Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas condemns the US ban on cannabis

Picture above

According to one of the country’s most conservative Supreme Court judges, the U.S. government’s stance on the cannabis ban is inconsistent, unstable, and potentially unnecessary.

In a recent statement, Judge Clarence Thomas condemned the federal government’s failure to address the ongoing wave of cannabis legalization that is gripping the country. “Although federal law still flatly prohibits the domestic possession, cultivation, or distribution of marijuana … the government has … sent mixed signals regarding their views,” Thomas wrote, according to Marijuana Moment. “This contradicting and unstable state of affairs weighs down the basic principles of federalism and hides traps for the unwary.”

Judge Thomas pointed out that the government has had a policy of free movement towards legal medical cannabis companies, despite the fact that federal law specifically prohibits marijuana in any form. Under the Obama administration, the Justice Department announced that it would not interfere with government medical marijuana programs. Congress has also specifically banned the Justice Department from cracking down on medical pot states for nearly a decade.

Thomas went on to explain how general government cannabis policy has changed since 2005, when the Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling against California’s medical marijuana program. In this case, Gonzales v Raich, the court ruled that federal agencies could indeed enforce cannabis prohibition laws against anyone involved in a state-legal medical marijuana industry.

“Whatever Raich’s merits were when it was decided, federal policy for the past 16 years has severely undermined his reasoning,” the judiciary declared. “Once it is comprehensive, the federal government’s current approach is a half-in, half-out regime that simultaneously tolerates and prohibits the local use of marijuana.”

Thomas made his statement in response to a lawsuit between the IRS and Standing Akimbo LLC, a Colorado medical cannabis dispenser. In this case, the pharmacy owners tried to prevent the IRS from investigating their business expenses for fear of federal prosecution. A federal court ruled against the company, and the Colorado Court of Appeals upheld the verdict.

The company then filed its final appeal to the Supreme Court, but the judges declined to hear the case, suggesting they are unwilling to delve into the confusing quagmire of state cannabis policy.

“In view of all these developments, one can understand why a normal person might think that the federal government has withdrawn from its once absolute ban on marijuana,” said Judge Thomas in his statement, reports Marijuana Moment. “You can also understand why Colorado business owners … think their domestic marijuana operations are being treated like any other business legal under state law.”

“A ban on the domestic use or cultivation of marijuana may no longer be necessary or appropriate to support the federal government’s piecemeal approach,” concluded Thomas.

“Justice Thomas’ comments reflect what the vast majority of Americans have realized for some time,” said Erik Altieri, executive director of NORML. “With nearly half of all Americans living in a state where adult marijuana use is perfectly legal, it is both absurd and problematic for the federal government to continue defining cannabis as a List I Prohibited Controlled Substance.”

“This intellectually dishonest position conflicts with available science and the current cultural landscape, and complicates states’ ability to successfully regulate and oversee state-legal marijuana businesses,” Altieri added.