Supreme Court On Pot

[Lightning Rod]

From the late 1960's to the early 1980's I made a substantial part of my living as a pot salesman and grower. But those days are in the past (the statute of limitations.) Today I'm just a writer and an enthusiastic consumer. But while I was a dealer, the worst thing I could imagine with respect to my livelihood was that the marvelous plant should be legalized. The only reason that you can ask upwards of $400 per ounce for a weed that will grow in anyone's back yard is because it is illegal. If the drug companies could figure out a way to patent a product that has been in use for four thousand years, it would be legal.

Now comes Angel McClary Raich before the Supreme Court of the United States of America. She has a list of ailments for which she consumes 'medical' marijuana. I've never really understood the difference between 'medical' marijuana and regular old marijuana, but I'm not a doctor or even an actor playing a doctor, so what do I know? The State of California has, by referendum of the people, provided in law that its citizens can use marijuana for medicinal purposes. This is only compassionate and sensible. The problem is that the Federal government has its own laws against marijuana and because of the precedent set down in Wickard vs. Filburn, and because of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, the Feds think that they have the last say when it comes to regulating interstate commerce.

Just what Angel Raich growing pot on her windowsill in Oakland so that she can smoke it to ease her pain has to do with interstate commerce, only a lawyer could tell. But this is the issue before the Supreme Court.

Any pool hustler can tell you about The Principle of Local Rules. Local Rules always prevail. If you go into a pool hall where, in a game of eight-ball, you have to sink the 1 ball in the left side pocket and the 15 ball in the right side pocket, that's the way you have to play it. The concept of States Rights is based on the Principle of Local Rules, and the conservative Justices of the Supreme Court find themselves in an awkward position in the case of Ashcroft vs. Raich. They are stretched between their conservative dedication to States Rights and their native aversion to dope smoking. States Rights are fine when it comes to abortion and how to apply the death penalty and gay marriage, but smoking pot might make someone feel good and that's just going too far.

This writer rarely indulges in the discussion of whether or not marijuana should be legal. The whole subject strikes me as ridiculous. I'm going to smoke it no matter what the law says. I smoked it when I was locked up in prison for smoking it. I think it is a gift from god. But that's just my religion. John Ashcroft has his religion and I have mine. Local Rules apply and the locality in question is my body. Sue me.

The dispute at the root of Ashcroft vs. Raich is the same one that has plagued this country ever since the supremacy clause was written into the Constitution. One of the little flaws in our Constitution is that the supremacy clause contradicts the 10th Amendment. The tension between States Rights and Federalism has been a constant burr under the saddle of our Republic, from the nullification battle in the 1830's that was the underpinning of our bloody Civil War, to slavery, to voting rights, to the current topics of gay marriage, euthanasia and medical marijuana. Will local rules prevail or will the Federal government set the standards? If Mass. provides for gay marriage or if California legalizes pot, is that tantamount to succession? How about if South Carolina reinstates slavery?

As I write, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is indisposed due to cancer. He might be undergoing chemo or radiation therapy. I'll bet a phatty would do him good. If he smoked one he could probably make it to the bench long enough to rule against medical marijuana and States Rights.

The Poet's Eye sees that local rules always prevail. Pass me the medicinal reefer.