cannabisnews.com: Justices Consider Medical Marijuana Laws Justices Consider Medical Marijuana Laws Posted by CN Staff on October 12, 2003 at 20:12:33 PT By Shaina Jones, Legal Times Source: Legal Times Seven years after California voters opened the door to medical marijuana, the U.S. Supreme Court is now being asked to decide whether doctors should be allowed to recommend the drug to patients. Walters v. Conant, No. 03-40, is one of dozens of cases the Supreme Court will likely consider at its private conference today. The litigation stems from Proposition 215, a statewide ballot initiative approved by voters in 1996. Proposition 215 gave patients the right to seek physician-sanctioned marijuana, but the U.S. government objected -- citing federal laws that restrict the use of marijuana. In 1997, a group of physicians and patients sued the feds, trying to stop the government from revoking the prescription licenses of doctors who recommend marijuana as treatment. In August 1999, U.S. District Judge William Alsup of the Northern District of California entered a permanent injunction against government enforcement of the rule against doctors. A panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a ruling written by Chief Judge Mary Schroeder, affirmed the injunction in October 2002. At the Supreme Court, John Walters, director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, is the named appellant in the case. In his petition on behalf of Walters, Solicitor General Theodore Olson argues that the 9th Circuit's decision restricts the government's ability to investigate possible violations of the law. "The decision impairs the Executive's authority to enforce the law in an area vital to the public health and safety," Olson wrote in the petition. "The practice of medicine is subject to reasonable licensing and regulation, even where that practice involves speech." Dr. Marcus Conant, medical director of a private HIV/AIDS practice in San Francisco, asserts that doctors have First Amendment rights to openly discuss with their patients the risks and benefits of using marijuana to relieve symptoms of diseases such as AIDS, glaucoma, and multiple sclerosis. "This case concerns the distribution of medical information, not distribution of drugs," wrote Conant's lawyer Graham Boyd in a brief opposing high court review. Boyd is director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Drug Policy Litigation Project. "Patients are free to follow or ignore the advice, but the advice itself does not authorize or cause the distribution of a drug." Olson's brief counters,"It is beyond dispute that a physician's recommendation that a patient take Schedule I controlled substances such as heroin or LSD would ... justify investigation and potential revocation of the physician's registration. There is no statutory or First Amendment basis for treating marijuana, another Schedule I substance, differently." Attorneys for Conant say review by the Supreme Court is unnecessary because the district court's decision does not infringe on federal statues that prohibit selling marijuana, and the decision creates no conflict among the circuits. "This is a unique case that arises out of the federal government's response to California's law," Boyd wrote. "No disagreement exists among the courts of appeals on the issues raised in the case, and no disagreement appears likely to emerge in the future." Seven states besides California -- Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Maine, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington -- have enacted similar medical marijuana laws by voter initiative. Source: Legal Times (DC)Author: Shaina Jones, Legal Times Published: Friday, October 10, 2003Copyright: 2003 NLP IP CompanyContact: editorial legaltimes.comWebsite: http://www.legaltimes.com/Related Articles & Web Site:Conant vs. Walters http://freedomtoexhale.com//cw.htmBush Administration Should Stop Picking on The Illhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17275.shtmlBush Lawyer Blasts State Marijuana Lawshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17037.shtmlMedical Marijuana and The Fedshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread14719.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #3 posted by Treeanna on October 13, 2003 at 06:55:27 PT Standing to petition for rescheduling Seems to me that all the doctor groups in this case now have standing to file for the rescheduling of mj out of Schedule 1!And they would also have standing to file any needed appeals in the Courts. [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by Jose Melendez on October 13, 2003 at 03:46:19 PT needs review " There is no statutory or First Amendment basis for treating marijuana, another Schedule I substance, differently." Unless it can be shown that marijuana is not legitimately and therefore not legally scheduled. [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by CorvallisEric on October 13, 2003 at 01:01:37 PT a couple comments [Boyd] "Patients are free to follow or ignore the advice, but the advice itself does not authorize or cause the distribution of a drug."At first thought, this bothered me. Is it easy to argue that the advice doesn't constitute the authorization?[Olson] "The practice of medicine is subject to reasonable licensing and regulation, even where that practice involves speech."Last I knew, that belonged to the States."The decision impairs the Executive's authority to enforce the law in an area vital to the public health and safety," Olson wrote in the petition.If we had somewhat different Supreme Court, this point would be rejected, a whole Pandora's Box of states' rights and limitations on Federal power would be opened, and John Walters would slink silently into the good night. [ Post Comment ] Post Comment