united-states property
What does Gonzales v. Raich mean for property rights?
<p>In 2002, Angel Raich had her home raided by federal agents who seized her six cannabis plants. At the time, medicinal cannabis was legal in California, so Raich claimed the federal government didn’t have authority to interfere with her six plants- which were obviously for <em>personal consumption</em>, and neither affected <strong>inter</strong>state nor <strong>intra</strong>state commerce. </p>

<p>What authority did <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZO.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Gonzales v. Raich</a> provide to the federal government concerning individual property rights?</p>

<p>In lay terms, the <em>Raich</em> case cites authority pursuant to the "Commerce Clause" of the Constitution of the United States; specifically, that the government has the power to regulate interstate commerce, to the degree that crops of individuals (whether directly or indirectly, or not at all, in commercial circulation) can be regulated by Congress, citing the  <em>Filburn</em> case, which had nothing to do with "marijuana" or "cannabis", or "THC" or "CBD"; in essence, the government has the power to tell a private individual which crops they can cultivate or not, depending on the intent of Congress in enacting the law. The premise being that since the intent of Congress in regulating "marijuana" within the scope of the CSA was for the express purpose of maintaining <em>higher prices</em> (including so-called "black market" prices) for "marijuana", an individual cultivating "marijuana" which was not intended to enter the "stream of commerce" nonetheless impacted the <em>price</em> of the crop (or commodity) by cultivating the crop at all (i.e.g., greater supply of available product reduces the price of the product in any market, whether "black market" or not; having access to the product by means of private cultivation  reduces the resources necessary to acquire the crop) - thus resulting in the overall price of the crop <em>not being higher</em>, thwarting the intent of Congress in regulating that specific crop or commodity. </p>

<p>Of importance, Congress has concluded that "marijuana" had (and still does not have) any medical purpose (various bills have been written over the years to exempt "marijuana" from Schedule I classification in the CSA; "medical marijuana" exemptions, etc.), or at least no medical purpose recognized by Congress (save for specific research done by Dr. ElSohly, and a very limited number of private individuals (patients) to consume the crops produced by Dr. ElSohly, et al. pursuant to licenses issued by a federal administrative agency). </p>

<p>It is interesting to note that the United States holds a (potentially defensive) patent (and has so for several years as of 2018) on various medical applications of CBD via the National Institutes of Health.</p>

<p>The "property rights" aspect of your inquiry can be categorized into two parts which are independent of each other, that is both actions can be ongoing simultaneously</p>

<ol>
<li><p>The government has the power to regulate the cultivation of any crop or commodity on private property pursuant to the Commerce Clause and the intent of Congress, irrespective of if that crop enters the stream of commerce proper or not</p></li>
<li><p>The government can pursue medical research, apply for and be granted patents (intellectual property), by the government itself, for technologies relating to the medical use of crops or commodities defined by Congress as not having any recognized medical application (e.g., the identical crop or commodity at <em>1.</em>), potentially for defensive purposes, investment in a potential future market (i.e.g., licensing of patented technologies to pharmaceutical or private equity concerns) for profit, or other undisclosed purposes</p></li>
</ol>
