cannabisnews.com: U.S. Appeal Of Marijuana Case Rejected 





U.S. Appeal Of Marijuana Case Rejected 
Posted by CN Staff on October 14, 2003 at 21:57:28 PT
By Charles Lane, Washington Post Staff Writer
Source: Washington Post 
The Supreme Court announced yesterday that it will let stand a federal appeals court ruling that bars the federal government from punishing doctors who recommend marijuana to their patients. Without comment, the court refused to hear the Bush administration's challenge of a ruling last year by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit that upheld a federal district court injunction blocking Washington's efforts to prevent doctors from telling patients marijuana might help them. The federal policy violated the constitutional guarantee of free speech, the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit court ruled.
The decision came as a surprise defeat for the federal government in its battle against the "medical marijuana" movement. In his appeal petition to the court, Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson, using the kind of language that often persuades the justices to hear an appeal by the government, had called the 9th Circuit decision "an issue of exceptional and continuing importance" that "impairs the Executive's authority to enforce the law in an area vital to the public health and safety." Instead, the court took a step whose immediate political and practical impact is favorable to the campaign for medical marijuana. The principal effect is to allow doctors to recommend marijuana to patients -- but not to provide it to them. That is important because medical marijuana laws generally permit the possession of small amounts of marijuana only with some form of written authorization from a doctor, though in California an oral recommendation suffices. "If there can be no recommendation, there can be no patients who benefit," said Graham Boyd, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer who urged the Supreme Court to reject the government's appeal. But now doctors can make such recommendations, even in writing, without fear of federal investigation, Boyd said. "I can do my job again and have real conversations with my patients about medical marijuana as part of their treatment options," said Marcus Conant, the San Francisco-based AIDS doctor who filed the case with the support of the ACLU. The decision leaves intact a 2000 order by a California federal district court that barred the federal government from acting on threats to deny doctors who recommend marijuana the right to prescribe controlled substances or to participate in Medicaid and Medicare. However, ordinary possession and distribution of marijuana remain illegal under federal and state laws in all nine states -- Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, Oregon and Washington -- that have medical marijuana laws on the books. Maryland recently enacted a law that permits those convicted of marijuana possession to argue for a reduced sentence based on medical need. Though federal prosecutions of people for possession of small amounts of marijuana are rare, the threat of federal legal action against those who supply marijuana to people with a doctor's note remains. In 2001, the Supreme Court upheld a Justice Department effort to shut down an Oakland "cannabis club," ruling that there is no "medical necessity" exception to the federal ban on marijuana possession. Advocates of medical marijuana laws say that smoking marijuana is often the only way that patients with cancer or AIDS can cope with pain or relieve nausea. But the Bush administration, like the Clinton administration before it, says that federal law still classifies marijuana as a substance with "no currently accepted medical use" and "a high potential for abuse." After voters in California and Arizona adopted medical marijuana ballot initiatives in 1996, the Clinton administration warned doctors that the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) would strip away the right to prescribe federally controlled medication from the prescription license of any physician found "recommending or prescribing" marijuana. Doctors who recommend marijuana could also face criminal prosecution and exclusion from Medicaid and Medicare, the statement added. The Department of Health and Human Services followed with a Feb. 27, 1997, letter to medical association leaders around the country saying that the federal government "encourage[s] physicians to talk with patients about their concerns" but that doctors "may not intentionally provide their patients with oral or written statements in order to enable them to obtain controlled substances in violation of federal law." But these policies never took effect because, in early 1997, Conant and others sued in federal district court and obtained a court order barring them. The case is Walters v. Conant, No. 03-40. Source: Washington Post (DC)Author: Charles Lane, Washington Post Staff WriterPublished: Wednesday, October 15, 2003; Page A01 Copyright: 2003 Washington Post Contact: letterstoed washpost.comWebsite: http://www.washingtonpost.com Related Articles & Web Sites:ACLUhttp://www.aclu.org/Walters vs. Conant, 03-40 - PDFhttp://freedomtoexhale.com/walters.pdfBackers of Medical Marijuana Hail Rulinghttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17566.shtmlHigh Court Lets Stand Ruling Over Medical Pot http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17565.shtmlSupreme Court Clears Way for Medical Pot http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17564.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #2 posted by jose melendez on October 24, 2003 at 08:13:38 PT
liar!
Joyce Nalepka knows full well that NIDA supplied poor quality cannabis for those studies:see:Is the US Government Testing Cannabis, or just Stems and Seeds?http://www.drugpolicycentral.com/bot/pg/nida_stems_n_seeds.htmalso:Study Subjects: Government Giving Out Bad Pothttp://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v02/n919/a07.htmlResearchers: Marijuana Quality Poorhttp://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v02/n939/a02.htmlNIDA-provided 'stale, low-potency ditch weed'http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v02/n944/a04.html
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by FoM on October 23, 2003 at 22:21:49 PT
Letter To The Editor: The Harm of Marijuana 
Friday, October 24, 2003; Page A24 Copyright: 2003 Washington PostThe Oct. 15 front-page story "U.S. Appeal of Marijuana Case Rejected" might have confused young people who are looking for excuses to cover their marijuana use. Kids in treatment regularly say they have heard that marijuana is medicine and that it won't hurt them. Then they end up addicted. Marijuana harms the immune system. This was reported to Congress in 1974, 1976 and 1980. Further, the National Institutes of Health has said, "People with HIV and other diseases of the immune system should avoid marijuana use." Marijuana smoke in particular contains chemicals that adversely affect the body, from the brain and the immune system to the lungs and reproductive system. The decision by the Supreme Court did not mean that the court supports "medical" marijuana. In fact, it ruled unanimously in 2001 that "marijuana has no medical necessity defense." The recent ruling simply addressed the "free speech" issue, saying basically that doctors are free to express opinions -- even stupid ones. Doctors who oppose the medical use of marijuana tell me that they don't come forward because they don't have time to tangle with the drug legalizers -- the real power behind the medical marijuana movement. Legalizers have said since 1979 that their plan is to get marijuana classified as a medicine and use that as a step toward legalization. JOYCE NALEPKA President Drug-Free Kids: America's Challenge Silver Spring 
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment