Gonzales v. Raich

Gonzales v. Raich (previously Ashcroft v. Raich), 545 U.S. 1 (2005), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court regarding the constitutionality of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) as it pertains to the use of medical cannabis.

Background

The case was brought forth by Angel Raich and Diane Monson, two California residents who used medical cannabis as part of their treatment regimen. Raich, who suffered from numerous medical conditions, used cannabis on the recommendation of her doctor. Monson, who suffered from severe chronic back pain, grew her own cannabis plants.

In 2002, federal agents seized and destroyed Monson's six cannabis plants, despite the fact that her use of the drug was legal under California's Compassionate Use Act of 1996. Raich and Monson subsequently sued the federal government, arguing that the CSA, which classified cannabis as a Schedule I drug, was unconstitutional as it applied to their personal medical use.

Supreme Court Decision

The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, ruled in favor of the federal government. The majority opinion, written by Justice John Paul Stevens, held that the federal government had the constitutional authority under the Commerce Clause to prohibit local cultivation and use of cannabis, even in states where it is legal for medical use.

The Court reasoned that even small, locally grown amounts of cannabis could affect the larger, interstate market, and thus fell under federal jurisdiction. The decision effectively upheld the CSA's classification of cannabis as a Schedule I drug, and affirmed the federal government's power to enforce federal drug laws, even in states that have legalized medical cannabis.

Impact and Criticism

The decision in Gonzales v. Raich has been both praised and criticized. Supporters argue that it upholds the federal government's authority to regulate drugs and protect public health. Critics, however, contend that it infringes on states' rights and individual liberties.

The case has also had significant implications for the ongoing debate over cannabis legalization in the United States. Despite the ruling, many states have continued to legalize medical and even recreational cannabis, leading to ongoing conflicts between state and federal law.

See Also

• United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative
• Wickard v. Filburn
• Commerce Clause
• Controlled Substances Act

‎