Editorial: States’ rights shouldn’t supersede federal law

It’s rare such a liberal cause as medicinal marijuana gets
tied in with traditionally conservative states’ rights
proponents.

Two California women are currently suing the federal government,
saying they should not have been prosecuted for their use of
medicinal marijuana . They cite Proposition 215, which legalized
medicinal marijuana in California in 1996.

The Supreme Court’s decision could have much
farther-reaching implications than for medicinal marijuana. If the
Court rules in favor of the women, it could issue a narrow ruling
that California’s laws regarding medicinal marijuana are
acceptable because they do not violate interstate commerce laws.
But the Court could also issue a wider ruling in favor of
state’s rights.

Medicinal marijuana is certainly a worthy cause the Court should
support. But a wide ruling in favor of states’ rights would
create potential for negative consequences like environmental
destruction in favor of big business and state-sanctioned
discrimination for same-sex couples. If states’ rights are to
supersede federal law, it’s easy to envision many states
outlawing abortion or reinstituting school prayer.

While the Court should rule in favor of the plaintiffs, a narrow
ruling pertaining solely to this specific case is needed.