In the context of Gonzales v. Raich, what is stated about home-grown marijuana?

In the context of Gonzales v. Raich, what is stated about home-grown marijuana?

• A. It is not subject to federal regulation
• B. It does not affect interstate commerce
• C. It is a legitimate subject of federal regulation
• D. It is exclusively regulated by state law

Answer: (C)

In Gonzales v. Raich, the Supreme Court ruled that home-grown marijuana is indeed a legitimate subject of federal regulation. The case revolved around the conflict between state laws permitting the use of medical marijuana and federal laws prohibiting its cultivation and use under the Controlled Substances Act. The Court determined that even if marijuana is grown for personal use and does not enter interstate commerce, it still has a substantial effect on the overall market for marijuana, which is inherently interstate in nature. This decision underscores the power of the federal government to regulate substances that can affect commerce, thus affirming the federal role in regulating drugs regardless of state laws that may allow their use. The ruling establishes a crucial precedent about the extent of federal authority over state legislation in matters related to commerce and controlled substances.

In Gonzales v. Raich, the Supreme Court ruled that home-grown marijuana is indeed a legitimate subject of federal regulation. The case revolved around the conflict between state laws permitting the use of medical marijuana and federal laws prohibiting its cultivation and use under the Controlled Substances Act. The Court determined that even if marijuana is grown for personal use and does not enter interstate commerce, it still has a substantial effect on the overall market for marijuana, which is inherently interstate in nature. This decision underscores the power of the federal government to regulate substances that can affect commerce, thus affirming the federal role in regulating drugs regardless of state laws that may allow their use. The ruling establishes a crucial precedent about the extent of federal authority over state legislation in matters related to commerce and controlled substances.