image of spinning marijuana leaf
Morongo Valley
Felony Cultivation
Return of Property Reply to Opposition 5
Felony Cultivation
HUD/DFEH Complaint
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[,] 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

copyright © 2003-2015 J. Craig Canada aka palmspringsbum.
Commercial use prohibited without consent. All rights reserved.