cannabisnews.com: Court Aids Docs Who Talk Marijuana Court Aids Docs Who Talk Marijuana Posted by CN Staff on October 29, 2002 at 11:53:02 PT By David Kravets, Associated Press Writer Source: Associated Press The Justice Department may not revoke doctors' licenses to dispense medication or investigate doctors for recommending marijuana to sick patients, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.The decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upholds a 2-year-old court order prohibiting such federal action and is one of several cases resulting from medical marijuana laws on the books in eight states. Federal prosecutors argued that such tactics are necessary because doctors are interfering with the drug war and circumventing the government's judgment that marijuana has no medical benefits.The San Francisco-based court disagreed."The government policy does ... strike at core First Amendment interests of doctors and patients," Chief Judge Mary Schroeder wrote in the 3-0 opinion. "An integral component of the practice of medicine is the communication between doctor and a patient. Physicians must be able to speak frankly and openly to patients."Doctors who recommend marijuana in the eight states that have medical marijuana laws "will make it easier to obtain marijuana in violation of federal law," government attorney Michael Stern had said.The ruling does, in fact, preserve state medical marijuana laws by preventing the federal government from silencing doctors, said Graham Boyd, an American Civil Liberties Union attorney."If a doctor can't recommend it, then no patient can use it," he said. "This was the federal government's first line strategy, to shut down doctor recommendations."The case was brought by patients' rights groups and doctors including Neil Flynn of the University of California, Davis, who said marijuana may be beneficial for some patients but doctors have been fearful of recommending it, even if it's in a patient's best interest.U.S. District Judge William Alsup responded by prohibiting the Justice Department from revoking Drug Enforcement Administration licenses to dispense medication "merely because the doctor recommends medical marijuana to a patient based on a sincere medical judgment." Alsup's order also prevented federal agents "from initiating any investigation solely on that ground."The case was an outgrowth of Proposition 215, which California voters approved in 1996. It allows patients to lawfully use marijuana with a doctor's recommendation.Following the measure's passage, the Clinton administration said doctors who recommended marijuana would lose their federal licenses to prescribe medicine, could be excluded from Medicare and Medicaid programs, and could face criminal charges. The Bush administration continued Clinton's fight.Other states with medical marijuana laws include Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, Oregon and Washington.Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court said clubs that sell marijuana to the sick with a doctor's recommendation are breaking federal drug laws.Pot clubs continue to operate, including several in San Francisco, as local authorities look the other way. But federal officials have raided many clubs in California, the state where they are more prevalent.One case challenging such raids is pending before the 9th Circuit. That case, brought by an Oakland pot club, argues that the states have the right to experiment with their own drug laws and that Americans have a fundamental right to marijuana as an avenue to be free of pain.The case decided Tuesday is Conant v. Walters, 00-17222.Source: Associated Press Author: David Kravets, Associated Press WriterPublished: October 29, 2002Copyright: 2002 Associated Press Related Articles & Web Sites:ACLUhttp://www.aclu.org/Chronic Cannabis Use in PDFhttp://freedomtoexhale.com/ccu.pdfConant vs. Walters in PDF http://freedomtoexhale.com/conant.pdfCourt To Decide What You Can Say About Marijuanahttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread12894.shtmlRecommending Pot Sounds OK To 9th Circuit http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread12474.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #22 posted by FoM on October 29, 2002 at 16:26:40 PT DdC You're right! I need to remind myself not to get weary because I don't like fishin' and a golfin' LOL! [ Post Comment ] Comment #21 posted by DdC on October 29, 2002 at 16:23:53 PT FoM, Then we'll need Cannabis News even more... For the happy stories of people using it and getting relief from it. Stories on growing, different strains matched to different illness. Hemp products being invented daily. Lots of good news to spread around. ¶8) I always thought someday I would get a hair cut. Someday never came... What in the world would we do without you and Cannabis News? ¶8) I haven't read a yellow journal in years. Thanks but don't retire. You'd just get bored fishing and playing golf all day.c-ya, DdC Freedom [ Post Comment ] Comment #20 posted by FoM on October 29, 2002 at 15:59:55 PT My Agenda DdC! You know what my Agenda is? I want to be able to stop doing Cannabis News. That will be a bitter sweet day but that is what my Agenda is. When this wonderful plant is liberated then it will be time for me to move on.Here's another article with more detail from United Press International.Conant vs. Walters in PDF: http://freedomtoexhale.com/conant.pdfCourt Protects Doctors' Pot Discussions: http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread14592.shtmlCourt Protects Doctors Who Recommend Marijuana: http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread14591.shtmlCourt Aids Docs Who Talk Marijuana: http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread14590.shtml [ Post Comment ] Comment #19 posted by DdC on October 29, 2002 at 15:49:11 PT When we stop fighting...we die. Yes I'm happy that after 30+ years of debating and advocating and being shunned and repremanded for it that we finally have a voice. But that doesn't change the facts of Fascism. Voices are sounds, when the bodies carrying those voices come out of the closets and off their own agenda's maybe then I'll slow down my rhetoric of them. Not until. That doesn't mean I'm not going to go out and toke a doober in celebration. I called Arno's office and left a message of congrats to him. Its not winning or losing its how you play the game. We're all winners by not succumbing to the threats they lay on us. By advocating each day and by acting like the Americans we are and not the sheople we're portrayed as by the world. Rrrrrrruff ruff. Ghee I Just Love the Smell of Kynd bud in the Morning!!! ¶8)Peace, Love and Liberty or the Reckless D.E.A.th!DdC End Prohibition! Note the reasons they gave in the 20's [ Post Comment ] Comment #18 posted by FoM on October 29, 2002 at 15:33:00 PT DdC You're very right but that was then and this is now. We have the Internet, CNN etc. and we have a voice. They've been announcing the decision on CNN Headline News. See what I mean? We didn't have a voice until the Internet. I just love knowing that ordinary people like all of us can help make a difference. That inspires me to go on. US Court Protects Doctors Who Recommend Marijuana: http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread14591.shtmlConant vs. Walters in PDF: http://freedomtoexhale.com/conant.pdf [ Post Comment ] Comment #17 posted by DdC on October 29, 2002 at 15:20:48 PT Can or Will FoM...They never had authority... To schedule it #1 in the first place. Nixon threw the Shaffer Commission report stating it should be rescheduled in the garbage. Since then the I.O.M. also has proof to reschedule, and it too is held up in the H.H.S. with Tommy Thompson, as did Shalala sit on it for Klintoon. Until the report is officially released, the Congress and Supremest can stonewall any changes. Fascism 101.DdC [ Post Comment ] Comment #16 posted by DdC on October 29, 2002 at 15:14:35 PT Hate to put a damper on good news... But hasn't the Supremest Marcupials overturned 9th District cases in the past? The buyers clubs. Commerse was how they catch 22'd cannabis in the first place. Same fascist plot as they used removing automatic weapons. The Ag Dept. had to issue a tax stamp to grow, But a sample had to be provided before tha stamp was was issued, thus leaving the farmer with a controlled substance sample without authorization. Or busted in other words. So to get a tax stamp one would have to have a legal crop to sample from. But without the stamp there are no legal crops. Ain't ya glad all that education is paying off. I'd bet Columbus wan't even Italian...Lies Lies Lies and More Lies...As Napoleon said.http://www.cannabinoid.com/wwwboard/politics/binaries/31/31348.gifI think a clue is the drugczar selling fiction books, then getting billions of dollars to try and turn them into reality. This is fascism. I'm happy but very skeptical. Until reality enters, we will continue living in this fantasy Wally World. All in the name of International profits...Peace, Love and Liberty or the Flying Monkey's of D.E.A.th!DdCCan't Find It http://www.cannabinoid.com/boards/politics/media/36/36609.gifFlout http://www.cannabinoid.com/wwwboard/politics/binaries/28/28411.gifShalalagans http://www.cannabinoid.com/wwwboard/politics/binaries/28/28670.gif [ Post Comment ] Comment #15 posted by FoM on October 29, 2002 at 15:01:38 PT Another Question Can the court force the government to reschedule cannabis out of Schedule I maybe? If there is medical value enough to allow a Doctor to discuss it with their patients and recomment its use then it has medical value because a Doctor can't prescribe poison only medicine. [ Post Comment ] Comment #14 posted by Sam Adams on October 29, 2002 at 14:59:37 PT Dr. Russo.... I skimmed through the decision...looks great! And bless you for your resolve to ignore any gag order!Are you saying that these are the same 3 judges that will decide the lawsuits challenging interstate commerce, and a medical right to relive pain with cannabis? I'm just waiting for them to bring in some crusty old codgers from Florida or Texas or something.I do not share your confidence regarding the Supreme Court. It is currently well-stocked with right-wing bigots. From their point of view, doctors are probably guilty of conspiracy to distribute marijuana. People have been convicted under conspiracy by doing a lot less than recommending drugs to someone.It's an interesting idea, though. Would a Supreme Court gag order finally prompt the AMA to get off their ass and do something? I personally doubt it. I would not be surprised at anything in America these days. The government's got a huge military, and a huge militarized law enforcement army on its side. I have no doubt they will resort to naked power when necessary. At least the Bush cabal will. Hopefully they'll be gone in 2 years. [ Post Comment ] Comment #13 posted by FoM on October 29, 2002 at 14:46:38 PT Dr. Russo I haven't had time to read it because I was busy getting it uploaded but if I get what your saying correctly as long as interstate transport isn't an issue that maybe the DEA has to back off. Is that only in California or all states or only those with medical marijuana laws?Conant vs. Walters in PDF: http://freedomtoexhale.com/conant.pdf [ Post Comment ] Comment #12 posted by DdC on October 29, 2002 at 14:27:03 PT Surprise surprise surprise, goooooolly! Go Arno! Arno's our local Hospice Doctor with many years of administering cannabis for patients. He was one of the few who showed up at the City Cuuncil Handout protest. I've had many good experiences working with him over the years. Reading his testimony I found him actually a conservative, working for Nixon. I'd have to say he's "One of the Good Guys"... DdCFederal class-action lawsuit on behalf of physicians who recommend and seriously ill patients who need medical marijuana Declaration of Arnold Leff, M.D. http://www.drugsense.org/CCUA/970114_Conant_v_McCaffrey_Leff.htmlI declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States and the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Executed at Santa Cruz, California, this 13th day of February, 1997. Arnold S. Leff, M.D. Conant v. McCaffrey: http://www.lindesmith.org/mmjsuit.htmlDoctors Have Right To Suggest Pot for Patients, Lawyer Insists http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread9940.shtmlConant v. McCaffrey: http://www.soros.org/lindesmith/mmjsuit/arnold2.htmlMore Doctor Declarations http://www.soros.org/lindesmith/mmjsuit/docs2.htmlBack to Contents http://www.soros.org/lindesmith/mmjsuit/conant2.htmlMarijuana The Forbidden Medicine http://www.rxmarihuana.com/Harvard Doctor Praises Marijuana as Miracle Drug http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9923.shtml [ Post Comment ] Comment #11 posted by Ethan Russo MD on October 29, 2002 at 14:21:31 PT: Better than I Thought This decision is well worth the read:http://www.drugsense.org/temp/conantXvXwalters.pdfNot only do they uphold Free Speech between doctor and patient, but enjoin the DEA from investigation merely on that pretense. What's more they make the following assertion:"Medical marijuana, when grown locally for personal consumption, does not have any direct or obvious effect on interstate commerce."There's going to be a fight now. This state could all but ensure that Angel et al. win their suit. I am anxious to be involved in that one. This is a victory worth savoring. [ Post Comment ] Comment #10 posted by FoM on October 29, 2002 at 14:00:49 PT VitaminT Did you ever have a chance to ask observer about making a chat room for us here on CNews using DrugSense Chat? There are times it would be nice to be able to talk in real time. [ Post Comment ] Comment #9 posted by FoM on October 29, 2002 at 13:58:13 PT VitaminT I hope you're right. We know we're going to win but do they? I know we won't quit until we do win. I hope they realize that soon. [ Post Comment ] Comment #8 posted by FoM on October 29, 2002 at 13:45:00 PT Just a Note I hope this is as good as I think it could be. I really do. I put the article and pdf on my medical marijuana page if anyone is interested in checking it out. Medical Marijuana Information Links [ Post Comment ] Comment #7 posted by VitaminT on October 29, 2002 at 13:44:56 PT If Ashcroft appeals . . . . he'll be asking the Supreme Court to narrow the First Ammendment and reverse a 3-0 decision. He'd have to go through the full 9th circuit first though I think.Point is, none of this sounds likely to me - even with Ashcroft. [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by Richard Lake on October 29, 2002 at 13:23:34 PT: Ooops. It was Dec. of 96, not 76. When McKzar was busy working to undermine the just passed 215.Guess you can tell that I am excited about the news. This will, hopefully, give a few more doctors some backbone on the issue! [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by FoM on October 29, 2002 at 13:10:08 PT Thanks Richard You know in life how it's nice to know if you are in a competition when you win or lose? That's how I feel sometimes. I know we're going to win but I'm ready to shout it from the roof tops and it's hard to be meek and mild and quiet and reserved sometime. I know you understand! [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by Richard Lake on October 29, 2002 at 13:04:08 PT: The Court Document You may read the actual decision online as a .pdf file athttp://www.drugsense.org/temp/conantXvXwalters.pdfThis really is great news, FoM. Way back in Dec. of '76 McKzar said that doctors who even recommended cannabis, not write a script, would have their ability to write scripts withdrawn, a very serious threat. Now two levels of federal courts have said that the feds can not do that. The Court Document [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by FoM on October 29, 2002 at 12:43:09 PT Dr. Russo I don't really understand but I guess I do. When is a decision ever final? I'm not a lawyer and I get lost in all this. If they appeal this ruling how long will we have to wait? I'm tired of waiting. I know we all are tired of waiting. [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by Ethan Russo MD on October 29, 2002 at 12:37:02 PT: A Major Victory I am very pleased that this has been decided as such. However, had the ruling gone the other way, some of us would continue to speak to patients the way we wish, about what we wish. If they would choose to jail us, bring it on. I have a conscience, and it will not allow me to shut up because of any outrageous political folly our regime might choose to pursue. Eventually the public would rise up in outrage, once they were sufficiently incited by the governmental lunacy.FoM, to answer your question, the Feds will probably appeal this to the Supremes. Again, we win either way. Should the decision be affirmed, Ashcroft receives a well-deserved black eye. Should it be struck down, it will be apparent to the public at large that the Constitution and Bill of Rights no longer mean anything in the modern world of Reefer Madness. [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by FoM on October 29, 2002 at 12:23:29 PT This Is Good News Now what will Walters do? [ Post Comment ] Post Comment