What personal freedom is next?

[kandrathe]

You may all resent it if "states rights" ever comes back into vogue.

Endangered species act - gone
Federal cival rights laws - gone
Federal pollution laws - gone
I dont think most of you understand that the real battle here isnt over pot, its over state vs federal.
[right][snapback]79937[/snapback][/right]

And I think this was a win for Federalism. If I read the opinion correctly, the SC is saying that the Federal Goverment can regulate the production of a commodity, even at an individual level in order to preserve the integrity of the Interstate Commerce Act.

I don't agree with the opinion, and in fact I agree with the O'Connor dissent. The idea that personal production of marijuana will disrupt Interstate Commerce, or the commodity market is absurd, in that the government refuses to treat marijuana as a commodity and seeks to keep its production to zero.

Sandra Day O'Connor regarding CSA and Interstate Commerce;

What is the relevant conduct subject to Commerce Clause analysis in this case? The Court takes its cues from Congress, applying the above considerations to the activity regulated by the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) in general. The Court's decision rests on two facts about the CSA: (1) Congress chose to enact a single statute providing a comprehensive prohibition on the production, distribution, and possession of all controlled substances, and (2) Congress did not distinguish between various forms of intrastate noncommercial cultivation, possession, and use of marijuana. See 21 U. S. C. §§841(a)(1), 844(a). Today's decision suggests that the federal regulation of local activity is immune to Commerce Clause challenge because Congress chose to act with an ambitious, all-encompassing statute, rather than piecemeal. In my view, allowing Congress to set the terms of the constitutional debate in this way, i.e., by packaging regulation of local activity in broader schemes, is tantamount to removing meaningful limits on the Commerce Clause.

... and regarding Federalism, I find this one poignant;

We would do well to recall how James Madison, the father of the Constitution, described our system of joint sovereignty to the people of New York: "The powers delegated by the proposed constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite... . The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State." The Federalist No. 45, pp. 292-293 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961).

Relying on Congress' abstract assertions, the Court has endorsed making it a federal crime to grow small amounts of marijuana in one's own home for one's own medicinal use. This overreaching stifles an express choice by some States, concerned for the lives and liberties of their people, to regulate medical marijuana differently. If I were a California citizen, I would not have voted for the medical marijuana ballot initiative; if I were a California legislator I would not have supported the Compassionate Use Act. But whatever the wisdom of California's experiment with medical marijuana, the federalism principles that have driven our Commerce Clause cases require that room for experiment be protected in this case. For these reasons I dissent.

There have been other prohibitions that failed, and I think this one will too. What hope does Alberto Gonzales have in stopping Californians (or other states) marijuana production now, when the State and Local Officials are not on their side? Now one merely needs to have an "affliction" in which marijuana would relieve suffering, and then if busted, throw yourself upon the mercy of the jury.