SCOTUS decision in Raich is out.

[publius42]

Moreover, to ensure its coverage under the Constitution's commerce clause, my bill applies only to handguns that have been transported in interstate or foreign commerce, or that have parts or components that have been transported in interstate or foreign commerce. This clearly distinguishes the legislation from the gun free school zone statute that was struck down in the Supreme Court's Lopez case.

Well, I guess that little distinction is obsolete in light of Raich. Allowing homegrown concealed handguns would undermine that particular "commercial" regulatory scheme, so it could now apply to all handguns.

[publius42]

More from Justice Thomas' dissent:

We normally presume that States enforce their own laws, Riley v. National Federation of Blind of N. C., Inc., 487 U.S. 781, 795 (1988), and there is no reason to depart from that presumption here: Nothing suggests that California’s controls are ineffective. The scant evidence that exists suggests that few people–the vast majority of whom are aged 40 or older–register to use medical marijuana. General Accounting Office, Marijuana: Early Experiences with Four States’ Laws That Allow Use for Medical Purposes 22—23 (Rep. No. 03—189, Nov. 2002), http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d01389.pdf (all Internet materials as visited on June 3, 2005, and available in Clerk of Court’s case file). In part because of the low incidence of medical marijuana use, many law enforcement officials report that the introduction of medical marijuana laws has not affected their law enforcement efforts. Id., at 32.

These controls belie the Government’s assertion that placing medical marijuana outside the CSA’s reach “would prevent effective enforcement of the interstate ban on drug trafficking.”

[publius42]

Thomas goes on...

In the event that a qualified patient is arrested for possession or his cannabis is seized, he could seek to prove as an affirmative defense that, in conformity with state law, he possessed or cultivated small quantities of marijuana intrastate solely for personal medical use. People v. Mower, 28 Cal. 4th 457, 469—470, 49 P.3d 1067, 1073—1075 (2002); People v. Trippet, 56 Cal. App. 4th 1532, 1549 (1997). Moreover, under the CSA, certain drugs that present a high risk of abuse and addiction but that nevertheless have an accepted medical use–drugs like morphine and amphetamines–are available by prescription. 21 U.S.C. § 812(b)(2)(A)—(B); 21 CFR § 1308.12 (2004). No one argues that permitting use of these drugs under medical supervision has undermined the CSA’s restrictions.

But even assuming that States’ controls allow some seepage of medical marijuana into the illicit drug market, there is a multibillion-dollar interstate market for marijuana. Executive Office of the President, Office of Nat. Drug Control Policy, Marijuana Fact Sheet 5 (Feb. 2004), http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/...ana/index.html. It is difficult to see how this vast market could be affected by diverted medical cannabis, let alone in a way that makes regulating intrastate medical marijuana obviously essential to controlling the interstate drug market.

I figure I'll eventually get to the part where Thomas was wrong, and our drug warrior friends will correct him. Or maybe I'll post his entire decision piece by piece over the next several months. Either way.

[publius42]

Is it a heap yet?

[Al Norris]

It has been for a while... For those of us that have stepped back to view the totality of stare decisis.

[publius42]

Seems like a heap when a Supreme Court Justice has to bother saying something like this:

To be sure, Congress declared that state policy would disrupt federal law enforcement. It believed the across-the-board ban essential to policing interstate drug trafficking. 21 U.S.C. § 801(6). But as Justice O’Connor points out, Congress presented no evidence in support of its conclusions, which are not so much findings of fact as assertions of power. Ante, at 13—14 (dissenting opinion). Congress cannot define the scope of its own power merely by declaring the necessity of its enactments.

In sum, neither in enacting the CSA nor in defending its application to respondents has the Government offered any obvious reason why banning medical marijuana use is necessary to stem the tide of interstate drug trafficking. Congress’ goal of curtailing the interstate drug trade would not plainly be thwarted if it could not apply the CSA to patients like Monson and Raich. That is, unless Congress’ aim is really to exercise police power of the sort reserved to the States in order to eliminate even the intrastate possession and use of marijuana.

More so when he says it in a dissent!