cannabisnews.com: B.U. Professor Defends Use of Medicinal Marijuana 





B.U. Professor Defends Use of Medicinal Marijuana 
Posted by CN Staff on September 23, 2003 at 06:39:25 PT
By Joshua P. Rogers, Contributing Writer 
Source: Harvard Crimson 
The production and use of marijuana for medicinal purposes is protected by the Constitution, a Boston University (B.U.) Law School professor argued to a group of about 50 Harvard students last night.Professor Randy E. Barnett, a 1977 graduate of Harvard Law School, is currently engaged in a legal battle over the use of medicinal marijuana, representing a group of California residents who say that they use marijuana for medicinal purposes.
The residents, who call themselves the Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative, are currently defending their case in federal court.Although federal statutes ban the manufacture and distribution of the drug, a 1996 California law approved marijuana where medical circumstances warranted it.Barnett outlined the three main points of his case to the assembled crowd of Harvard undergraduates and law school students. Barnett argued in his first point that the scope of Congressional power was strictly limited in Article I of the Constitution.“There is a list of things Congress is supposed to do, and anything outside of that is not within Congress’s powers,” Barnett said, referring to the words “herein granted” in the first section of Article I as justification for limiting Congress’ power.Barnett said that cannabis produced and distributed wholly within a state falls outside of the jurisdiction of Congress, because the Constitution specifically limits Congress to regulating interstate commerce.“The one thing not on that list is commerce wholly within the state,” he said.Barnett said that because his clients use cannabis that is cultivated, sold and consumed entirely within California, they should be regulated only by that state.Barnett also said that the Supreme Court has ruled that intrastate commerce that affects interstate commerce also falls under Congressional jurisdiction, but he argued that the current case in California does not meet this criteria because of the small number of people involved in the Oakland cooperative. Barnett’s second point also dealt with the powers delegated to the states and the federal government in the Constitution. He referred to the Tenth Amendment, which reserves all powers not enumerated in the Constitution for the state governments. “The Congress does not have a general police power,” Barnett said. “The states have the police power.”Barnett said that because California and the City of Oakland have approved the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes—and because his clients had the proper medical documentation—their activities were entirely legal.In his third and final argument, Barnett said it was a fundamental right of a citizen to avoid suffering and seek medical treatment. The use of cannabis to address the suffering of ill individuals should fall within that definition, he said.Barnett’s case has been bounced around the federal courts over the past five years. Although the Ninth Circuit Court originally ruled in favor of the Oakland cooperative, this decision was later reversed by the Supreme Court.The case was then returned to a lower court.Barnett predicted to last night’s audience that his clients would lose their case, saying that the lower courts would be unlikely to challenge the Supreme Court’s earlier reversal.Last night’s event was sponsored by the Harvard Libertarian Society and the Harvard Federalist Society.“Professor Barnett has been a long time friend of the Harvard Federalist Society,” said Beth A. Schonmuller ’01, a third-year at Harvard Law School and leader of the Harvard Federalist Society. “It is important to invite speakers who we think will provoke debate and free thought as well as the expression of ideas on the University campus.”Source: Harvard Crimson (MA Edu) Author: Joshua P. Rogers, Contributing Writer Published: Tuesday, September 23, 2003Copyright: 2003 The Harvard Crimson, Inc. Contact: letters thecrimson.com Website: http://www.thecrimson.harvard.edu/ Oakland Cannabis Buyer's Cooperativehttp://www.rxcbc.org/CannabisNews Medical Marijuana Archiveshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/list/medical.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #8 posted by BigDawg on September 23, 2003 at 14:59:58 PT
Well put
>We didn't deserve the cowardly act of 9/11. The people in the World Trade Center especially did not deserve it. The fact that we are guilty of some terrible things does not excuse or ennoble terrorism against us. But we need to clean up our act. While we pat ourselves on the back for doing good, we should actually do more good and less evil.*APPLAUSE*
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by goneposthole on September 23, 2003 at 10:22:00 PT
right on, wise, old Neuvo Mexican
Why Do They Hate Us?© Copyright 2003, Jim LoyPeople around the world hate the USA. While we have many good qualities, much of this hatred is well-deserved. Here are some of the things that we do (in the past, and right now):  * We support the scum of the earth; brutal, totalitarian dictators who victimize their subjects. Saddam Hussein is a recent example. Noriega in Panama and the Shah of Iran are other examples. Batista in Cuba, a while back.
  * We support the military overthrow of popularly elected leaders who are against us. Allende in Chile and Mossadegh in Iran are examples.
  * We have participated in assassinations. Allende in Chile and Diem in South Vietnam are examples.
  * We supply weapons, which are often used against civilians, including chemical weapons and land mines which are banned worldwide by Geneva Conventions. We even supplied anthrax and bubonic plague (for non-military purposes) to Saddam Hussein, when we liked him.
  * We profit from third world countries who have massive poverty. OPEC was started to protect against us.
  * We are the bully who gets what he wants, at the expense of the little guy.
  * We think we are the good guys. [Well we are, sort of. We are mostly free, and we support freedom worldwide, to some extent. We give money, help, and medicine. We try to right wrongs]
  * We are rich, many of us.
  * Many countries owe us money.
  * We support Israel.People worldwide seem to object to the Americanization of their own countries, symbolized by hamburgers, French fries, pizza, and fried chicken. But hamburgers would fail financially, if those people didn't want them. I suspect that we are not forcing hamburgers down any throats. By the way, I have read more than once that hamburgers are "devoid of nutritional value," which is untrue. While hamburgers are not the ideal food, they are packed with nutrition compared with most food.We didn't deserve the cowardly act of 9/11. The people in the World Trade Center especially did not deserve it. The fact that we are guilty of some terrible things does not 
excuse or ennoble terrorism against us. But we need to clean up our act. While we pat ourselves on the back for doing good, we should actually do more good and less evil.http://www.jimloy.com/issues/whyus.htm
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by Nuevo Mexican on September 23, 2003 at 10:06:24 PT
Watched bush, recovering from nausea!
Why wasn't this war criminal arrested at the U.N.? How can people stand back and let this madman run amock? How afraid for their families lives they must be to allow this man to leave the U.N. without a chorus a boos to accompany him?
This man is such a liar that his scripted applause lines were met with 'a stony silence' (CNN cut away from an honest appraisal of his speech by a U.N. ambassador to a Iraqi barbershop where the patrons couldn't interpret the reporters questions designed to show Iraqis wanting American forces to stay). Disgusting that CNN is still afraid to buck the bush line (careers on the line, remember Phil Donahue?). This country is the worlds biggest terrorist, and bushes speech made sure it was revealed. Every word his said applied more to him and his actions than any other 'terrorist state' he was accussing. This was not lost on the people attending his speech in the U.N.
Then Frances Pres. Chirac spoke and recieved a long, sustained ovation, that said everything! Bye-bye bushie-boy!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by goneposthole on September 23, 2003 at 09:23:44 PT
John Ashcroft sings
while cannabis grows. Ain't nothin' he can do about it.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by FoM on September 23, 2003 at 09:22:04 PT
Thanks EJ
I read your comment and found an article to post.http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread17379.shtml
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by E_Johnson on September 23, 2003 at 09:08:28 PT
Ashcroft's latest move
He's calling for an end to all federal plea bargains.Every marijuana case they charge federally is now going to trial, whether the defendant wants it or not.Personally, I am delighted, because this means all out war now.They're going to have to call up an entire federal jury every single time they want to throw a pot grower behind bars.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by FoM on September 23, 2003 at 08:01:11 PT
Just a Comment
I'm listening to Bush speak at the U.N. and I want to turn it off but I'm keeping it on. God help us all.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by kaptinemo on September 23, 2003 at 07:22:55 PT:
Hoo, boy, I just can't resist this
*Professor Barnett has been a long time friend of the Harvard Federalist Society,” said Beth A. Schonmuller ’01, a third-year at Harvard Law School and leader of the Harvard Federalist Society. “It is important to invite speakers who we think will provoke debate and free thought as well as the expression of ideas on the University campus.”*Yes, the Federalist Society is all for States Rights...or is it? They sure say they are:Federalist Society: Our Purpose
http://www.fed-soc.org/ourpurpose.htmFrom the Webpage:*The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies is a group of conservatives and libertarians interested in the current state of the legal order. It is founded on the principles that the state exists to preserve freedom, that the separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution, and that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be.*That last sentence says it all. According to the philosophy of the Federalist Society, the twisted, tortured interpretation of the Commerce Clause that was the basis for anti-drug laws in this country, the part of the Constitution antis are always pointing to and saying it justifies prison for plant consumption, the part that has been used to terrorize us for the last 67 years...should never have been allowed to stand. No implied powers; if it isn't explicitly stated in the Constitution, it ain't legal. Period. End of message. John Ashcroft is supposedly a leading light of the FS...and he has done everything in his power to trample those same State's Rights when it came to MMJ.'Philosophy'? 'Principles'? Mr. Barnett is, unfortunately, in the company of hypocrites; the FS is no better than the liberals they despise. Both groups have used the organs of The State for less than honorable purposes.
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment