Supremes Just Say No

The Supreme Court has ruled (6-3) against medical use of marijuana, asserting that federal law trumps state law in a California case. In reversing a Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision, the Court relied on a 1942 decision on the regulation of wheat.

The impact of this decision extends beyond California: nine states have laws that allow for medical use of marijuana. The laws in these states have not been overruled; however, the Court says that the Feds have the authority to prosecute even if citizens are complying with state law. These aren't all blue states, either. From the Marijuana Policy Project (emphasis added):

The effective medical marijuana laws were enacted through ballot initiatives in Alaska, California, Colorado, Maine, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. In Hawaii, an effective law was passed by the legislature and signed by the governor in June 2000. In Vermont, an effective law was passed by the legislature and allowed to become law without the governor’s signature in May 2004.

A nationwide protest is being called for Wed 8 June; the goal is to gain visibility and support for the HR 2087 (36 sponsors), which "provide[s] for the medical use of marijuana in accordance with the laws of the various States."

When the current federal drug law was passed 35 years ago, there were no medical uses for marijuana and it was classified as a Schedule 1 drug with a high potential for abuse.

The Court did not make a judgment on medical use of marijuana. Instead, it applied the Consitution's commerce clause: "... the regulation is squarely within Congress' commerce power because production of the commodity meant for home consumption, be it wheat or marijuana, has a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market for that commodity."

See Christian Science Monitor, History of Marijuana Legislation, Ruling (pdf)