California and
Medical Marijuana
Distributed by: Brendan
Doyle and Daniel Ayeroff
Wickard Case





Because of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of
1938, farmers could only use a certain amount of
land for wheat production
This was to stabilize the price of wheat in the
national market by controlling the amount of
wheat produced
Roscoe Filburn was a farmer who produced wheat
in excess of the amount permitted
The excess wheat was produced for his private
consumption on his own farm, so it had nothing
to do with commerce at all
The Court unanimously reasoned that “the power
to regulate the price at which commerce occurs
was inherent in the power to regulate commerce”
Similarities to Medical Marijuana
Case
• The Supreme Court in
Gonzales v. Raich relied
heavily on Filburn in upholding
the power of the federal
government to prosecute
individuals who grow their own
medicinal marijuana pursuant
to state law
• In Raich, the court held that, as
with the home grown wheat at
issue in Filburn, home grown
marijuana is a legitimate
subject of federal regulation
because it competes with
marijuana that moves in
interstate commerce
Differences to Medical Marijuana
Case


The law in Wickard
exempted small
operations, the Wickard
case involved
commercial operations,
and there was "proof"
of the impact on
interstate commerce.
Marijuana is an illegal
substance…wheat is not
Sandra Day O’Connor’s Opinion



O’Connor said that although she would not have voted
for the initiative in California, she believed it was an issue
to be decided by the state, not the federal government
She thought that it was the states’ responsibility to
concern themselves with their peoples lives and liberties
We disagree with O’Connor, because it is clearly
established in the Constitution that it is the government
is the ultimate decision maker when it comes to dealing
with interstate commerce, which medical marijuana
clearly falls into. Although Raich was not personally
trafficking marijuana across state lines, there was no
reason she couldn’t have.
State’s Rights!!
Majority Decision


The majority of the Supreme Court, consisting of John Paul Stevens,
David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Antonin
Scalia, and Anthony M. Kennedy, decided that Congress’s
constitutional authority to regulate the interstate market in drugs,
licit or illicit, extends to small, homegrown quantities of doctorrecommended marijuana consumed under California’s
Compassionate Use Act
This means that because marijuana can be sold across state lines, it
is an interstate transaction that must be regulated by Congress, and
thus Federal laws against marijuana use trump state laws allowing it
Controlled Substances Act (CSA)
The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) is the legal basis
by which the manufacture, importation, possession, and
distribution of certain drugs are regulated by the federal
government of the United States
In 2003, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit ruled the CSA illegal as it applied to the use of
medical marijuana in the case Raich v. Ashcroft
However, the case was appealed to the Supreme Court
by the federal government, and in 2005, the Supreme
Court ruled in favor of the federal government
Clarence Thomas’s Opinion



Clarence Thomas stated that if “the majority is to
be taken seriously, the federal government may
no regulate quilting bees, clothing drives, and
potluck suppers throughout the 50 states.”
He is saying that the federal government is
reaching too far into local affairs. To make this
decision legal, they should be consistent and
regulate all these other issues.
We disagree with Thomas because marijuana is
drastically different from all these other issues
Can Quilting Bees, Clothing
Drives, and Potluck Suppers
Affect Interstate Commerce?


The Supreme Court could argue that in
cases near the borders of states, where
people from different states could
engage in commerce across a border,
these examples would interfere with
commerce because of lower prices
This is not justified, however, because
the impact would be so miniscule
The Difference in Marijuana


There is a major difference in the examples
Clarence Thomas cites and marijuana
Marijuana is not only publicly looked downupon, it is a banned substance that can have
harmful effects. Quilting bees and the like
result in community bonding and a small
cash boost, not an illegal and dangerous act.
Dealers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Fil
burn
 http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/20
04/11/23/raichVAshcroftAGuideToTheS.ht
ml
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Su
bstances_Act_of_1970#Constitutional_dis
putes
 http://angeljustice.org/
