Here's my shatty paper on states rights and regulation of pot. Wrote it for Soc of Law... a course with an incredible professor, but let's face it - I fuxing hate the study of law! Anywho, check it, no assurances on intresting or good writing.

Smoking Jurisdiction

By Jeff Ginger - last updated 02.23.06

            At first glance the regulation of medical marijuana seems simple.  With all of the controversial issues of justice continuously at play in the court systems in the US a few limited cases of marijuana use initially might seem inconsequential.  Proponents of medical marijuana claim that it is an unsurpassed method of relief for desperately ill patients.  The opposition sees cannabis as a legitimate threat to drug regulation and an under the table method of illegal distribution.  This first impression, however, is not representative and the true question that lies behind the first impression is the extent of jurisdiction and balance within the governmental system in the United States.  The United States has a long history of complicated interrelations between the state and federal government.  Interpretations of the Constitution about state and federal power have varied greatly over the years and are continuously being subjected to a great deal of scrutiny.  Ultimately a healthy share of responsibility must be determined for the state and federal government.  Individuals have undertaken the task of changing the law through personal resistance against the law.  Social movements have caused trials to alter the legal system through resistance within the law.  In the end the issue is a complicated one but a critical battle that must be fought to uphold state rights.
            The Constitution gives the federal government the power to regulate interstate commerce.  Recent years have seen applied enforcement of this statute in relation to the war on drugs in America.  Restriction, raids, and destruction of marijuana owned for medical purposes has been conducted on account of interstate commerce.  Justice Stevens relayed its importance in regards to the marijuana dispute, explaining that omission of just one instance could open the door to countless future conflicts (Greenhouse).  Generally the worry is that the growth and use of medical cannabis could help to fuel the national drug trade.  Opponents of the anti-medical marijuana stance are numerous and do not deem the prospect of limited use of marijuana for medicinal reasons to be a threat on any major scale.  A few users with severe conditions hardly could spawn a large scale flow of drugs in the country, or even contribute to it in a significant manner. 
Interestingly enough, the reshaping of federalism has been on a trend towards states’ rights in recent history in issues such as welfare policy (Lens 319).  This inconsistency in actions by the federal government only adds to the confusion in determining how to interpret federal responsibility.  Why would the government play a diminished role in welfare and financial provision, but a very high profile role in regulation of drugs?  Regardless, the federal government is responsible for the restriction of the drug trade and the state government has a duty to best see to the health needs of its citizens.  While both tasks are important the federal government has no right to restrict marijuana use based off of reasoning determined by the interstate trade stipulation in the constitution. 
An allegedly related case, Wickard vs. Filburn, was used as an example of how the federal government might rationally regulate internal state wheat production to prevent disruption of national structures of commerce (court docket).  In the cases of home grown and employed medical marijuana exhibited in the readings there is no question of interstate trade, and as such this example given in the court docket should not be used in defense of the federal governments’ actions.  Essentially the courts’ interpretation of interstate commerce was inappropriately applied to the scenarios of marijuana use.  In general medical marijuana is unrelated to the drug trade – the limited number of individuals who benefit from it could hardly influence national drug flows on any realistic scale. 
Governmental agencies such as the DEA and FDA have identified THC synthetic alternatives to marijuana (DEA references), but other studies have shown these solutions to be less effective (Wikipedia, medical marijuana).  While the federal government has some right to restrict and regulate medical prescriptions and usage refusal to recognize legitimate studies and alternative medical practices because of ties to other political agendas such as the war on drugs is inappropriate.  These factors point to the state as the best choice of a regulatory authority of medical marijuana.
            Sally Engle Merry’s article, Resistance and the Cultural Power of Law” explains several different methods through which the law in the United States has been altered in the past.  The first introduced concept is that of direct resistance or defiance against the law.  Merry’s given example was a man who refused to accept medical treatment of a hole in his hand after he was arrested for abusing his spouse.  This man blatantly ignored the requests to receive medical attention by the law makers in the name of supporting his own philosophical outlook.  This is an example of outright resistance against the law.  The second method is that of resistance within the bounds of the law, and the example employed was the impact of feminism as a social movement on the laws related to and social regard of domestic violence.  Evidence suggests that women have come to feel more comfortable and able to report crimes of domestic violence but at a cost; they may be left alone if they report inappropriate treatment by a spouse.  The last example was resistance through redefinition of the law and is demonstrated through a scenario of implementation of native cultural law in the Hawaiian Islands.  The US took over the Hawaiian Islands originally without consideration to traditional custom or culture. The people of the islands later modified and redefined many of the laws in their state to suit the interests and cultural traditions of the native people living there.
The previous section explained that state legislature and judicial rulings, studies relating to marijuana, and contemporary regard for federalism point towards resistance within the law as a strategy for change since they seek to alter interpretation of policy via social influences. In the case of Raich and Monson court trail, however, it would appear to be an issue of defiance of the law by those in favor of medical use of marijuana.  The individuals participating in cannabis growth and consumption were actively resisting federal law in the name of personal outlooks and medical needs.  Both public influences and social atmosphere as well as individual resistance have had an impact as well as court rulings and new definitions or understandings of the Constitution.
            The point of contention in this issue seems to be more about federalism than it does about the actual impacts of medical cannabis on the United States.  Studies have shown vastly more positive effects from marijuana over the artificial THC alternative and we’re not talking about a very large group of users here.  The amount of damage that they might do in terms of the drug trade would be minimal as compared to the nation wide networks already set in place with strong illegal funding and backing.  Honestly the threat of some ravaged pot patients is no where near that of gangs and drug cartels.  It’s possible that doctors might write prescriptions for patients who don’t truly need medicinal marijuana but this scenario seems just about as likely as any other drug – doctors could write prescriptions for Vicadin (or any other addictive drug) users who don’t need it too.  None of the readings given even exhibited the cost differences between growing your own marijuana and buying a prescribed pill, either.  I suspect that drug manufacturing companies and Bush administration drug and terrorism political agenda are bigger influencing factors than actual health or access concerns about medical marijuana.  Despite the confusing and complex issues surrounding the dispute if one weighs the real items and questions at hand it becomes strikingly clear that the federal government is out of line in their pursuit of cannabis users. 
            Interfering with the health regulation affairs of a state is out of the jurisdiction of the federal government when dealing with medical cannabis.  The grounds on which the Monson and Raich case was attacked were faulty because of the basis on an inapplicable state to state commerce act and ruling.  Resistance to change the law has been invoked by medical users.  Resistance within the law has been manifested through court cases backed by studies presenting overwhelming evidence for medical benefits in cannabis use.  There is little real threat by medical marijuana to negatively influence the war on drugs.  The federal government, on the other hand, wishes to redefine law in order to suit their interests and agenda.  The balance between state and federal powers needs to be conserved and this would be best done by upholding states’ rights to sanction medical use of marijuana.