Tomorrow is the big day for MMJ

Drug WarRant points us to an article on Raich v. Ashcroft by Fred Gardner, currently posted at Counterpunch. Pete and the author rightly pick up on the money quote (revealing the government's true interests), in the brief.

Among the feds' arguments is one usually left unspoken: prohibition serves the interests of the pharmaceutical corporations. As expressed in the Solicitor General's brief, "Excepting drug activity for personal use or free distribution from the sweep of the CSA would discourage the consumption of lawful controlled substances." It would also undercut "the incentives for research and development into new legitimate drugs." That's as close as the government has come to acknowledging that wider cannabis use would jeopardize drug-company profits..

There's been much speculation about the possible outcome of this hearing. I'm buying into the hope that the Interstate Commerce Act issues will persuade the court to rule favorably in order to protect the individual state's rights from unnecessary federal intervention. There's reason to hope. As the article points out:

Raich et al's arguments are designed to appeal to "conservatives." They point out that the Supreme Court, by ruling against them would, significantly extend federal power under the commerce clause (the last thing "conservatives" are supposed to want to do). "If the Court upholds Petitioners' claim of federal power, this case will supplant Wickard to become the most expansive interpretation of the Commerce Clause since the Founding, and this Court's landmark decisions in Lopez and Morrison will become dead letters." No transaction would be too small to concern the federal government. Not even the cultivation of six plants.

Good argument I think. Let's hope the Supremes see the logic.