Pubdate: Sat, 14 Sep 2002 Source: San Jose Mercury News (CA) Copyright: 2002 San Jose Mercury News Contact: http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/390 Author: James Brent POT RAID DID NOT HAVE TO HAPPEN I'M afraid that I must disagree with my colleague Larry Gerston's assertion that the federal government had a legal right to raid the medical marijuana farm in Santa Cruz County. Gerston is correct that federal law trumps state law. However, as conservatives are fond of telling us, the Constitution does not give the federal government general police powers, such as the power to regulate drugs. Those are reserved to state governments. The Constitution does give the federal government the power to regulate ``interstate commerce.'' However, by all accounts, the marijuana farm in Santa Cruz was not engaged in interstate commerce. It raised marijuana for distribution to California citizens under California law. As a result, Congress has no power to regulate it. It is true that ever since the New Deal, the Supreme Court has generally taken an expansive view of what ``interstate commerce'' means. However, beginning in 1994, the court has reversed direction, significantly limiting the power of the federal government in a broad sphere of activity. The Supreme Court's unanimous 2001 decision to which Gerston refers did not deal with the key federalism issue, but rather dealt with the much more limited issue of whether a ``medical necessity'' exception to the federal statue is permitted. It specifically did not address the issue of whether the law itself was constitutional. It is telling that federal authorities have decided not to prosecute the owners of the Santa Cruz pot farm. I believe they reached this decision because they are afraid that if the owners were convicted and appealed to the Supreme Court, the federal government's actions would be overturned. James Brent Associate professor of political science San Jose State University - --- MAP posted-by: Keith Brilhart