cannabisnews.com: Medical Marijuana Users Sue U.S. Over Arrests





Medical Marijuana Users Sue U.S. Over Arrests
Posted by CN Staff on October 10, 2002 at 13:07:41 PT
Health News Section
Source: CNN.com
Four plaintiffs in California filed suit in federal court Wednesday requesting an injunction to stop the federal government from arresting people for medically using marijuana, as permitted under state law. Two of the plaintiffs, Angel McClary Raich and Diane Monson, are patients with serious medical conditions who have obtained recommendations from their doctors to use marijuana to relieve some of their symptoms.
The two unnamed co-plaintiffs are marijuana growers who supply McClary Raich with the two ounces of pot she says she needs each week to alleviate her suffering. Named as defendants in the lawsuit are the U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft and Asa Hutchinson, administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration. The lawsuit is the second time attorney Robert Raich has tried to bring the issue to the U.S. Supreme Court. A year ago, the Supreme Court ruled against his client, the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Club, in its claim that medical necessity overrides federal law. This time, Raich has broadened his argument while narrowing the number of plaintiffs. The lawsuit contends the four plaintiffs grow their own marijuana solely for their own medical use within the borders of California, thus removing any federal authority under interstate commerce laws. The suit also claims constitutional protection under clauses guaranteeing state sovereignty and due process. If granted, the injunction would prevent the arrest and seizure of property -- including marijuana -- of only the four defendants, but Raich predicts it will serve as a precedent for the entire country. "This case obviously involves only the four plaintiffs who brought the case. However, it would then lay a template for any other similarly situated seriously ill patient, in California or any other state with a medical cannabis law," he said. California's Proposition 215, approved by voters in 1996, exempts patients who possess or cultivate marijuana for medical treatment from criminal laws against marijuana use when the drug is recommended by a doctor. The physicians who prescribe marijuana are also exempt from prosecution. Raich was married this summer to McClary Raich, who was a member of the now-dormant Oakland Cannabis Buyers Club. Snipped: Complete Article: http://www.cnn.com/2002/HEALTH/10/10/med.marijuana.suit/index.htmlNewshawk: Ethan Russo M.D.Source: CNN (US Web) Published:  Thursday, October 10, 2002 Copyright: 2002 Cable News Network, Inc. Website: http://www.cnn.com/ Contact: cnn.feedback cnn.comRelated Articles & Web Site:OCBChttp://www.rxcbc.org/Medicinal Marijuana Users Sue U.S. Officialshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread14417.shtmlGrowers File Suit To Stop Federal Raids http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread14412.shtmlMedicinal Pot Users Renew Legal Challenge http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread14410.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #9 posted by motavation on September 17, 2003 at 13:15:07 PT:
High
Keep up the fight friends! Remember patients like myself are only patients since others educated us! I finally stood up and realized it's better and safer to speak with my doctor. However, don't get the law confused...it helps as a defense although the local law did not respect it at all. We must unite and fight or be like past stoners and sit and light!I had my first legal situation and learned that it all takes money. I wish I could sue them like Angel & Diane.
When in court an older man pleaded guilty to possesion, even with a doctors note and all!:(If any lawyers or legal friends read this please contact me as there is a Northern California Co-op looking for support...!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by FoM on December 16, 2002 at 13:34:00 PT
Important Press Release: December 16, 2002
Hearing on Historic Medical Marijuana Patients' Lawsuit Tuesday, Dec. 17CONTACT: Bruce Mirken, MPP director of communications ....... 202-462-5747 x113OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA -- In an historic hearing set for Dec. 17, two medical marijuana patients and their caregivers will ask U.S. District Court Judge Martin J. Jenkins for protection from the federal government.Patients Angel McClary Raich and Diane Monson, along with the two caregivers who grow Angel's medical marijuana, sued U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft and Drug Enforcement Administration chief Asa Hutchinson Oct. 9, charging that federal raids on medical marijuana patients and providers whose activities occur entirely within California are unconstitutional and pose a direct threat to the lives and health of McClary Raich and Monson. In Tuesday's hearing, they will ask Judge Jenkins for a preliminary injunction barring the federal government from taking any action to prevent them from growing or using medical marijuana."The government, in its brief, has not contested the central fact of this case: that marijuana -- or cannabis, as it is more properly known -- provides these patients relief from severe, chronic pain and other disabling and even life-threatening symptoms, relief that no other medicine provides," noted Robert Raich, one of the attorneys representing the plaintiffs. "Any action by the DEA to take away their medicine would subject these two women to extreme suffering and, in the case of Angel, a serious risk of death. The injunction we are seeking will protect their lives and health while the court considers the serious constitutional issues raised by this case," said the other attorney, David Michael. The suit argues that the Constitution's Commerce Clause and Fifth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments, along with the medical necessity doctrine, bar federal interference with state- sanctioned medical cannabis activities that do not cross state lines."This is a potentially landmark case," said Bruce Mirken, communications director for the Marijuana Policy Project, based in Washington, D.C. "The federal government has overstepped its constitutional authority in attacking medical marijuana patients whose activities never cross state lines. These two brave women deserve the protection they seek, and one can only hope the court will have the courage to give it to them."WHAT: Hearing on injunction to protect medical marijuana patientsWHO: Plaintiffs Diane Monson and Angel McClary Raich and attorneys representing both sidesWHERE: San Francisco Federal Building, 450 Golden Gate Ave., Courtroom 11, 19th floorWHEN: Tuesday, Dec. 17, 2002, 9:30 a.m. PSTWith more than 10,000 members nationwide, the Marijuana Policy Project is the largest marijuana policy reform organization in the nation. For more information, please visit: http://www.mpp.org ####-- Angel McClary Raich Executive Director, Angel Wings Patient OutReach, Inc. Operations Patient Rescue P.O. Box 18767 Oakland, California 94619-8767 2angelwings sbcglobal.net 510-336-0375Medical Marijuana (Cannabis) in California: Raich v. Ashcroft 
http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/documents/index.html#drugs 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by p4me on October 10, 2002 at 19:03:35 PT
Oregon MMJ laws
It was pretty easy to find the Oregon MMJ laws at http://www.ohd.hr.state.or.us/oaps/mm/475a.htm
It mentions some specific illnesses and then some conditions that could lead to approved medical use.475.302 Definitions for ORS 475.300 to 475.346. As used in ORS 475.300 to 475.346:
(1) "Attending physician" means a physician licensed under ORS chapter 677 who has primary responsibility for the care and treatment of a person diagnosed with a debilitating medical condition.
(2) "Debilitating medical condition" means:
(a) Cancer, glaucoma, positive status for human immunodeficiency virus or acquired immune deficiency syndrome, or treatment for these conditions;
(b) A medical condition or treatment for a medical condition that produces, for a specific patient, one or more of the following:
(i) Cachexia;
(ii) Severe pain;
(iii) Severe nausea;
(iv) Seizures, including but not limited to seizures caused by epilepsy; or
(v) Persistent muscle spasms, including but not limited to spasms caused by multiple sclerosis; or
(c) Any other medical condition or treatment for a medical condition adopted by the division by rule or approved by the division pursuant to a petition submitted pursuant to ORS 475.334.DAD-D,1,2
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by afterburner on October 10, 2002 at 17:25:38 PT:
Cannabis Prohibition - Unconstitutional?
If the states outlawed tobacco and the federal government needed a Constitutional Amendment to outlaw alcohol, then how on earth did the federal government get the authority to outlaw cannabis? I don't remember any Constitutional Amendment prohibiting cannabis being passed by Congress. The California challenge may overthrow the very justification for federal prohibition of cannabis.It already happened in Grandmother's Land, Canada, just north of the Medicine Line.God save the Queen.Let freedom ring.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by mayan on October 10, 2002 at 16:50:34 PT
Interstate or Intrastate?
"The lawsuit contends the four plaintiffs grow their own marijuana solely for their own medical use within the borders of California, thus removing any federal authority under interstate commerce laws. The suit also claims constitutional protection under clauses guaranteeing state sovereignty and due process."Thanks for posting the rest of the article, druid! I can't understand how the interstate commerce laws regarding illicit drugs have been able to stand for so long. If a Californian grows & uses cannabis in California, then how is interstate commerce even an issue? The war on cannabis is enlightening the masses of the true agenda of the power elite. They will stop at nothing to dominate all of nature...even if it means destroying themselves. We must stand now & fight!!!unrelated - Lawmakers Move Meeting With CIA, FBI Directors Behind Closed Doors:
http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGARYMX847D.htmlThe "Deep Mystery" of Melted Steel: 
http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.htmlVenice Airport Used for Covert Ops - What they're hiding down in Venice, Florida:
http://www.madcowprod.com/Time For Ford Foundation & CFR To Divest? 
http://www.questionsquestions.net/feldman/ff_divest.htmlHouse OK's Use of Force Against Iraq: 
http://www.msnbc.com/news/812825.asp?cp1=1"Now We Claim to Care" - Different Standards for Different Nations - by Rep. CYNTHIA McKINNEY:
http://www.counterpunch.org/mckinney1008.htmlSome administration officials expressing misgivings on Iraq:
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/nation/1607676Singer Belafonte Likens Powell to 'House Slave':
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20021009/pl_nm/politics_belafonte_dc_1White House 'exaggerating Iraqi threat':
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,807194,00.htmlThe Madness Of America:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/archive/scoop/stories/54/cd/200210100026.8867c0f9.htmlDenial Ain't Just a River in Egypt;It's a State of Mind with Bush Supporters -
http://almartinraw.com/column74.htmlCome to Washington,DC on October 26th. Protest the Crimes of the Government,the 9/11 Cover-up and the Imperial invasion of Iraq:
http://www.internationalanswer.org
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by canaman on October 10, 2002 at 15:35:49 PT
cool p4me
I once ran across an old (early 30's?)(U.S.?)Medical Pharmacopeia in an old bookstore in Canada. With preparations for headaches, cramps, ect. Boy I wish I'd grabbed that off the shelf then! and...I never knew cigarettes where outlawed in 41 states. I've often mentioned to skeptical friends what prohibition might be like if tabacco was outlawed. More than a few desperate addicts.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by p4me on October 10, 2002 at 15:00:04 PT
Why has it taken so long to take this path?
There exist an article taken from a speech on prohibition that most people here have read before. It talks about prohibition dividing people into us and them and it mentioned the fact that even under prohibition with its Constitutional Amendment, users were not arrested. But tobacco prohition sheds a little light on the historic states rights issue, which today might be called the federal governments rights issue. Take this link with its tobacco timeline: http://www.chemheritage.org/EducationalServices/pharm/chemo/readings/road.htm Here is a copy and paste from that page: Washington, Iowa, Tennessee and North Dakota banned the sale of cigarettes. Then 41 of the 45 states in the Union follow suit. By 1927, however, all state bans on cigarettes were repealed. Now isn't it strange that it was the states that did this and not the federal government? And isn't is telling that the federal government thought it took a Constitutional Amendment to give it authority in the case of alcohol prohibition?That timeline above also says in 1910, average per capita use was 94 cigarettes. In 1940 that number was 2558 cigarettes per capita in the US.I had tried before to find a United States Pharmacopeia and I spent about an hour on a Google search before I found anything historic. It would come from a website of a Compassion Club with a page from Farmacy.org: http://www.farmacy.org/edu/index.htmlA cover and pages 275-278 are here under "1937 Dispensory of the United States of America": http://www.farmacy.org/edu/index.html It talks more of the plant than uses with a brief coverage of uses coming at the end.But this website has something else in its educational section. It has the Compassionate Use Act that California voters approved of in 1996 and it seems that title would appeal to strangers on the issue better than the cold sounding name of Prop215. From the educational section and clearly identified as the Compassionate Use Act it list the law in its short glory and it follows in color:Text of California Health and Safety Code §11362.5, the Compassionate Use ActSection 1. Section 11362.5 is added to the Health and Safety Code, to read:11362.5. (a) This section shall be known and may be cited as the Compassionate Use Act of 1996.
(b) (l) The people of the State of California hereby find and declare that the purposes of the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 are as follows:(A) To ensure that seriously ill Californians have the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes where that medical use is deemed appropriate and has been recommended by a physician who has determined that the person's health would benefit from the use of marijuana in the treatment of cancer, anorexia, AIDS, chronic pain, spasticity, glaucoma, arthritis, migraine, or any other illness for which marijuana provides relief.(B) To ensure that patients and their primary caregivers who obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes upon the recommendation of a physician are not subject to criminal prosecution or sanction.(C) To encourage the federal and state governments to implement a plan to provide for the safe and affordable distribution of marijuana to all patients in medical need of marijuana.(2) Nothing in this act shall be construed to supersede legislation prohibiting persons from engaging in conduct that endangers others, nor to condone the diversion of marijuana for nonmedical purposes.(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no physician in this state shall be punished, or denied any right or privilege, for having recommended marijuana to a patient for medical purposes.(d) Section 11357, relating to the possession of marijuana, and Section 11358, relating to the cultivation of marijuana, shall not apply to a patient, or to a patient's primary caregiver, who possesses or cultivates marijuana for the personal medical purposes of the patient upon the written or oral recommendation or approval of a physician.(e) For the purposes of this section, "primary caregiver" means the individual designated by the person exempted under this act who has consistently assumed responsibility for the housing, health, or safety of that person.Sec. 2. If any provision of this measure or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the measure which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this measure are severable.http://www.farmacy.org/edu/IOMassessment.html - this link is 18 paragraphs long and is the presentation made by the principle investigators of the IOM report on the March 17,1999, press conference introducing their report to the world by John Besnson and Stanley Watson.http://www.farmacy.org/edu/IOMstraighttalk.html - this is short outline of what the IOM report said about marijuana as medicine and is titled, "From Marijuana to Medicine."Under the DEA heading on the DEA it has a link to the Rescheduling Petition that has this following paragraph:Opinion and Recommended Ruling, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decision of DEA Administrative Law Judge Francis L. Young. Dated September 6, 1998.
"The evidence in this record clearly shows that marijuana has been accepted as capable of relieving the distress of great numbers of very ill people, and doing so with safety under medical supervision. It would be unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious for DEA to continue to stand between those sufferers and the benefits of this substance in light of the evidence in this record." - Judge Francis L. YoungI think it was Oregon that listed 9 illnesses covered under their MMJ laws. I will try to find them later. It seemed that Maryland was trying the specific illnesses approach also in their recent debate over MMJ because I remember Crohn's disease being one of them. DAD-D,1,2
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by DdC on October 10, 2002 at 13:42:49 PT
Pot or Politics?
Hey Fom,
This made the cover this week. I found it online and don't have to type it. The (Good)Times they are a changin...I like the cover shot...
DdCPot or Politics? Full Story
http://www.gdtimes.com/pages/cover.htmPot or Politics? DEA's recent raids on small medical marijuana cooperatives in California are rooted in politics by Laurel Chesky and Bruce Willey photos by Bruce WilleyFull story in PDF format
http://www.gdtimes.com/pages/coverstory.pdfCover
http://www.gdtimes.com/current_images/large.jpgSanta Cruz Good Times 
http://www.gdtimes.com/
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by druid on October 10, 2002 at 13:13:30 PT:
the rest of the article ...
In a news conference following the court filing, McClary Raich said she suffers from an inoperable brain tumor and needs marijuana to stimulate her appetite and prevent the continual weight loss that could eventually prove fatal. "Medical cannabis is not about cannabis, it's not about pot -- it's about real lives," she said. "It's about ending suffering, it's about sick, disabled, and dying Californians that suffer greatly like myself." McClary Raich said she feels angry and will fight with "every single ounce of energy that I have left" to make sure the government does not take the drug away from her. "When I was partially paralyzed and in that wheelchair, that was hell," she said. "And there is no way that I'm going to allow this federal government to send me back to hell. There's no way." Monson, who suffers from chronic back pain and muscle spasms, had been growing her own marijuana at her home in rural northern California. She described a recent visit by sheriff's deputies and DEA agents, during which the deputies tried unsuccessfully to convince the federal agents not to cut down her six plants. "I am not a criminal," Monson said. "I do not deserve to have my home raided -- to have my peace of mind taken away from me, my privacy taken from me." Attorney David Michael said he believes the government does not have the right to make laws about health decisions made by patients and their doctors, especially if, in regards to marijuana, the drug is used within the boundaries of their own state with no "commerce activity." "The federal government does not have the right to interfere," Michael said. "That's what's important about this case." 
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment