In a ruling significant for the upcoming PPACA case because of its ruling on how local personal activity can be regulated under the Commerce Clause, the USSC upheld the constitutionally under the provision of the federal policy against medicinal marijuana, even applied to mere possession in states where it is allowed under state law. It also notes "most domestic drug regulations prior to 1970 generally came in the guise of revenue laws," the clear "regulatory" nature not making them not "revenue laws." Telling for the tax prong of the PPACA arguments.
It is a case where preferred policy conflicted with constitutional law, Stevens and O'Connor (particularly the former, who expressly noted this in a later interview) not following what they though was good policy when applying the law. Stevens' had years before expressly written separately to leave open a medical necessity defense for individual use, referencing someone else's position [apparently contra the claim of the person cited in the footnote]:
As to the Raich ruling, I'm really of the O'Connor sort who is willing to be a bit wishy-washy there, having a "this isn't enough" standard of interstate commerce. I am with the majority on various things as to the basic principles involved and as applied to the interstate health market, the insurance law is clearly constitutional. I can also, though I'm not really happy with the idea, accept the opinion as compelled by precedent. But, and the same thing pops up really in U.S. v. Lopez (federal law involving mere possession near schools unconstitutional), my real concern here are liberty interests. And, there, it fails.Cf. Feeney, Bush Backs States’ Rights on Marijuana: He Opposes Medical Use But Favors Local Control, Dallas Morning News, Oct. 20, 1999, p. 6A, 1999 WL 28018944 (then-Governor Bush supporting state self-determination on medical marijuana use).
Someone in this thread* somewhat selfishly notes a personal connection. I'm not going to gainsay the underlining concern there. And, when the connection to interstate is weak and local law allows it, the federal government should not, arguably constitutionally not merely on policy grounds, interfere. I'm with Justice Douglas on "the freedom to care for one's health and person, freedom from bodily restraint or compulsion, freedom to walk, stroll, or loaf." So, combine questionable interstate commerce link, local option/federalism and liberty interests, the case against the policy is strong. One way or the other.
Anyway, the impetus here (see link) is an article on Obama's marijuana policy. The Rolling Stone article started thusly, opening up for the usual suspects the usual screeds against Obama, his imperfections making him a phony, everything positive he did tossed aside as some footnote:
Back when he was running for president in 2008, Barack Obama insisted that medical marijuana was an issue best left to state and local governments. "I'm not going to be using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws on this issue," he vowed, promising an end to the Bush administration's high-profile raids on providers of medical pot, which is legal in 16 states and the District of Columbia.And, this doesn't matter much to some people, "in its first two years, the Obama administration took a refreshingly sane approach to medical marijuana." The change in approach per the article seems to be connected to appointing an ex-Bushie as the head of the DEA. As Mark Green in the comments noted, it might also be that insiders were not a fan of the new approach, which had to face increasing medicinal marijuana us as liberalization of state laws made this a major industry.
The new DEA head might have lead to an unbalanced "counterattack" that took things too far in the other direction. Also, it is telling that the change came after the House was won by the Republicans. This is not the only issue (see yesterday's Up with Chris Hayes on expelling aliens) where Obama plays tough on crime. This is a valid criticism, though again, it is not merely about Obama (what about Congress allowing local option? like ending the AUMF 2001 that authorizes drone strikes, where is Congress? Ron Paul? one commenter even wants Obama -- how little we remember -- to fire some prosecutors for following the law here). Skewered and politicized drug policy goes across the board. And, the Administration has done some sane things overall here.
Yes, Obama has not done enough and the change on marijuana policy is horrible. It's like the Gitmo thing -- the non-audacity of hope. He made an effort, he had some push-back and scampered back. Exaggeration of how horrible he is across the board (e.g., he isn't for same sex marriage yet; what good is he to gays?) is counterproductive. People might not care, but I do. Sorry. Anyway, yes, the first of the noble eightfold path to nirvana is "viewing reality as it is, not just as it appears to be." He can laugh off questions about marijuana, but not when "a retired police officer with the group Law Enforcement Against Prohibition" makes them.
We are debating contraceptives (remember when someone got in trouble for raising masturbation during the Clinton years?). Chris Hayes noted yesterday that there isn't one "Obama Administration" but a bunch of shall we say sub-fiefdoms or something. This is how it would generally be unless you have a really top down sort of guy ala LBJ and I bet even he couldn't control every department over the long term. This leads to a mixed result, especially when (like in the economic area), you basically determine the conservative path is the de facto norm.
Things had gone off the rails here. I'm with you guy and the alternatives (yeah, even Ron Paul ... hands off the uterus, bub) are no better, much worse (Gary Johnson might be sane on this, but on economic matters? not so much) but you have screwed up here. Started off well and unlike Gitmo, you don't need funds to not go after these guys. There are enough questionable providers to show that you are doing something. Leave the others alone.
---
* "whit" in that thread annoyed me with a particularly moronic -- I know, you should be polite, and I started to get sarcastic there which is self-defeating, but damn, give me a f-ing break -- argument on Obama, who only the "deluded" would support and is clearly worse than Bush on most things. From a progressive view. People, including people I respect, toss some of from of this out, if not so baldly, and it is like religious belief. It is more emotional than rational, a matter of faith.