cannabisnews.com: What U.S. Papers Say About Medical Pot 





What U.S. Papers Say About Medical Pot 
Posted by CN Staff on November 01, 2002 at 10:01:41 PT
From the National Desk
Source: United Press International
A federal appeals court in California this week struck an important blow for medical marijuana, and for the First Amendment. It held that the government cannot revoke the licenses of doctors who recommend marijuana to their patients. The federal government should now abandon its misguided policy of targeting doctors and sick people to fight marijuana use.The ruling gives new life to the medical marijuana initiative, also known as Proposition 215, which California voters passed in 1996.
The law permits seriously ill people to use marijuana on the advice of their physicians, and it says that doctors may not be punished for recommending marijuana to their patients. Shortly after it became law, the federal government announced it would use its authority under the Controlled Substances Act to revoke the prescription licenses of doctors who recommended marijuana to a patient.The appeals court rightly held that the policy strikes at "core First Amendment interests of doctors and patients," by interfering with doctors' ability to give honest and candid medical advice. If the government wants to go after those who buy and sell marijuana, it should go after them directly and not suppress protected speech as a back-door means of enforcing drug laws.The decision, in addition to vindicating the speech rights of doctors and patients, should prompt federal and state governments to reconsider their policies on medical marijuana. The war on drugs surely has better targets than cancer patients and terminally ill people who use marijuana, on the advice of doctors, to reduce their pain. New York Times The legal haze surrounding medicinal marijuana became a little clearer thanks to a recent ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.By this court's logic (which sometimes is not all that logical), it is OK for a physician to "prescribe" pot (which really means to suggest that a patient use it) or to speak in favor of its use. This ruling doesn't clear up other conflicts between state and federal laws, such as whether that same patient can grow, purchase or somehow obtain the marijuana and then possess it. But at least for now, the doctor-patient relationship remains above the legal fray.This was a weak case against the doctors who are recommending marijuana to their patients. Attorneys for the U.S. Justice Department had argued that the advice of these physicians amounted to a blow in the government's overall war against illegal drugs. ...The circuit court came to view this case as one about doctors and free speech, not medicinal marijuana. Both in the court of public opinion, and before three jurists, the tactic of muzzling the physicians didn't go over very well. The case struck "at core First Amendment interests of doctors and patients," wrote Mary M. Schroeder, the circuit's chief judge.The federal crusade against these physicians is reinforcing the notion that when it comes to medicinal marijuana, Washington should be giving states more leeway, not less. California, which legalized medicinal marijuana under state law when it passed Proposition 215 back in 1996, is now one of nine states with similar laws on the books. ...Surely there are more fertile fields for the Bush administration to plow in the war against drugs than to go after these patients and their physicians.Sacramento Bee In the pitched battle between the federal government and the state of California over medical marijuana, Californians won an important skirmish this week. It couldn't have come at a better time.The U.S. Justice Department has been stepping up its mean-spirited campaign against the voter-approved state law permitting medical use of marijuana. Just weeks ago agents raided a marijuana farm in Santa Cruz County, even though it was run with the approval of the county sheriff.But the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has shut down the federal assault on another front. It has ruled that the Justice Department can't punish physicians for recommending marijuana to patients. The court says the federal policy of investigating and threatening to pull the licenses of doctors who recommend marijuana violates their First Amendment right to free speech and intrudes on the doctor-patient relationship.California is one of nine states that have enacted medical marijuana laws. Research has proven pot's ability to reduce nausea and otherwise help patients to cope with if not survive potentially deadly diseases. It is less addictive than many drugs -- morphine comes to mind -- that are perfectly legal to prescribe.Average people understand this. The Justice Department, first under Bill Clinton and now George Bush, continues a knee-jerk opposition to the enlightened laws that voters approve. ...The U.S. Supreme Court has held that federal drug laws take precedence over state law. That means Congress holds the ultimate authority to stop all this costly litigation and bring reason back into our national drug policy.Lawmakers should concentrate on fighting the drugs that are tearing apart our inner cities and feeding gang violence. Leave AIDS and cancer patients -- and the doctors trying to help them -- alone.San Jose Mercury News Compiled by United Press InternationalSource: United Press InternationalPublished: November 1, 2002Copyright 2002 United Press InternationalWebsite: http://www.upi.com/ Contact: http://www.upi.com/about/contact.cfmRelated Articles & Web Sites:Conant vs. Walters & Judge Kozinskihttp://freedomtoexhale.com//cw.htmConant vs. Walters in PDFhttp://freedomtoexhale.com/conant.pdfPot Ruling Shields Doctorshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread14620.shtmlThe Wrong War on Drugshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread14619.shtmlA Win for Medical Marijuana http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread14612.shtml 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #5 posted by michael on November 10, 2002 at 10:15:03 PT:
Not quite true.
  Actualy, there is an effect on illegal interstate commerce. It is a negative effect that cuts down on med-mar and recreational pot being brought across state and country lines. So in reality, we are helping the feds effort to stop this practice, ar,ar,ar. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by FoM on November 01, 2002 at 13:17:01 PT
Thank You DdC!
You're going to go as a roach! That's too much! Have fun.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by DdC on November 01, 2002 at 13:11:59 PT
Well then an advanced Happy Birthday FoM...
I hope its a grand celebration. Tomorrow there's a big dress up antiwar "die in" down town. I think I'll go as a roach. Yesterday brought several Halloween parties. I came as a hippie. People said it was a good costume. I said I've been working on it for over 30 years. ¶8)c-ya, DdC
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by FoM on November 01, 2002 at 12:34:17 PT
Thank You DdC!
There are many reasons why what you just posted is important to me. WAMM and all those involved have been a wonderful example of Cannabis People showing grace in the midst of the storm. They aren't turning the other cheek though. They are standing their ground but with dignity. I absolutely love to see this. People at WAMM make me feel very proud that I am part of this community. November 4th is my birthday too. What a birthday present. Money couldn't buy me anything finer then the hearing for WAMM.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by DdC on November 01, 2002 at 12:24:24 PT
Motion to Sue Federal Government
First hearing set for Nov. 4th 2002A hearing has been set for the Motion to Return Property filed shortly after the DEA raid on Wo/Men’s Alliance for Marijuana (WAMM), a Santa Cruz based medical marijuana cooperative. The motion requests the return of all personal
property including 137 medical marijuana plants taken in a DEA raid in early September from the 238 patient collective garden. The raid touched off protests at federal buildings around the San Francisco Bay area. 
                    
Attorney Ben Rice emphasized this will be the first case heard after a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals unanimous decision earlier this week in the Conant v. Walters case in which Valerie Correl, Director of WAMM, is a plaintiff. The decision emphasized the government cannot revoke the licenses of California doctors who recommend medical marijuana to their patients. It also states "Medical marijuana, when grown locally for personal consumption, does not have any direct or obvious effect on interstate commerce." The hearing is set for 9:00 am Monday, November 4 at the San Jose Federal Court building. Complete Motion Filed
http://www.wamm.org/lawsuit.htmSome related news stories:Santa Cruz Marijuana Farmer Sue Federal Government - San Jose Mercury News
http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/14/thread14235.shtmlWo/Men’s Seeks Return of Pot - Santa Cruz Sentinel
http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/14/thread14227.shtmlRam Dass Benefit for WAMM Nov 7, 7pm   The Rio Theater, SC CA
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment