In a new federal court filing, lawyers for a group of marijuana companies argue that ongoing broad cannabis prohibition has “no rational basis,” pointing to the government’s largely hands-off approach to the recent groundswell of state-level legalization.
The lawsuit alleges that while Congress’s original intent in banning marijuana through the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) was to eradicate illicit interstate commerce, lawmakers and the executive branch have since abandoned that mission as more states have moved to regulate the drug.
“Dozens of states have implemented programs to legalize and regulate medical or adult use marijuana,” the new filing from the plaintiffs in the case says. And by providing consumers with “safe, regulated, and local access to marijuana,” those states “have reduced illicit interstate commerce, as customers switch to purchasing state-regulated marijuana over illicit interstate marijuana.”
The new 32-page document comes in response to the government’s effort in January to dismiss the cannabis companies’ underlying suit. At the center of the case is a 2005 Supreme Court decision, Gonzales v. Raich, in which justices held that federal prohibition preempts state-level legalization because of Congress’s interest in preventing illegal marijuana from entering interstate commerce.
Plaintiffs argue that given the changes since then—not only at the state level, but also in terms of the government’s own tolerance of commercial cannabis activity in legal jurisdictions—”the federal government no longer has any basis for insisting that state-regulated, intrastate marijuana must be banned to serve Congress’s interstate goals.”
“The ground-shaking shifts in marijuana regulation since Raich, together with the nation’s long history of marijuana cultivation and use prior to the CSA,” lawyers wrote in the new filing, “demonstrate the widely-held understanding that Plaintiffs’ marijuana activities implicate a liberty interest that requires protection.”
In the overarching lawsuit, filed in October, the businesses behind the case claim that perpetuating marijuana prohibition in state markets is unconstitutional, creating undue public safety risks while precluding licensed cannabis operators from accessing critical financial services and tax deductions that are available to other industries.
Hellbound and Down 