detox Center says the drug greatly inhibits the use of short-term memory, and makes even simple tasks seemingly complex.  Marijuana also causes slow reaction time which can lead to life threatening situations if behind a vehicle or in charge of caring for another individual.   These effects also last up to 24 hours.  Research has also shown that people who smoke the drug suffer from learning disabilities while smoking.

Lastly, according to drug-rehab.com, marijuana can strengthen the severity of mental illnesses like schizophrenia, anxiety disorders, and social problems.  The drug can lead to increased levels of anxiety and at times hallucinations.  To all you young men out there who think smoking weed is dope, (pun intended) the drug causes a severe decrease in a person’s sex drive and ability to perform sexually overall.  So while you might feel like a stud you won’t be such a big hit with the ladies . . . if you catch my drift.

There you have it, a huge list of mental, physical, and emotional reasons why marijuana should not be legalized. But you know what, don’t take my word for it; take the word of Harvard, drug rehabilitation centers nation wide, and drug rehab chaplain Scott Erlich.  They may just have more insight than the rest of us.

Arguments abound – see what proponents of AB390 are saying!

For reader comments, click here.

For State Surge author Kellie Bartoli’s coverage, follow this link. 

Video: 95% of Americans Want Marijuana Legalized 

 

Author: Jared Fallon

Tom Ammiano’s  plan to legalize marijuana in the state of California is turning heads around the nation. The Assemblymen seeks to “remove all penalties in California law on cultivation, transportation, sale, purchase, possession or use of marijuana…or paraphernalia for persons over the age 21.” 

Proponents of the bill claim that aside from lack of substantial health concerns, the plan would help provide $1 billion per year in much-needed state revenue. In addition, the bill would bring down overall costs for law enforcement, while helping officials focus on more important priorities.

Opponents say that legalizing pot is socially dangerous largely due to its’ suspected reputation as a “gateway drug.” In addition, many highly respectable institutes have conducted studies about the health effects from smoking cannabis and the results are not positive. 

Either way, the public has spoken and according to a recent poll conducted by CNN, 95% of Americans now are in favor of marijuana being legalized. See:

Author: Kellie Bartoli

Hippies (and Michael Phelps) – rejoice! On Feb. 23, the California legislature introduced AB390, a bill to legalize marijuana. And, if I do say so myself, it’s about time.

The measure is said to “remove all penalties in California law on cultivation, transportation, sale, purchase, possession or use of marijuana…or paraphernalia for persons over the age 21.”

Oh yeah, and bring in roughly $1 billion annually. Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, the bill’s sponsor, mandates “establishing a fee on the sale of marijuana at a rate of $50 per ounce.” That’s certainly one way to chip away at the state’s $42 billion deficit.

There couldn’t be a better time for such a proposal, especially when you consider the World Health Organization’s estimate that 42 percent of American adults have tried marijuana (not just the hippies anymore…my apologies). A recent study says 40 percent of Americans believe the drug should be legalized.

While that percentage wasn’t broken down by state, I can imagine that many California residents might be even more likely to support legalization. Since 2006, California has accounted for almost one-third of pot production, and marijuana has been more valuable to its growers than wheat and corn – combined. 

California is often viewed as the leader in creating policy changes that will eventually take over the country. The indoor smoking ban? California’s was enacted in 1994 and strengthened in 1998, years before the rest of the country caught on. Perhaps if the bill passes in California, other states may soon follow suit. The economy couldn’t ask for more.

According to a 2005 report by Professor Jeffrey A. Miron, “marijuana legalization – replacing prohibition with a system of taxation and regulation – would save $7.7 billion per year in state and federal expenditures on prohibition enforcement and produce tax revenues of at least $2.4 billion annually if marijuana were taxed like most consumer goods.”

The report goes on to explain that if marijuana were taxed like alcohol or tobacco (and it’s safe to assume it would), up to $6.2 billion could be generate each year.

And the economic windfall doesn’t stop there. With the decriminalization of marijuana, the government would be able to save the money it spends fighting against the drug and put it to better use. How much difference can that really make? It’s estimated that every state annually spends around $19.2 billion to fight the war on drugs, and at least 20 percent of that amount goes toward marijuana. That’s an extra $3.8 million that could be saved.

The “War on Drugs” sounds so very Nancy Reagan, though, right? When I hear the term, I imagine undercover FBI agents taking down an underworld drug cartel. But alas, my vivid imagination has gone too far.  Instead, the government focuses its efforts on arresting people for smoking marijuana – in the last decade alone, 6.5 million citizens have been arrested with marijuana violations.  Just in case you were wondering, that’s a higher number than the populations of Alaska, Delaware, Washington D.C., Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming put together.

• Yearly marijuana arrests have almost tripled since the early 1990s, accounting for the highest number recorded by the FBI.
• In 2006, 89 percent of the Americans arrested (738,915) were charged with simple possession.
• The amount of marijuana-related arrests in 2006 greatly exceeded the combined arrests for murder, rape, robbery and aggravated assault.

That’s right – more Americans were locked up for smoking pot than committing violent crimes.

While some states may not be as forward thinking as California, they are willing to give marijuana a second chance, at least medically speaking.

In 2007, Massachusetts introduced HB2247 to legalize medical marijuana. While the bill didn’t make is past the Committee, voters took the issue into their own hands this November. After securing 65 percent of the vote, Massachusetts decriminalized pot possession of one ounce or less, making it a $100-fine offense.

On Feb. 23, the New Jersey Senate passed S119  22-16, making the state one step closer to providing some aid to the suffering.

For many, traditional medicines are simply not strong enough. However a significant number of patients could get some much-needed relief thanks to medical marijuana.

Some of the most common medical uses for marijuana:

• Relieve mild to moderate nausea brought on by chemotherapy.
• Help reduce nausea and weight loss in people with AIDS and suffering from anorexia.
• Reduce tremors, muscle spasms and the pain brought on by multiple sclerosis.
• Relieves pressure from the eye and pain from glaucoma.
• Lessen the extreme pain caused by cancer, AIDS, arthritis and others.

After all, “Marijuana in its natural form is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man.” Or so said DEA Administrative Law Judge Francis Young. 

While marijuana isn’t harmless, there are much more dangerous drugs readily available – and legal. Alcohol? Tobacco? Countless studies have proven fatal consequences from the two. Yet there are no documented deaths from marijuana.  A UCLA study found no link between smoking pot and lung cancer. So who made marijuana the bad guy?

Author: Sarah Riordan

Unless you A. don’t have a TV, B. have one but only watch MTV, VH1, or E, C. don’t have a computer, or D. your electric was turned off, you really don’t have an excuse to be oblivious to the fact that California is facing a budget crisis.  Plus, in addition to facing severe financial problems, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is having some trouble getting his budget proposal passed.  So while the California State Senate continues to debate what’s best for the people of California, it is StateSurge’s job to provide you with information about the budget, and legislators in charge of passing or failing it.

In a statement that seems reminiscent of a recent federal bill that had a little something to do with economics, the Republicans seem to be the ones resisting the proposed budget plan. There is one Republican supporting it however, so here’s a brief little tidbit about the lone Republican, and what he has supported in the past.

Dave Cogdill is the lone Republican supporting the governor’s budget plan.  He’s a Senator from the 14th Senate District including the areas of Mariposa, Madera, San Joaquin, Fresno, Tuolumne and Stanislaus.  He has served as the 14^th district’s Senator since 2006, and has been the State Senate Minority Leader since he was voted unanimously to the position in 2008.  Despite his position as minority leader, according to Statesurge’s legislative tracking,  Cogdill is one of the five least effective legislators in California.

According to Cogdill’s own website, he’s not a fan of tax increases and is against increasing the tax burden on Californian’s in a time of economic hardships.  However, the proposed budget includes a number of tax increases for Californians.  This is supposedly the reason why few Republicans are backing the budget plan.

So naturally, the assumption is that Cogdill is well…a RINO. (Republican in name only) However, it seems that both fisically and socially Cogdill has maintained a conservative stance.  He has repeatedly voted against tax increases, and his anti-abortion and anti-homosexual marriage views have been unpopular in California since his 2006 election. 

So, with experience and seemingly strong conservative values, why is Cogdill going against his party and voting for a bill that not a single additional Republican is supporting?  Honestly, at this point, no one really knows.  Perhaps Cogdill believes the budget is reasonable, or perhaps he thinks it’s necessary for the state to pass the bill in order to rescue the California government.

As of today however, we have no clear answer and no idea why Cogdill has been unsuccessful in convincing his fellow Republicans to follow his lead.  Though no Republican Senator has yet agreed with Cogdill, there is talk that Republican State Senator Roy Ashburn who abstained from voting originally, will follow Cogdill’s lead and side with the Democrats. Until more information is released however, we spectators can sit back and wait to see who supports who, if the bill will ever pass, and how California will survive their current budget crunch.  

Author: Crystal Fontaine

In 2004, lung cancer accounted for more deaths than breast cancer, prostate cancer, and colon cancer combined. Approximately thirty five million Americans now live with chronic lung disease, making it one of the leading causes of death in the United States as it is responsible for one in six deaths. The financial costs of treating lung cancer are incredibly high, costing approximately $9.6 billion per year. One does not have to be a smoker to develop lung cancer as there are many factors that are added into the risk of getting lung cancer. However, smoking does increase one’s odds considerably.

According to a 2005 C-STATS data sheet for the state of California, there are 14.3% of Californian adults (ages 18-65) that are current smokers with 10% being daily smokers, leaving the remaining 4.3% claiming they are only occasional smokers. Unfortunately in 2008, there was an estimated total 18,060 Californians who were diagnosed for lung cancer with an expected number of 13,000 dieing from the disease. Due to these increasing numbers, California Assemblyman Tom Torlakson introduced Assembly bill 89, which increases the states cigarette tax. The legislation is similar to California Senate bill 24 that Torlakson introduced last year. AB 89 would provide “much needed funding for Lung Cancer Research while saving our State billions in tobacco-related health care costs”. The bill provides a good way to gain the money needed for research and to help protect the health of many Californians.

AB89 would impose an additional excise tax on the distribution of cigarettes at a rate of $0.105 for each cigarette sold. Cigarette dealers and wholesalers would be required to file a return with the State Board of Equalization, showing the number of tobacco products in their possession that is under their control. The revenues collected would be deposited in the Tobacco Excise Tax Account, which would be created under the legislation. The revenue would go towards certain education and health related purposes, such as child’s health care, tobacco cessation services, and lung cancer research. The law could raise approximately two billion dollars annually if it should go into effect.

Since 2000, there have been 42 out of the 50 U.S states that have increased their cigarette excise tax. According to Torlakson, this should be a win for California’s schools and public health. If the bill is to pass, approximately one billion of the estimated two billion that it is to generate would go towards California’s vast educational system. The other billion would go towards health care needs. As we face a struggling economy, it is just one way to look at different revenue options to help fund important things, such as lung cancer research and education. 

Author: Sara Hilbert

Last week, the Huffington Post’s David Reynolds rejoiced in the progress that America has come a very long way from its racist past. Barack Obama, the first African American, now holds the highest political position in the United States. As we celebrate this groundbreaking achievement, we must keep in mind just how far we still need to go.

As revealed on Election Day, 52% of America’s most trend-setting voters supported the most monumental ballot measure in history, proposition 8. Now, the state of California has eliminated the rights of same sex couples to marry (after awarding over 16,000 same-sex couples the right to wed).This article, unmistakably tagged with a photo showing a heterosexual couple, proves a bigger point.  It is no mistake; a marriage of a mixed race couple was once illegal. This same state once held an irrational view with anti-miscegenation law, stating, “All marriages of white persons with Negroes, Mongolians, members of the Malay race or mulattoes are illegal.” Once our law denied legal recognition to mixed race couples simply because it made others feel uncomfortable. Since these times, we corrected our unfair behavior towards this issue. However, our mindset still remains the same. The implications of the success of proposition 8 rings loud and clear: justice is second to our own comfort levels.

Legalization of same sex marriages, as many claim, destroys traditional family values and emotionally cripples children. That sounds more like the dreadful effects of divorce, not an effect from same-sex marriages. Current statistics show that 50% of first marriages, 67% of all second marriages, and 74% of third marriages end in divorce. This shows we are not teaching our children to respect any type of commitment, nor traditional family values. What we are showing them is that the real way to deal with relational dilemma is serial divorce. Leaving marriage to one man and one woman is not an argument, but an excuse for a prejudice.

California, a modern place of innovation and forward thinking, has been defeated. The scare tactics that the conservative organizations used entangled themselves into the California constitution. Over the years, the fight for equality has been so successfully strong. However, this recent set back, draws a line that that separates us from them. This generation is supposed to be more open and hopeful to the solution to end discrimination. Many have internalized these conservative messages that play on irrational fears.  Instead of noble and just laws throughout our country, we have a social disease. Homophobia, it is a cancer eating away at every chance of freedom and equal rights. Get back up, California, and dust yourself off. It is time to get organized and pass laws that no longer desire to exclude any longer. 

Author: Sara Hilbert

Election Day is here California, and you have been hit with the second most expensive campaign. Next to the presidential race, the combined efforts of committed individuals in favor and against Proposition 8, have raised over $65 million. This has resulted in the most expensive social issue campaign in the history of the nation. Californians are not the only ones concerned. Millions of campaign funding has come from groups and individuals out of state. Those donors know the reality; California is the front lines of the war for equal rights regardless of sexual orientation.

Here are some quick facts before you head to the polls:
The official title description of Proposition 8 is “eliminates right of same-sex couples to marry.” This constitutional amendment changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California. Prop 8 defines marriage to be recognized in the state of California between one man and one woman. In March 2000, California voters passed Proposition 22 to specify in state law that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. In May 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled that the statute enacted by Proposition 22 and other statutes that limit marriage to a relationship between a man and a woman violated the equal protection clause of the California Constitution. It also held that individuals of the same sex have the right to marry under the California Constitution. As a result of the ruling, marriage between individuals of the same sex is currently valid or recognized in the state. If proposition 8 is enacted, it would revoke the 16,000 same sex couples their marriage agreement that have already taken place since June.

If you check this box that would mean it would over ride the California Supreme Court decision for legalizing same sex marriages. This bill is strongly supported by many groups including: Focus on the Family, the Church of Latter Day Saints, and the Knights of Columbus. These groups feel family and marriage values are threaten by a few opinionated judges. Dr. James Dobson, of Focus on the Family wrote, “Quite literally, the institution of the family is hanging in the balance. If homosexuals are permitted to marry, then the entire legal basis for the family will be undermined.”

John McCain has spoken for marriage to be between a man and a woman. Throughout his campaign, McCain has stated that if something were to change, public opinion would have to dramatically change equal civil rights within state and local governments first. Only then should allow congress be allowed to legally consider amending the constitution. He feels like everyone should be included, but it is unclear about his plans to directly reserve rights for same-sex couples.

By reinforcing the rights of these 16,000 couples this monumental moment would set the stage for many other states to follow, which some hope would then pave the roads to be recognized under federal law. Many famous celebrities actively speak against this proposal such as Brad Pitt, Ellen DeGeneres and Steven Spielberg.The newlywed, Ellen DeGeneres and her same sex partner, Portia De Rossi, begs people stop the discrimination. On her show, she compares this unfair treatment to withholding voting rights from blacks and women. She says, “There is this old way of thinking that we are not all the same. We are all the same people. All of us. You are no different than I am. Our love is the same…. My hope is someday it won’t be called contract it will be called marriage.”

Barack Obama, personally, feels stronger for traditional marriages but fully supports the same sex lifestyle and their civil rights; from emergency visitation rights, health coverage, employee benefits, property and adoption rights. He also wants to expand federal hate crimes and the Employment Non-Discriminatory Act to include sexual orientation and gender identity.

Author: Crystal Fontaine

It boggles the mind to see people driving down the road while doing things other than completely paying attention to their surroundings. I suppose we all have the ability to multitask, right? Despite our confidences in doing more than one thing at a time, your risk of having an accident skyrockets if you are trying to drive while doing tasks such as applying make-up. We’ve all made excuses: I’m careful, I can still see what’s going on, I know this road like the back of my hand, etc. You may know the road well, but the drive isn’t exactly the same every day. Perhaps that is why there is an increasing, overwhelming concern for drivers talking and texting on their cell phones.

Several states have taken the initiative of banning talking on the cell phone and text messaging while driving. Recently, California Governor Schwarzenegger signed a law, SB 28, banning text messaging while driving. The bill was introduced by Senator Joe Simitian (D-CA). The legislation specifically prohibits the use of any electronic wireless communications device “to write, send, or read a text-based communication”. Motorists will be fined twenty dollars for the first offense and fifty dollars for each subsequent offense. A previous Californian bill passed in July requiring that motorists who use cell phones must use hands-free devices. In addition, drivers who are under 18 are not allowed to use their cell phones period. California is not alone in their quest to make the roads just a bit safer. For example, the states of Louisiana (SB 137), Minnesota, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Washington have all passed similar legislation.

However, there are some that believe the law is a bit excessive. It treads on people’s right of choice and the ability to make the decisions they feel are necessary despite what consequences may arise. Republican lawmakers have argued that the measure is another illustration of adding superfluous legislation to the Vehicle Code when there are already adequate regulations on the books. Assemblyman Chuck Devore, R., stated that there is “…already a blanket law that says reckless driving is illegal and if you cause an accident while recklessly driving, it’s a misdemeanor”. Regardless of opinion, no one is completely focused on their driving or, more importantly, on the other people driving around them when they are talking on their cell phone or sending a text message.

Over 200 million people in the United States use cell phones. In a 2004 MIT survey, it is just one invention that no one can live without…even if you hate it. The cell phone offers a variety of features that are fantastic and coincidently annoying, especially when you receive that 3 A.M text messaging from the Democratic Presidential nominee. However, we rely heavily on that little communications device despite its faults. As many have questioned before, is it really necessary to create a law banning it or certain features while driving? How easily would the law be enforced, especially since so many of us use the cell phone in our cars? What has the world come to if there is a need to make laws on simple, common sense issues?

Overview
The main issue involved in the use of marijuana for medical reasons can be summed up as follows: Do the medical benefits of properly prescribed marijuana to certain patients outweigh the medical risks thereof, and outweigh society’s legal, moral, ethical, religious and public health concerns? The U.S. Supreme Court found that it is not under the landmark case of Gonzales vs. Reich (below).

Marijuana has been used as an agent for medicinal purposes and for achieving euphoria since ancient times; it was described in a Chinese medical compendium traditionally considered to date from 2737 B.C. (5000 years ago). For most of human history, marijuana has been completely legal. It’s not a recently discovered plant, nor is illegality a long-standing law. Marijuana has been illegal for less than 1% of the time that it’s been in use.

The use of marijuana has been the source of criticism, racism and ridicule over the years, initiating an all out war against the substance by Uncle Sam. For instance Harry J. Anslinger, former Director of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics in the 1930’s, made the following “observations”: “Marijuana smokers in the US are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz, and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others”; “Marijuana is an addictive drug which produces in its user’s insanity, criminality, and death”; “Marijuana is the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind.” And “You smoke a joint and you’re likely to kill your brother; Marijuana makes fiends of boys in thirty days”. The term “killer weed” was formerly used to describe marijuana, and was the title of a motion picture in the 1930’s. These and similar attitudes exist even today and act to form a societal prejudice against any use of the “drug”, including for beneficial medical purposes.

Medical use of marijuana has undergone many medically supervised clinical trials and it is generally accepted that treatment including marijuana has some positive medical value. The counter medical argument is that, while concedingly medically beneficial, too little is known about the possible negative effects of the over 400 chemicals contained in marijuana At this point that the trend would be to include marijuana in the treatment of some conditions including appetite stimulation in AIDS and cancer patients, relief from nausea and vomiting from chemotherapy, pain relief, and increase in motor activity in cases of M.S., paraplegia, spasticity, and seizure disorders. It also lowers intraocular pressure (IOP) in glaucoma. More study is needed.

Four main issues comprise the debate on medical marijuana: (1) its role as a significant drug of abuse and the reluctance of policy makers to dissociate the potential harmful effects of recreational marijuana use from its potential therapeutic effects; (2) the wisdom of burning and inhaling the combustion products of a dried plant product as a valid therapeutic agent; (3) the view that smoked marijuana is not a unique therapeutic substance but rather represents an alternate, but more toxic, delivery vehicle for the active ingredient THC; and (4) the value of analyzing smoked marijuana’s potential medical use in the traditional manner of risk versus benefit in individual patients. The American Medical Association in its June 2001 report “concluded that marijuana should remain illegal but that further research should be done to verify its medical benefits and side effects.

For the most part, mainline religious denominations support the use of medical marijuana including The Presbyterian Church (USA), the United Methodist Church, Episcopal Church, United Church of Christ, Union for Reform Judaism, Progressive National Baptist Convention, and the Unitarian Universalist Association. Some or most of their collective views stem from the religious/moral duty to care for, and be compassionate to, the sick. “Legislators who give lip service to ‘moral values’ had better be consistent on the medical marijuana issue,” said Charles Thomas, executive director of the Interfaith Drug Policy Initiative. The Presbyterian Church (USA) joins six other major denominations explicitly supporting medical marijuana, while no denominations’ governing bodies have ever taken an official position against it .

The Courts have recognized “medical necessity” a valid defense only in cases involving religious organizations. The court rejected that defense in this case. The Supreme Court did support religious rights regarding drugs in a 2006 case. There, U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 was constitutional and applied to the DEA. The DEA was required to return Schedule I drugs and related materials to the members of the UDV church and was required to meet the conditions of the Act regarding religious defense.

—State initiatives concerning medical marijuana—

The Federal law making marijuana illegal is called Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, Title II, Code of Federal Regulations or CFR. The law makes it unlawful to manufacture, distribute, dispense, or possess Schedule I drugs [marijuana]. States have since enacted laws making it legal to dispense, cultivate and/or use marijuana for medical purposes. Twelve states, including California, Alaska, Colorado, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Rhode Island, Arizona and Vermont have enacted by statute or referendum the legalization for research and use of marijuana for medicinal purposes only fifteen states have never had a positive medical marijuana law. Ten states, plus the District of Columbia, have symbolic medical marijuana laws, laws that support medical marijuana but do not provide patients with legal protection under state law.

In September 1999, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that “medical necessity” is a valid defense against federal marijuana distribution charges, provided the distributor can prove that the patients it serves are seriously ill, face imminent harm without marijuana, and have no effective legal alternatives. The case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court (hereafter Court).

—The United States Supreme Court Rules

Despite state legalization acts the United States Supreme Court (hereafter Court) overruled a decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that marijuana should be legalized for medical purposes. [It may be noted here that the 9th Circuit Court and the US Supreme Court have been at odds for many years and the 9th Circuit is overruled by the Supreme Court more than any other]. The Supreme Court held that under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Federal criminalization of the medical use of marijuana could be enforced by the Federal government irrespective of state law to the contrary (state laws were not repealed, only that Federal agents could arrest and prosecute those who distributed and/or used marijuana including for medicinal purposes; it was not unlawful for physicians to prescribe marijuana).

In its decision in Raich the Court framed the legal issue at the outset: “The question presented in this case is whether the power vested in Congress by Article I, §8, of the Constitution includes the power to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana in compliance with California law”. This is called “Commerce Clause” of the Constitution This Clause has been used (many say over-used) throughout the Court’s history to regulate anything having to do with interstate (state to state) commerce. The test as to when the Clause allows the Court (Federal government) to regulate some aspect of commerce has become increasingly more liberal over the last 200 years to the point that the Court can invoke the clause just about any time it wants to expand the Federal government’s power to regulate.

Gonzales v Raich was a California case. The Court noted that California has been a pioneer in the regulation of marijuana. In 1913, California was one of the first States to prohibit the sale and possession of marijuana and at the end of the century, California became the first State to authorize limited use of the drug for medicinal purposes. In 1996, California voters passed Proposition 215, now codified as the Compassionate Use Act of 1996. The proposition was designed to ensure that “seriously ill” residents of the State have access to marijuana for medical purposes, and to encourage Federal and State Governments to take steps towards ensuring the safe and affordable distribution of the drug to patients in need.

The facts before the Court were:
Plaintiffs Angel Raich and Diane Monson were California residents who suffered from a variety of serious medical conditions and had sought to avail themselves of medical marijuana pursuant to the terms of the Compassionate Use Act. They are being treated by licensed, board-certified family practitioners, who have concluded, after prescribing a host of conventional medicines to treat respondents’ conditions and to alleviate their associated symptoms, that marijuana is the only drug available that provides effective treatment. Both women have been using marijuana as a medication for several years pursuant to their doctors’ recommendation, and both rely heavily on cannabis to function on a daily basis. Indeed, Raich’s physician believes that forgoing cannabis treatments would certainly cause Raich excruciating pain and could very well prove fatal.

Plaintiff Monson cultivates her own marijuana, and ingests the drug in a variety of ways including smoking and using a vaporizer. Respondent Raich, by contrast, is unable to cultivate her own, and thus relies on two caregivers, litigating as “John Does” (anonymous parties to the suit) to provide her with locally grown marijuana at no charge. These caregivers also process the cannabis into hashish and Raich herself processes some of the marijuana into oils, balms, and foods for consumption.

On August 15, 2002, county deputy sheriffs and agents from the federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) came to Monson’s home. After a thorough investigation, the county officials concluded that her use of marijuana was entirely lawful as a matter of California law. Nevertheless, after a 3-hour standoff, the federal agents seized and destroyed all six of her cannabis plants.

Plaintiffs thereafter brought this action against the Attorney General of the United States and the head of the DEA seeking injunctive and declaratory relief prohibiting the enforcement of the Federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) in that it prevented them from possessing, obtaining, or manufacturing cannabis for their personal medical use. 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. Respondents claimed that enforcing the CSA against them would violate the Commerce Clause, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments of the Constitution, and the doctrine of medical necessity.

The Commerce Clause emerged as the Framer’s response to the central problem giving rise to the Constitution itself: the absence of any federal commerce power under the Articles of Confederation. For the first century of our history, the primary use of the Clause was to preclude the kind of discriminatory state legislation that had once been permissible. Then, in response to rapid industrial development and an increasingly interdependent national economy, Congress “ushered in a new era of federal regulation under the commerce power,” beginning with the enactment of the Interstate Commerce Act in 1887.

Cases during this “new era” identified three general categories of regulation in which Congress is authorized to engage under its commerce power. First, Congress can regulate the channels of interstate commerce. Second, Congress has authority to regulate and protect the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, and persons or things in interstate commerce. Third, Congress has the power to regulate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. The case here was decided pursuant to the third category.

The plaintiffs raised three main objections to Congress exercising its power under the facts of this case. First they argued that the fact that marijuana used “for personal medical purposes on the advice of a physician” can itself serve as a distinguishing factor exempting marijuana from Federal regulation. The Court countered that the CSA designated marijuana as contraband for any purpose by characterizing marijuana as a Schedule I drug, Congress expressly found that the drug has no acceptable medical uses (apparently without any government initiated studies).

“Second, the plaintiffs’ argued that limiting the ability of a state to pass laws legalizing only marijuana use to marijuana possession and cultivation should put the state’s law Federal congressional reach. However, the Court found that the “Supremacy Clause” in the constitution unambiguously provides that if there is any conflict between federal and state law, federal law shall prevail [called preemption]. It said that it is beyond argument that federal power over commerce is “‘superior to that of the States to provide for the welfare or necessities of their inhabitants, however legitimate or dire those necessities may be”.

Plaintiffs nonetheless contended that their activities were not “an essential part of a larger regulatory scheme” because they had been “isolated by the State of California, and are policed by the State of California,” and thus remain “entirely separated from the market” (commerce clause). The Court responded: “The notion that California law has surgically excised a discrete activity that is hermetically sealed off from the larger interstate marijuana market is a dubious proposition and, more importantly, one that Congress could have rationally rejected”.

The Court also said that the effect on interstate commerce would be substantial if the California law was to remain. It would allow illegal activity to occur by transporting marijuana across state lines for both legal and illegal purposes.

—Conclusion—
Basically, the Court said that as long as Congress’ inclusion of the medical use of marijuana in its list of banned drugs was “rational”, the Federal law preempted state law to the contrary. In other words, it seems the centralized Federal government is better able to regulate the affairs of all 50 states by Thus, by the Court’s ruling, in California the marijuana distribution centers are legal under state law but illegal under Federal law. Many still operate but many have been raided and shut down by the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA).

The court’s decision makes the Federal government justified in sweeping and broad criminalization statutes, trumping whatever the people of the state decide is more beneficial for them. Although the Supremacy of Federal law over state law has long ago been established, there seems a determined effort in cases over the years to protect this power rather than relinquish it. If those who are subject to the criminalizing law were arch criminals themselves that would be one thing. However, most are otherwise and many times providing their services for the bettering of medical care (and of course their pocketbooks as is any capitalistic business). Although medical research has not conclusively proven the medical use of marijuana to be more beneficial than conventional drug therapies, there is little direct evidence that it is not helpful in many ways or that that its harmful effects out-weigh its benefits; or that its benefits should not be the subject of more clinical testing. Where the price of some drug therapies exceed the price of marijuana by multiples, and with the economic outcry about increasing healthcare costs (substantially influenced by profits of drug companies) why not consider the naturally occurring medicinal plants, such as marijuana, as an alternative treatment for those whom conventional therapies are ineffective.