Except, of course, that it is. At least to some extent.

Today’s Supreme Court ruling on medicinal marijuana wasn’t about marijuana--that just happened to be the substance in question. It was about who has the right--the states or the Federal government--to make laws concerning the ownership of controlled substances, and the Supreme Court decided that it was the government who had that right via their commerce powers.

“Congress’ power to regulate purely activities that are part of an economic ‘class of activities’ that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce is firmly established,” wrote Justice John Paul Stevens for the majority.
[...]
The decision means that federal anti-drug laws trump state laws that allow the use of medical marijuana, said CNN Senior Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin. Ten states have such laws.
[...]
The Controlled Substances Act prevents the cultivation and possession of marijuana, even by people who claim personal “medicinal” use. The government argues its overall anti-drug campaign would be undermined by even limited patient exceptions.

The Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) began raids in 2001 against patients using the drug and their caregivers in California, one of 11 states that legalized the use of marijuana for patients under a doctor’s care. Among those arrested was Angel Raich, who has brain cancer, and Diane Monson, who grew cannabis in her garden to help alleviate chronic back pain.

A federal appeals court concluded use of medical marijuana was non-commercial, and therefore not subject to congressional oversight of “economic enterprise.”

But lawyers for the U.S. Justice Department argued to the Supreme Court that homegrown marijuana represented interstate commerce, because the garden patch weed would affect “overall production” of the weed, much of it imported across American borders by well-financed, often violent drug gangs.

What the Supreme Court did, in honesty, is to expand the idea of what might be considered commercial activity (growing your own marijuana for personal use without any attempt or intention to sell to others is now, at least peripherally, a commercial activity--which seems to be a bit of a stretch to me). So, from that standpoint, this really wasn’t about the drugs; it was about expanding the power of the Federal government over the states.

But since this revolves specifically around the use of marijuana, it is about a paranoid attitude toward drugs. It also seems to me to be a needlessly cruel expansion of power because of that paranoia. This wasn’t a case asking for blanket legalization, just for medicinal purposes. A cheap, easy to grow, and relatively mild drug like marijuana has proven medicinal value, and denying people the use of it to regulate their own pain isn’t rational policy.

Put me square in the camp of Justice O’Connor on this one who said in her dissent, according to USA Today:

“The states’ core police powers have always included authority to define criminal law and to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens,” said O’Connor, who was joined by other states’ rights advocates.

The idea that it would open to door to abuse from fraudulent prescriptions has some merit, but the logic behind that would leave open the idea that there should be no distribution of addictive and potentially dangerous drugs in the United States at all. If you can’t trust someone with a substance as mild as marijuana, how in the world can you trust them with Percoset or Vicodin?

No, the potential abuse of prescriptions is no argument against issuing those prescriptions; it’s merely an argument for intelligent enforcement and oversight of a controlled substance.

What we get today is two irrational decisions rolled up in one: the decision to expand commerce control over increasingly non-commercial endeavors and the decision to continue to insist that marijuana is a more dangerous drug than any of the opiates that are commonly prescribed to relieve pain. Sorry, but I just don’t see it.

No, the potential abuse of prescriptions is no argument against issuing those prescriptions; it’s merely an argument for intelligent enforcement and oversight of a controlled substance.

What we get today is two irrational decisions rolled up in one: the decision to expand commerce control over increasingly non-commercial endeavors and the decision to continue to insist that marijuana is a more dangerous drug than any of the opiates that are commonly prescribed to relieve pain. Sorry, but I just don’t see it.

Finally, this from Justice Thomas via NRO:

If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything--and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.”

Unfortunately, that sounds about right to me.

Update: See Steve’s comments on the same subject. To be quite clear, I think that even people opposed to legalization should be disappointed with this decision.

Further Update: Jeff G has a great post and, of course, the beginnings of an interesting conversation in the comments section.

Check out Petnavirate as well.
Accidental Verbosity gathers good links, too. And admits to an understandable crush.

Read the rest.
Read the USA Today story.