Showdown over medical marijuana

Angel Raich and Diane Monson know plenty about the failings of modern medicine.

Ms. Raich has been diagnosed with an inoperable brain tumor, and Ms. Monson suffers from what her doctors say is a degenerative spine disease. Both women have tried virtually every form of medication legally available, but the multiple side effects from prescription drugs have only compounded their difficulties.

In searching for an alternative, and upon their physicians' advice, the two California residents started using marijuana. Both say it helps them cope with pain.

But, yes, there is a problem. While medical use of marijuana is authorized under a 1996 California law, federal law bans marijuana as an illegal drug.

Monday Raich and Monson's case arrives at the US Supreme Court where the justices must decide whether California law or federal law should apply.

How the justices decide the case could affect more than just the applicability of medical-marijuana laws in California and a handful of other states with similar provisions. It could redefine the balance of power between Congress and the states and become a signature decision of the Supreme Court under Chief Justice William Rehnquist.

"I think it will be a landmark, one way or the other," says Randy Barnett, a professor at Boston University School of Law, who is arguing the case for Raich and Monson.

Ultimately at issue in the case is to what extent the Constitution places limits, under the commerce clause, on Congress's ability to regulate areas that have traditionally been left to state and local jurisdictions.

Legal analysts say one aspect of the case that makes it particularly worth watching is the mix of a liberal policy issue - medical-marijuana use - with a constitutional principle embraced by conservatives - federalism (state sovereignty).

Will conservative justices support federalism even when it means upholding a liberal marijuana-use law that they would probably never otherwise endorse? And will liberal justices support the medical-marijuana provision even when their support of it might advance a view of federalism considered anathema by the court's dissenting liberal wing in earlier cases?

At the time the Constitution was written, the federal government's powers were sharply constrained to avoid conflicts with state and local laws. Other than a few areas subject to federal jurisdiction, all other areas were to be left to the states.

The Constitution specifically empowers Congress to regulate commerce among states. For much of the nation's history, this provision meant that Congress could pass laws concerning interstate trade and other activities among and between the states to facilitate the emergence of a national economy. But the controlling feature of the clause has always been how the high court defines "commerce."

Page: 1 | 2