Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas on Monday said federal laws against marijuana are inconsistent, suggesting that national prohibition may no longer be necessary.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas on Monday said that federal laws against the sale and cultivation of marijuana are inconsistent, making a national prohibition unnecessary. „A prohibition on interstate use or cultivation of marijuana may no longer be necessary or proper to support the federal government’s piecemeal approach,“ Thomas, one of the court’s most conservative justices, wrote in a statement. The court’s decision not to hear a new case related to tax deductions claimed by a Colorado medical marijuana dispensary prompted Thomas to issue a statement that more broadly addressed federal marijuana laws. Thomas stated that a 2005 ruling in Gonzales v. Raich in particular, which determined that the federal government could enforce prohibition against marijuana possession, may be outdated. „Federal policies of the past 16 years have greatly undermined its reasoning,“ Thomas said in the statement. „The federal government’s current approach is a half-in, half-out regime that simultaneously tolerates and forbids local use of marijuana.“ Thomas referred to several policies that conflict with the 2005 ruling.
