Arizona v. United States

Regardless of how one feels about the Supreme Court’s decisions yesterday in Arizona v. United States, those of us engaged in drug abuse prevention should welcome the Court’s affirmation of the Supremacy Clause in preempting state laws that conflict with federal law. Since the passage of Prop 215 in California in 1995, the pro-drug lobbies have whittled away at the supremacy of the federal Controlled Substances Act, often challenging its relevance to state-sponsored medical marihuana initiatives.

Although the pro-drug lobby has met resistance on this issue in court – notably in Gonzales v. Raich (2005) – it would have you believe that state approval of marihuana for medical and nonmedical use is constitutional. It is not and the Supreme Court has said so directly in Raich and indirectly in Arizona.

In yesterday’s case, the Supreme Court ruled that Section 5(C) of the Arizona law that would make it a state crime for undocumented immigrants to apply for a job or work in Arizona, was preempted as imposing an obstacle to the federal regulatory system. Although the Court’s decision applies only to the issues before the Court, the principle articulated in the Section 5(C) ruling affirms the supremacy of a federal law over a state law that, it might be similarly argued, imposes an obstacle to our federal (drug) regulatory system.

John Coleman
President
Drug Watch International