|
Last modified: July 11, 2012 5:56pm CDT
Return of Property Reply to Opposition
May 25, 2004 - page 5
1 affected. Id. at 1231. It then concluded that the third factor 2 weighed in favor of finding the CSA constitutional because 3 there were at least some Congressional findings indicating that 4 intrastate possession of controlled substances impacted inter- 5 state commerce. Id. at 1232. However, the court also noted that 6 Congress made no findings spcifically addressing the class of 7 activities at issue and that the findings that were made were 8 limited to the effects of intrastate activity on interstate 9 commerce, that is, the trafficking or distribution of con- 10 trolled substances. Id. at 1231-32. "The findings are not spe- 11 cific to marijuana, much less intrastate medicinal use of mari- 12 juana that is not bought or sold and the use of which is based 13 on the recommendation of a physician." Id. at 1232. The court 14 also noted that this factor does not weigh as heavily in the 15 calculation as do the first and fourth factors. Id. 16 Finally, the court concluded that the link between the 17 regulated activity and the substantial effect on interstate 18 commerce is attenuated. Although "the intrastate cultivation, 19 possession and use of medical marijuana on the rcommendation 20 of a physician could, at the margins, have an effect on inter- 21 state commerce by reducing the demand for marijuana that is 22 trafficked interstate[,]...it is far from clear that such an 23 effect would be substantial." Id. at 1233. Weighing the four 24 factors, the court held that the CSA, as applied to the facts 25 of the case, is likely unconstitutional. The court noted that 26 it is particularly important to ensure that Congress's use of 27 its Commerce Clause power is appropriate in the criminal law 28 context. Id. at 1234. Unless and until it is overruled, Raich Page 5 of 7 Defendant's Reply to Oppoosition to Motion for Return of Property
|