We have heard quite a lot of late about the rule of law in Connecticut and elsewhere. The Connecticut Bar Association even sponsored two seminars in recent years on that precise subject. One of the speakers, a top business leader in Connecticut, raised many eyebrows when he said one of the reasons he would prefer to do business in China rather than in Russia is that China, in spite of all the differences from our legal system, takes the rule of law more seriously than Russia does.
But do we take the rule of law at least as seriously as the Chinese? Marijuana sale or use is flatly illegal under federal statutory law. The Controlled Substances Act, which was adopted by Congress in 1970, creates five tiers of drugs with different levels of restrictions. Marijuana is presently classified by the federal government as a Schedule I drug, making its possession a violation of federal law. The federal ban on marijuana has been upheld as a valid use of Congress’ interstate commerce power by two decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court—United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative in 2001 and Gonzalez v. Raich in 2005. The Supreme Court made clear that the federal law preempts state laws permitting the sale or use of marijuana. Other than a quibble over whether “preempts” is the precisely correct legal word, no legal scholar of any political persuasion has suggested that state statutes permitting the sale or use of marijuana have a legal leg to stand on.
