There has been some confusion about the impact of the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 2005 medical marijuana decision — Gonzales v. Raich — on state laws that remove criminal penalties from the medical use of marijuana. The ruling did not in any way change states’ ability to allow the doctor-advised medical use of marijuana under state law. As the Congressional Research Service’s 2006 report Medical Marijuana: Review and Analysis of Federal and State Policies states: “State medical marijuana laws do not attempt to overturn or otherwise violate federal laws that prohibit doctors from writing prescriptions for marijuana and pharmacies from distributing it.”
In Gonzales v. Raich, the court ruled 6-3 that the federal government would not overstep its powers under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution if it arrested patients whose medical marijuana use is permitted under state law. Within two months, top officials in all 10 states that had medical marijuana laws in effect — including seven attorneys general — stressed that the ruling did not change those states’ medical marijuana laws.
Since then, these laws have continued to provide near total protection for the sick and dying patients they are intended to protect. Because 99% of all marijuana arrests are at the state and local — not federal — level, changing state law can almost completely remove the chance that AIDS, multiple sclerosis, and cancer patients will be arrested for using doctor-recommended marijuana to relieve their suffering.
Here’s what the experts say about Raich’s effect on their states’ medical marijuana laws:
Alaska Attorney General David Márquez
“Attorney General David Márquez has advised the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services that the recent United States Supreme Court decision in Gonzales v. Raich, 125 S.Ct. 2195 (2005), does not prohibit the state from registering medical marijuana users.”
— state press release issued July 21, 2005
California Attorney General Bill Lockyer
“Today’s ruling does not overturn California law permitting the use of medical marijuana … Although I am disappointed in the outcome of today’s decision, legitimate medical marijuana patients in California must know that state and federal laws are no different today than they were yesterday. Californians spoke overwhelmingly in favor of medical marijuana by passing Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Initiative, and that law still stands in our state.”
— statement issued June 6, 2005
Colorado Attorney General John Suthers
“The Attorney General’s Office found that the Raich decision, which ruled federal authorities can prosecute people for use and possession of marijuana, does not directly impact the viability of the Colorado constitutional amendment or the enabling statute allowing the [state’s medical marijuana] program.”
— official press release issued June 30, 2005
Hawaii State Attorney General Mark Bennett
“I suspect that this decision [Gonzales vs. Raich] will not have a great impact on what we do as a state [regarding medical marijuana].”
— as reported in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin, June 7, 2005
Maine Assistant Attorney General James Cameron
“How will the court decision affect Mainers? Not much, said Assistant Attorney General James Cameron. ‘Really nothing has changed,’ he said.”
— as reported in the Portland Press Herald, June 7, 2005
Montana Attorney General Mike McGrath
“Attorney General Mike McGrath said Monday that [Montana’s] law is still valid and the 119 Montanans who have since registered with the state to lawfully use medical marijuana will not be prosecuted. McGrath further said that state officers, even if they were funded with federal dollars, would not go after lawful medical pot smokers in the state.
‘We still have a valid law and certainly that would be a defense to any state prosecution,’ McGrath said. ‘I’m quite sure no county attorney would consider filing a (marijuana) case under these circumstances.’”
— as reported in the Helena Independent Record, June 7, 2005
Nevada Attorney General Brian Sandoval
“Nevada’s registered medical marijuana users shouldn’t expect police at the door even though the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that they can be prosecuted under federal drug laws. That’s according to state Attorney General Brian Sandoval. Federal law has long outlawed marijuana use, but no one in Nevada has been charged with using the drug for medicinal purposes since the state allowed use of the drug under a physician’s care … Sandoval says after the ruling it’s essentially business as usual in Nevada, which is among the ten states that have legalized the use of medical marijuana to combat or relieve pain in such ailments as cancer, glaucoma and AIDS.”
— as reported by KRNV-TV, June 8, 2005
Oregon Attorney General Hardy Myers
“Does Gonzales v. Raich invalidate the Oregon statutes authorizing the operation of the Oregon Medical Marijuana Program? No. Raich does not hold that state laws regulating medical marijuana are invalid nor does it require states to repeal existing medical marijuana laws. Additionally, the case does not oblige states to enforce federal laws. The practical effect of Raich in Oregon is to affirm what the Attorney General understood to be the law since the adoption of the Act.”
— statement issued June 17, 2005
Vermont Governor James Douglas
“Jason Gibbs, a spokesman for Gov. James Douglas, said the Supreme Court ruling would not change the way the state registered people eligible to use marijuana to alleviate their suffering.”
— as reported by the Associated Press, June 7, 2005
Washington State Department of Health spokesman Donn Moyer
“In Washington state, the ruling has no practical impact.”
— as reported by the Associated Press, June 7, 2005
More than a year has passed since the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling, and the attorneys general have been proven correct. State medical marijuana laws have continued to provide near total relief for patients. And federal officials hastened to say that they don’t intend to prosecute medical marijuana patients: On June 7, 2005, Drug Enforcement Administration spokesman Bill Grant was quoted saying, “We have never targeted the sick and dying, but rather criminals engaged in drug trafficking.”1
Since the ruling, an 11th state — Rhode Island — enacted a medical marijuana law via its state legislature. Since Rhode Island’s medical marijuana ID card program opened in late March, more than 80 seriously ill patients have registered to use their medicine in peace and dignity.
1 “Widespread Prosecutions Unlikely of Medical Marijuana Users,” Associated Press, June 7, 2005.
