Well, the Supreme Court has royally messed up on this one IMHO. At issue are two women who were prescribed medicinal marijuana by their licensed medical doctors. The feds raided their homes and charged them under the controlled substances act.

Feds:

-Argued that the actions of the two constitutes regulation under the "commerce clause."

-The actions of the two defendants does affect the economic market

-Legalized medicinal marijuana would have an impact on the economic market

The sick gals:

-What you do in your home does not constitute "intrastate commerce"

-All items the ladies used did not come from the commercial area

You can read the opinion here.

1.)Does medicinal marijuana constitute "intrastate commerce" even if the ladies grow their own marijuana?

2.)Should the 10th amendment figure into this case at all?

3.)How does the actions of these two ladies significantly impact commercial trade if they grow their own marijuana and make their own items used to smoke it?

4.)Is this an anti-state's rights opinion?

1.)Does medicinal marijuana constitute "intrastate commerce" even if the ladies grow their own marijuana?

I agree with these dissenting thoughts from Clarence Thomas.

4.)Is this an anti-state's rights opinion?
Sure is. Scalia here gets it dead wrong in an ends-justifies-the-means logic, noting that there are 3 arguments for interstate commerce regulation by Congress - 1) channels, 2) instrumentalities, and the one used here - 3) activies that "substantially affect" interstate commerce. In Scalia's defense he does write separately to clarify that his position is somewhat narrower vs. the majority in general, but geez.

That 6 learned justice of our nation's highest court found that growing a plant in one's backyard and smoking it "substantially affects" interstate commerce should be enough of a wake-up call to get more originalists appointed to the court and pronto. Somewhere a rastafarian is scratching his chin.

I am so disappointed in this opinion. I confess I have not read the majority, concurring or dissents in any great detail, but I plan to. However, on its face, I cannot see how use of marijuana grown by these women can constitute interstate commerce.

I am happy to see that O'Connor, Thomas and Rehnquist held to the judicial philosophy of orignal intent here and arrived at the right result: that the feds have no business regulating in this area.

I suspect Scalia bases his concurring opinion on what he sees as established precedent, but I am skeptical. I hope to be able to comment more later.

It's a pretty weird decision when it seems like the three dissenting Justices (Thomas, Rehnquist and O'Connor) came down in favor of state's rights and would have allowed sick people to use medical marijuana.

Like Hayleanne I'm going to need to read some of the follow-up stories as to the reasoning how the Supreme Court ruled the way it did.

I guess it does illustrate the perils of predicting how the Court will rule based on their own political divisions.

Thomas and Rehnquist standing up for the pot smokers? Scalia joining up with the Court's liberals to limit state's rights? Whoa.

I tend to agree with Scalia on this one.

If we start with the assumption that the Congress can regulate interstate commerce, we must also define what the limits are on that ability to regulate it.

In this case, we have marijuana, which is regulated by the federal government. The jurisdiction to do so is not being disputed here.

Scalia reminds us that the government must have reasonable latitude to regulate things that are technically outside of "commerce" but impact it substantially. This is what the precedents say in this area of law.

As for this case, Scalia writes: link


Marijuana is fungible. It is easily converted to cash. It can be sold virtually anywhere. Allowing the plant to be grown (for ostensibly personal reasons) is equivalent to allowing it to be sold or given away. How else would the government keep track on who actually uses it? Do we really expect it to be legal to grow the stuff but not to sell it or distribute it? Is that realistic?

I have to take issue with you and Scalia here. In the age of the internet, one could argue that anything is "a fungible commidity." Really, If I were to paint a portrait of my dog, and I have a scanner, computer, internet connection, that dog painting is, to use Scalia's term - never more than an instant from the interstate market. Heck, it's an instant from the global fine art market, courtesy of eBay. Using your (and Scalia's) logic, Congress could feasibly regulate what types of paints I could use in my dog portrait under the Interstate Commerce Clause? This line of logic is ridiculous.

And for Stevens (in the majority opinion) to harp on about how it would be great for Congress to take up this issue and that "respondents may one day be heard in the halls of Congress" is so hypocritical. These respondents were heard in the halls of Congress, and by the voters of their state. The court's role is to curtail the powers of government and preserve individual (and state) rights, not the other way around.

And what about the doctors who prescribe it for patients who have intractable pain or who have no appetite due to an illness and a treatment for the illness such as chemotherapy, which causes nausea and vomiting?

This law makes any patients who use marijuana for medicinal purposes subject to prosecution. So what are they going to do, provide chemotherapy in the jails for them?

This ruling is wrong. I would ask these Justices if they would refuse to allow their sick relatives this chance to alleviate their suffering. I lump them in with doctors who refuse to prescribe narcotics to dying patients for fear that they might become addicted. A little less high-and-mighty attitude and a lot more compassion is needed in either case. If a patient chooses to do without a pain medication or other therapy because s/he sees merit in his or her own suffering, that is one thing, and the person's wishes should be followed. But to have a therapeutic or palliative agent denied to them for such specious reasons as "intrastate commerce" violation or fear of having them become accustomed to a pain-relieving medicine is not the purpose of having our governmental overlords.

To quote a Bible verse, "Therefore to him that knoweth to do good and doeth it not, to him it is sin." (James 4:17)

We need to contact our legislators to make laws correcting this error in judgment. I am for states' rights but, more importantly, I am for the alleviation of suffering. If the people who use marijuana medicinally benefit from it, it is not the government's business to refuse it to them or to prosecute them.

I've been following the debate here, and I have given the decision a once-over, but have not yet read it closely enough to clearly understand the issues. It seems to me that there remains some ground for optimism in that the Court remanded the issue for additional consideration. Perhaps they're just playing some technicality-games. However, some of the comments in the decision are unsettling.

There's no question in my mind that this situation is unjust. These two ladies need this medicine, and for the Federal government to obstruct them is profoundly wrong. I just hope that the court system can find a way to make the law more closely approximate justice here.

I guess to me, the problem is that it has not been stipulated where federal jurisdiction ends and state jurisdiction begins. There is no balance here. If you say(as Stevens did) that even teh possession of a substance banned under the CSA constitutes federal jurisdiction, then where is the state's rights in this issue? Better yet, what about the citizens? The 10th amendment is one that is being stepped on pretty harshly as of late.

[B]1.)Does medicinal marijuana constitute "intrastate commerce" even if the ladies grow their own marijuana?
I'll post in greater depth once I've had a chance to digest the opinion and the dissent, but on face I think this is a gross abuse of the commerce clause in the constitution. Carlitosway was dead on regarding the Thomas dissent. This precedent arguably obliterates any line of demarcation preventing Federal regulation of anything. The internet and associated commerce exacerbates this issue by several orders of magnitude.

2.)Should the 10th amendment figure into this case at all?
Not sure yet...

3.)How does the actions of these two ladies significantly impact commercial trade if they grow their own marijuana and make their own items used to smoke it?
It doesn't. If anything this is a perfect litmus test of the challenges found in using the commerce clause to justify federal action. Imo, this is not what the commerce clause of the constitution was intended for.

4.)Is this an anti-state's rights opinion?
Without a doubt. This precedent has the ability to obliterate any function of state's rights.

Doc

Just to address this right off: there is no ground for optimism if you think the decision will change. It is common practice for the Court to remand the case to the court in which the legal question originated. The technical wording of it would normally be "remanded to the lower court for action not inconsistent with this ruling." They are basically saying that the previous ruling is vacated and unless the Plaintiffs can find other grounds that were not addressed by the Court, the lower court must dismiss.

The Court has ruled that the state laws are valid and the state regulators must follow those laws, but that there is also federal jurisdiction.

I originally followed this case without the consideration of my feelings on the moral/ethical/personal matter, just as the Justices must do when considering a case, and as I often have, I find that I most enjoy Justice Scalia's opinion. I followed this case purely to see how the Court would rule on the legal issue. It is not their job to decide whether the laws are right or wrong. The only real question in this case was jurisdiction, and the federal government has it.

Until reading Justice Scalia's opinion, I knew that the government did have jurisdiction under the Commerce Clause, but I didn't really like that because it seemed to be hanging on by a thread (technicality). However, I agree with the opinion that the Neccessary and Proper Clause also plays a big part in this.

Simple, detached version of my opinion: growing and consuming anything is going to have some affect on interstate commerce. If nothing else, it will affect the demand factor since demand for the product will be decreased. This gives the federal government simple jurisdiction under the Constitution. The Neccessary and Proper Clause gives the federal government not just the right, but the duty to enforce this jurisdiction if it is the will of the people (the will of the people being dictated by the Congress they elect). Therefore, the decision is correct.

Outside of the detached opinion, I understand how people can be swayed by the poor, sick people's plight, but laws for a country have to be created for the whole, not the few. Do the people who have stated they disagree with the opinion disagree with the CSA? the War on Drugs? Should we leave the decisions on what drugs can and can't be consumed to each individual state? Why stop there? Why not let each community decide what is right for their specific group of people?

The problem is that people see drugs as a bad thing on different scales. Some people see marijuana as harmless and heroin as horrible. Those people have to understand that a large portion of people (myself included) see marijuana in the same light as they see heroin.

More directly to the question of state's rights; what if a state decided that marijuana was okay in general, not just for illness? Should the federal government have no jurisdiction then? What if they decide heroin is fine too? If they promise not to let any of their heroin cross state lines, should the federal government be powerless to stop them?

The fact is that certain matters are left to the states. Sometimes because the federal government doesn't have the jurisdiction; sometimes just because they don't want to get involved. But in this case, the federal government does have the jurisdiction under the Constitution and the Representatives and Senators elected by the people of every state decided to act on this jurisdiction and create a law. The Court has done its job with this decision. They decided the case on legal merits.

As for the future, if you don't like it, write to your local and state Representatives. It's a legislative matter and in truth it always has been. If the Congress had remained silent, it would be each State's right to choose. If enough people agree with the idea of medicinal marijuana use (which it doesn't appear they do since only 10 out of 50 states had laws allowing it) then Congress can pass it's own federal version of the law allowing it.

At this point, it's my simple opinion that people should stop bashing the Court for doing its job and rendering judgement. It's not their job to decide social policy and to feel bad for people who are dying and in pain. It is their job to interpret the Constitution. It is clear that the Congress has the right to act on the issue and to act with the will of the people they represent. Don't take your frustrations with the political system out of the Court members just because they can't be swayed by public opinion. This is the way the Framers intended it.

If it is the job of the Supreme Court to merely rule if something is or isn't Constitutional without consideration for those directly affected by their rulings, then I wish they would stop calling themselves "Justices."

Laws are made by people, and they are supposed to be for people, not the other way around.

And I will shed no crocodile tears for the Supreme Court because they are being rightly criticized for a callous decision.

You have some excellent pionts here, but no one is saying the court is uncompassionate. The dissenting judges and evidently more than a few members here, do not buy the reasoning that what two people do in their own home "significantly" affects interstate commerce. As Justice Thomas pointed out, if this connection can be made, then there is nothing that the feds can do under the pretense of teh commerce clause. I for one, feel that it is an overreach of federal power. It is recognized in the opinion document that the ladies got all the stuff to smoke their marijuana on their own, and not from say-the black market. Even if one state completely legalized pot, federal laws should not intervene unless there is of course, smuggling of medicinally approved bags of pot out of state lines by a doctor or some other health care provider. There is no appropriate check here and the jurisdiction of the state is completey unrecognized.

Carlitoswhey wrote:



Bingo. Beautifully said carlitoswhey. It is soooo hypocritical of him to say this. These respondents already did the hard work of lobbying their state legislatures and convincing the voters of their states to understand that marijuana used for medicinal purposes is a perfectly appropriate circumstance, only to have the feds undo all their hard work.

Moreover, it is especially offensive that this little lecture on the workings of our democratic process comes from Stevens-- who doesn't give a hoot what any legislature (state or federal) decides, if it is contrary to the Constitution According to Stevens.

1.)Does medicinal marijuana constitute "intrastate commerce" even if the ladies grow their own marijuana?

There is precedent to show that the federal government can regulate crops grown for personal use if there is a rational basis to show that such crops may have an impact on intrastate commerce.

2.)Should the 10th amendment figure into this case at all?
No. This is a federal criminal law. It is accepted that federal law prevails over state law -- the Supremacy Clause.

3.)How does the actions of these two ladies significantly impact commercial trade if they grow their own marijuana and make their own items used to smoke it?

The federal law lists marijuana as a Schedule I drug, meaning it has no medical benefit... as such it is strictly forbidden to grow it for any purpose (except for the purpose of federal research).

4.)Is this an anti-state's rights opinion?

No.

My answers are brief and based on a reading of the opinion only. I will look into it further. As far as I can tell so far, this case is sound. I don't like the result, but it does appear, so far to be sound. The problem lies not in the Court's decision, but in the Fed's classification of marijuana as a Schedule I drug under the CSA. The State of California can't usurp federal authority when it comes to the classification of illicit drugs.

I think too many people are concentrating on the specific issue here and not the reason why it made it to the USSC.

The Feds have a law saying that possession of marijuana is illegal. It makes no exceptions.

Certain states (10 to be exact) have laws saying marijuana may be legally possessed under certain circumstances. How do we resolve this conflict of interest?

Clearly, the federal law wins out. As long as one accepts that the law itself is Constitutional, then this ruling is the correct one.

The remedy here is for the Feds to make the same exceptions for marijuana as the states do, or to allow states to decide the issue. This is a legislative matter--which is how Scalia figures into this: Scalia is an advocate of legislatures making laws. In this case, when two laws are in conflict, the decision is simply over jurisdiction, not over which law is "better".

What's funny is liberals (such as Jerry Springer this morning) using this to point to how much of control freaks Conservatives are when it was the liberals on the court (plus Scalia) who were in the majority. I was yelling at my radio when Springer was going on and on about how this shows how bad the Republicans have become.

Let us be careful here to distinguish clearly between the law and justice. Yes, it is entirely possible that the court decision is a correct application of the law; I am still wrestling over a couple of fine points in the opinion on that question. But surely we can all agree that the legal system as a whole -- not just the USSC -- has failed us in this regard because it has produced a result that is patently unjust. Perhaps the blame lies with Congress for its failure to overrule the classification of marijuana. Perhaps the blame lies with the regulatory classification of marijuana. I will certainly blame the Justice Department's decision to prosecute the case; the allocation of Justice Department resources to prosecute this case instead of other cases reflects a political decision that I can only characterize as malicious.

The court's job is to interpret the law and apply it in an unbiased manner. That is the legal definition of justice. Whether or not a certain group has a beef with the law is another matter entirely.

I cannot detect malice here, especially when you have the liberal court members (plus Scalia) siding with the presumed Conservative executive branch. It seems more balanced than anything, in my opinion, not malicious.

My understanding is that "justice" and "law" are two very different concepts. Justice is the ideal toward which the law strives. To declare that the legal system provides perfect justice is equivalent to declaring that the legal system is perfect. Yes, the court's responsibility is to interpret the law, not establish justice. The establishment of justice is the task of the overall political system. I am arguing that justice was not achieved in this case because two ill citizens are forbidden to use a medication whose salutary effects are undeniable.


I am accusing the Justice Department of malice, not the Supreme Court. The Justice Department had the option to refuse to prosecute this case, but they made a political decision to allocate resources to its prosecution, resources that could have been used for other purposes. That decision is what I term malicious.

Of course not. However, it is clearly unconstitutional for the Federal government to prohibit growing it. Such obviously does not constitute interstate commerce, and if the Federal government thinks it can regulate intrastate commerce just because it has the POTENTIAL to become interstate commerce, then it has ceased to be a limited government. It's like the paranoid "butterfly effect" reasoning.

And since the federal government cannot constitutionally prohibit the private growth of marijuana, then it cannot realistically prohibit its sale. So what? Let them sell it! At least the Constitution would still be intact. If there is a "slippery slope" either way, and one way is Constitutional while the other is Unconstitutional, then choose the Constitutional one. It's very simple.

Granny square afghans can be sold virtually anywhere as well, and without the government's knowledge. There are cottage industries all over this country, some reported and some not. It doesn't have to be a controlled substance to fall under this ruling.

I see two motivations here on the part of the government:

1. They are more concerned with making it more convenient for law enforcement to make busts than they are with the welfare of the citizenry it is supposed to serve and protect

2. They are ever so afraid that someone might make some money without the government getting its "cut"

And as for the second reason, these two elderly women were not selling the marijuana; it was for their private, prescribed medicinal use and not for a cash crop.

Okay, Granny, up against the wall and spread 'em, but be careful with your I.V. pole...

OK, PE, I'll bite...

Let's say that afghans made by grandmothers grew into a multi-billion dollar industry. In order to keep people and children safe, the federal government passes a law saying that such afghans cannot be made from asbestos.

Should a grandma be able to knit an afghan from asbestos fibers if she promises (or claims) she won't sell it? How can the state differentiate between afghans that are made for individual use and ones that are made to be sold via E-bay?

The ruling here is one of jurisdiction, not one of which law is preferable. The resolution is simple: Congress should pass a medical exemption for marijuana that alleviates the conflict with state laws. The solution is a legislative one. All the court did was rule that when two laws are in conflict, federal law trumps state law.

With apologies to Deep Throat, I would advise the state to "follow the money" to see which afghans are made for individual use and those that are made for E-bay customers. (Gotta get me some of those asbestos afghans! )

I fully intend to contact my Congresspeople about medical exemptions for patients such as these two women, because the Court had the choice to not hear this case and to just let an appellate or state supreme court decide instead. I understand the principle behind the ruling; I just think that a different case should have been heard and that these women did not have to be adversely affected as a consequence.

And you're right, Amlord: Without regulation, who is to know whether granny square afghans are made by actual grannies?

That is exactly the attitude everyone who disagrees here should take: work to change the Federal law.

Don't call this judicial activism, because it isn't. Don't call the Justice department "malicious" for enforcing the law because it isn't, it is simply doing it's job.

Are you implying that the original intent of the CSA was to allow for medical use of marijuana? Are you implying that the original intent of the Commerce Clause was that it shouldn't apply to restrictions on interstate commerce or to restrictions on intrastate activity that may substantially effect interstate commerce?

If it were left, solely, to the states to determine the regulations regarding drugs, then we wouldn't have this case. Nobody in this case, respondent or dissenter, questioned the ability of the federal government to regulate controlled substances.



The federal government need only have a rational basis for regulating -- in this case prohibiting -- non-economic intrastate activities because such activities may have a "substantial effect" on interstate commerce -- in this case the interstate marketing of marijuana.

In order to determine whether or not the Court was correct in its judgement, one first has to accept, for the sake of argument, the idea that marijuana has no medical benefit. It is not for the Court to make a determination in this case as to whether marijuana has a medical benefit, the Court must accept that federal law states that marijuana has no medical benefit.

That done, one must accept that marijuana is on the list of Schedule I drugs, meaning that such drugs may not be manufactured (in this case) grown for any reason -- apart from federal research purposes.

Next, is it reasonable for the government to believe that growing marijuana for non-economic use could have a substantial effect on interstate commerce? Certainly... as has been pointed out, marijuana is fungible, the demand for it makes it quite easy to sell. In order to accomodate these women and protect a state interest in prohibiting the interstate market of marijuana, marijuana growers would need to be monitored in order to determine whether they were using it for themselves or distributing it. But such action is unreasonable considering the federal stance on marijuana. It is illegal to grow it for any reason.

I know that the women were not selling it, and the DEA certainly agrees that they weren't selling it... that the women were using it for medical purposes, but the federal government, remember does not recognize the validity of that medical purpose.

There is no reason in this case that federal law should grant an exception to California State Law. To do so unnecessarily burdens federal interest in prohibiting the manufacture of Schedule I drugs.

Personally, I think the CSA is wrong, that marijuana should not be considered a Schedule I drug under the act. I also got the impression from reading the opinion that many in the majority also felt this way. But it is not the job of the court to impose their own personal beliefs on what is supposed to be an objective interpretation and application of law.

Does this ruling mean that, as Justice Thomas -- perhaps we can call him Chicken Little in this case -- declares:



No. The federal government is very specific in this case regarding the regulation. The commodity in question is illegal, its manufacture is illegal, it is easily distributed and the government is within its rights to do what it needs to, including the destruction of crops intended for personal use -- especially since the mere existence of such crops is illegal under federal law, in order to prevent interstate distribution under the Commerce Clause.

The Justice Department is aware of thousands of people using medical marijuana; in many cases they are registered with state governments. A Justice Department spokesman declared that they normally go after only the egregious cases, such as somebody who's using their medical marijuana exemption to grow hundreds of marijuana plants, or somebody whom they catch selling marijuana. But in this case they selected two individuals out of thousands and prosecuted them. If the Justice Department is to "do its job", then it must be consistent and prosecute all those people. The fact is, every law enforcement agency makes pragmatic decisions about what laws it can afford to enforce. Their decision to enforce the law against these two women was unnecessary by their established standards and therefore malicious.

1.)Does medicinal marijuana constitute "intrastate commerce" even if the ladies grow their own marijuana?
George Will had an interesting op ed piece on this stating the precendent used to support that this does in fact constitute interstate commerce. The idea is that the ladies would have to buy this item on the open market if they couldn't grow it.

I think the commerce clause has been stretched way to far but, as Amlord has pointed out, the precendent and law are there for the 6 who ruled against the women.

2.)Should the 10th amendment figure into this case at all?
Yes. Lets quote it again. This would be a decent challenge to the federal law, saying that the feds don't have jurisdiction over this topic.

3.)How does the actions of these two ladies significantly impact commercial trade if they grow their own marijuana and make their own items used to smoke it?
It doesn't.

4.)Is this an anti-state's rights opinion?
Yes, but we've been headed away from state's rights for 200 years.

Hogwash. This case dates back to 2001, when this pair was among at least 35 individuals arrested in California for similar crimes.


Case Background


So at least one of the defendants is not growing her own cannabis, but is getting it from someone else, a "caregiver".

These same individuals sued in 2001 to get the entire CSA declared unconstitutional. They failed. Now, they have sued again. Again, they have lost.

Excuse me while I am skeptical of the Pot Smoker of The Month as a sympathetic figure. Her doctor, Frank Lucido, MD seems a bit shady to me as well.

However, I don't see any evidence that these individuals were maliciously targeted.

True, there are plenty of people being prosecuted by the DEA; here's a page listing what appear to be all the cases on the west coast. Some of the prosecutions look justified, but some certainly seem to contradict this quote:

"The vast majority of our cases are against those involved in trafficking, and major cultivation and distribution," Karen Tandy, head of the Drug Enforcement Administration, said Monday. "I don't see any significant changes in DEA enforcement strategies after today's decision. We don't target sick and dying people."


What relevance does this have to the issue of the basic justice? The woman is sick, marijuana helps her ailment, and the Feds seek to deny her this medication.



The state of Oregon has 10,400 registered users of medical marijuana. If the Feds were really "just doing their job", they'd have 10,400 prosecutions in Oregon alone.

1.)Does medicinal marijuana constitute "intrastate commerce" even if the ladies grow their own marijuana?

No, it doesn't. (note, all of the quotes below are found in the court's opinion(s), found here)
Let's take a look at the Supreme Court's test for legitimate exercise of commerce clause authority, shall we? From the majority opinion:

At first glance, it seems absurd that six cannabis plants that are grown for individual consumption would potentially have any effect on interstate commerce, much less a substantial one. Justice O'Connor in fact makes this very argument in the dissent, arguing, "There is simply no evidence that homegrown medicinal marijuana users constitute, in the aggregate, a sizable enough class to have a discernable, let alone substantial, impact on the national illicit drug market or otherwise to threaten the CSA regime." (p.12) Justice Stevens apparently disagrees. The precedent he relies on is Wickard v. Filburn (1942), In the case of Wickard, the defendant was growing too much wheat under Federal quotas, even though the excessive amount produced was specified for his personal consumption. The court found "even if appellees activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce." (p14) (emphasis mine)

Bearing that in mind, one would think that Angel Raich's gardening efforts would hardly constitute a substantial economic effect, especially if she had no intention of selling it, right? Wrong. The Wickard application gets even worse. This guy is a farmer by trade, Angel is not. Also, a portion of his crops were designated for interstate commerce, Angel's were not. Finally, the aggregate excess of wheat from Wickard's farm (and others if they violated the quota) had the ability to significantly impact market prices for wheat. Can the aggregation of the unsold pot for personal medicinal consumption in California do the same?

Additionally, the respondents argued that their specific activities were not "an essential part of a larger regulatory scheme because they had been isolated by the State of California, and [are] policed by the State of California, and thus remain entirely separated from the market. "(p27) This was the core of the finding from the appellate court, arguing that the California law placed this activity in a special class that would effectively remove it from any potential commerce exercise and thus would not be subject to enforcement of the CSA. Some might argue this to be a valid exercise of state police power. Stevens obviously disagrees, but I find nothing in his analysis successfully making this any commerce exercise, potential or otherwise.

2.)Should the 10th amendment figure into this case at all?

Absolutely. This precedent has the potential to obliterate any concept of federalism. Justice O'Connor, in the dissent, agrees:

Is there a better example of the state acting as a "laboratory" than giving its citizens a very specific right to use a controlled substance and regulate its use?

To show you what strange bedfellows this case made, I found Justice Clarence Thomas' opinion particularly poignant:
His definition of what actually constituted commerce was also pretty convincing:

3.)How does the actions of these two ladies significantly impact commercial trade if they grow their own marijuana and make their own items used to smoke it?

It doesn't, see answer to #1
4.)Is this an anti-state's rights opinion?

Yes, see answer to #2

Now, arguably if you only use the "commerce" argument as outlined in answer to question #1, there is an invitation for abuse. I mean this would legimate growing poppys in your garden for personal use right? Wrong. What makes this case convincing is that California specifically created a class of use that was consistent with the exemptions offered in the CSA. Specifically, the ability for the controlled substance to have a medical use. Up until now, attempts to get Congress to reclassify cannibis from category I status (no medicinal value) had failed. We can offer a completely separate debate on whether Congress should in fact do this. In fact, Stevens even advocates as such in the close of the majority opinion. Unfortunately, we know what can happen when you rely on Congress to do the "right thing" (note: holding breath not recommended).

I really hope the court is forced to revisit this in 2009 (assuming a Dem wins the white house and we can allow some of the moderates to retire). I will also pray for good health for the remainder of the court, even though ironically Rehnquist sided with the dissent in this case. Strange bedfellows indeed.

edit, fixed a mysterious dangling tag