When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against medical-marijuana users, many critics of the decision thought the six-justice majority failed to show compassion for severely ill people. But the Supreme Court doesn't sit to dispense compassion. It's supposed to ensure that Congress respects the Constitution and, by extension, individual liberty. How did it do on that count?

Before we get to that question, a foreword is in order. Under California's Compassionate Use Act, doctors may prescribe marijuana to patients with severe medical problems. Those patients are then permitted to grow marijuana for their own use.

The state closely regulates the prescription, cultivation, and use of the product to prevent others from obtaining it. (At least nine other states have similar laws.)

The issue in Gonzalez v. Raich et al. was whether such patients should be exempt from the federal prohibition against production and possession of marijuana.

The case raises questions that cry out for answers. What about equality under the law? Why should only sick people be exempted from the prohibition? If sick people have a right to obtain marijuana, it must be because they have a right to their own lives and therefore a right to take all peaceful actions to maintain their lives. Don't the rest of us have the same rights?

These questions show that medical-marijuana laws are inappropriate in a free society.

Sick people need freedom, not permission, however compassionate the motive. So do we all.

If you wish to see how far America has drifted from its libertarian roots, just study the Supreme Court's Commerce Clause cases. The U.S. Constitution delegates to Congress the power to "regulate commerce ... among the several states." This provision was intended to prohibit state governments from enacting protectionist trade restrictions against commercial interests in other states. The clause thus declared the United States a free-trade zone.

It didn't take long for Congress and the Supreme Court to warp the Commerce Clause into something unrecognizable. It went from a way to maintain the flow of products to a way to restrict and even prohibit the flow of products. Then, during the New Deal it became a means of prohibiting noncommercial intrastate activity if seen as necessary to regulate interstate commerce.

The unfortunate upshot is that while the Raich ruling faithfully follows (bad) Court precedent, it woefully violates the original purpose of the Commerce Clause. More fundamentally, the war on drug producers and consumers itself violates the Constitution. Even Justice Clarence Thomas's the dissenting opinion is flawed. Thomas writes, "The Commerce Clause empowers Congress to regulate the buying and selling of goods and services trafficked across state lines." Wrong, but the majority, including Justice Antonin Scalia, agreed, adding that, because Congress has a rational basis for fearing that homegrown marijuana could end up in the banned interstate market and because Congress may enact all laws "necessary and proper" for carrying out its objectives, no exemption for sick people from the Controlled Substances Act is justified.

There should be no exemption - because there should be no war on drugs.

• Sheldon Richman is senior fellow at The Future of Freedom Foundation (www.fff.org).

Recommended for you

(0) comments

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.