No need to get high over this one...

Today's Supreme Court ruling in Gonzales v. Raich will surely be cited by drug lovers and haters as evidence of the "high" court's either skewed or clearly proper views over the merits of marijuana use in this country. Unfortunately, both arguments go up in smoke as the Court's decision has nothing to do with marijuana use, and only relates to the Constitution's Commerce Clause. In fact, it's one of those situations where federalism has trumped states' rights. It's quite an expansive reading of the Commerce Clause, and Rehnquist, O'Connor and Thomas felt that it was too expansive. Scalia surprisingly did not dissent along with them.

What's ultimately lost in the argument is the fact that conservatives who whine about "states' rights" won't have any problem with this decision, while liberals who enjoyed many of the Supreme Court's expansive Commerce Clause decisions in the civil rights context will surely complain. Interesting to say the least.

This discussion brings me to two points:

1) All of the stories coming across the internet describe the case as something to the effect of "Supreme Court stamps out marijuana use" or "Supremes say no to weed" or the like. In fact, their views are nothing of the sort. Were that the case, one could also write "Clarence Thomas supports California weed smokers" or "Rehnquist and Thomas light fire of California's weed smokers"

2) Maybe it's a lesson that everything is not merely liberal or conservative.