united-states us-constitution
Legality of Medicinal Marijuana
<p>Is the Supreme Court ruling on Medical Marijuana justified by the principles of Constitutional Law?</p>
<p>In 2005 the Supreme Court ruled in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Gonzales v. Raich</em>  545 U.S. 1 (2005)</a> that patients who take Medical Marijuana in states where Medical Marijuana is legal, they are not shielded
from federal prosecution.</p>

<p>The logic of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Gonzales v. Raich</em>  545 U.S. 1 (2005)</a> closely tracked that of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Wickard v. Filburn</em>, 317 U.S. 111 (1942)</a>.</p>
<p>In <em>Wickard</em> the Court held that wheat grown on a farm and used solely for livestock feed on that same farm was subject to regulation as part of &quot;interstate commerce&quot; on the theories that the owner would be less inclined to buy wheat from others for this purpose, thus affecting interstate commerce, and that there would be a temptation to sell some of the wheat off the farm if prices increased (the goal of the regulation) thus &quot;affecting interstate commerce&quot;.</p>
<p><em>Raich</em> followed a similar logic, claiming that marijuana plants grown for individual consumption might in fact be sold into the market, thus affecting the interstate market in marijuana.  It also accepted the government claim that any exception to the federal laws regulating marijuana might be used for widespread traffic in marijuana.</p>
<p>The <em>Wickard</em> case was a significant expansion of the US government's power under the Commerce Clause.  It was widely debated when it came out, and has been controversial among legal scholars ever since. It has remained the law for eighty years.</p>
<p>After <em>Wickard</em>, no challenge to Congressional action under the commerce clause was upheld until <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>United States v. Alfonso D. Lopez, Jr.</em>, 514 U.S. 549 (1995)</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Morrison#Reactions" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>United States v. Morrison</em>, 529 U.S. 598 (2000)</a>, In those, and several other decisions from about the same time the Rehnquist Court struck down aspects of then-recent gun control and civil rights legislation on the ground that the commerce clause only allowed regulation of &quot;economic&quot; activity, and possession of guns and domestic violence were not economic.</p>
<p>In <em>Raich</em> the majority  considered <em>Lopez</em> and <em>Morrison</em> but distinguished them, on the grounds that potential sale of marijuana was economic activity. Dissents strongly objected to this.</p>
