Marijuana and Federal Courts

You need to get high to appreciate justiciability doctrines.  From the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals:

073837P.pdf    12/22/2009   David Monson   v.   Drug Enforcement

U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 07-3837
District of North Dakota - Bismarck
[PUBLISHED] [Bowman, Author, with Melloy and Smith, Circuit Judges]
Civil case - Controlled Substances Act. District court did not err in concluding the cannabis plants plaintiffs proposed to cultivate fell within the Controlled Substances Act's definition of marijuana and that their planned cultivation of industrial hemp under North Dakota state law was subject to federal regulation under the Controlled Substances Act; plaintiffs had standing to challenge the Act because they established they were targets of DEA action and showed actual injury sufficient to confer standing; their claims were ripe for review, and the district court did not err in finding that further efforts to exhaust the DEA's administrative procedures would be futile; Congress has the authority under the Commerce Clause to regulate marijuana that is grown on a large scale for the undeniably commercial purpose of generating products for sale in interstate commerce; Congress's decision to regulate the manufacture of all marijuana plants - regardless of the grower's ultimate purpose - was a rational means of achieving the congressional purpose of controlling the supply and demand for controlled substances and state law restrictions, such as prohibiting the plant from leaving the farmer's property, did not place the cultivation beyond Congress's reach.