cannabisnews.com: Medical Pot Users Win Key Ruling










  Medical Pot Users Win Key Ruling

Posted by CN Staff on December 16, 2003 at 20:21:27 PT
By Henry Weinstein, Times Staff Writer 
Source: Los Angeles Times  

Federal officials may not prosecute marijuana smokers whose doctors say pot is their only medical relief — at least so long as the users grow their own or obtain it from other growers without charge, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.The 2-1 decision from the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco would protect many medical marijuana users from prosecution in California and six other Western states — Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon and Washington — that have laws approving the use of marijuana for medical purposes.
"This is huge. This essentially makes Prop. 215 federal law in California," said Dale Gieringer, a co-author of the proposition, which legalized medical use of marijuana in California.The measure, approved by voters in 1996, was the nation's first such law. Despite its passage, federal officials have pursued a number of cases against medical marijuana users, growers and distributors in the state.Justice Department officials declined to comment on Tuesday's ruling, and legal experts expect them to appeal further. But the decision marks the second court defeat for the government this year in its running battle against the medical marijuana movement.Earlier this year, the Supreme Court upheld a 9th Circuit ruling that said federal officials could not threaten to revoke the prescription rights of doctors who approved marijuana use for their patients.Note: Appellate panel says the U.S. can't prosecute patients if doctors call marijuana their only relief and the drug is obtained at no charge. Snipped:Complete Article: http://www.freedomtoexhale.com/keyruling.htmSource: Los Angeles Times (CA)Author: Henry Weinstein, Times Staff WriterPublished: December 16, 2003 Copyright: 2003 Los Angeles TimesContact: letters latimes.comWebsite: http://www.latimes.com/Related Articles & Web Sites:Raich v. Ashcroft in PDFhttp://freedomtoexhale.com/ruling.pdfMedical Marijuana Information Linkshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/medical.htmAppeals Court Sets Aside Federal Marijuana Lawhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17975.shtmlFederal Appeals Court OKs Medical Marijuana http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17974.shtmlSupreme Court Clears Way for Medical Pot http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17564.shtml

Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help





Comment #7 posted by The GCW on December 17, 2003 at 06:49:02 PT
Rev. Jonathan Adler; Kucinich endsthispersecution.
I'm sure You know, but in case anyone hasn't heard, If elected President, Dennis Kucinich ends cannabis prohibition!Democratic Presidential nominee, Dennis Kucinich, put in writing that as PRESIDENT He WILL: "DECRIMINALIZE MARIJUANA" -"in favor of a drug policy that sets reasonable boundaries for marijuana use by establishing guidelines similar to those already in place for alcohol." (POSTED ON His website!)http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17917.shtml http://www.kucinich.us/issues/marijuana_decrim.php Ending cannabis prohibition puts the fire back on the alter.The Regular Sacrifice IS BACK (see Daniel 8:11, 12, 13, & Dan. 11:31 & Dan 12:11).The regular sacrifice is the daily use of cannabis in prayer to know the spirit of truth. & 420Yes this is good news. 
Our brother Bush is gross, and does not want to allow sick people access to the superplant, which Christ God Our Father made avaialable (in part) for just such reasons...Bush must be controlled for the glory of Christ God Our Father.The Green Collar Worker
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by escapegoat on December 17, 2003 at 03:51:16 PT
Great news!
Wow!Nice to see the US actually following their constitutional rules, for once!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by Virgil on December 16, 2003 at 22:43:36 PT
This is no Mickey Mouse event
Think of this. Anyone with a recommendation can go on television and speak with a free tonque and a free mind. Montel may go to California and do a show on CC and puff away.The biggest celebrity that I could think of would be another person with MS. That would be Annette Funicello. Now that she could legally come foward why wouldn't she. GW Pharma put its bank roll on doing studies for MS. What in the world is better for MS than CC? Quite possibly and my answer is "nothing is better."The legality of MMJ/CC in California will certainly bring us a person smoking on the air. It is the ubiquitous uses of cannabis that make it so dangerous especially when you factor in the benign factor. If you told your doctor you used a vaporizor, what real harm can you do? Doc, I need it to relax. They have pills that probably eat your liver for that. The studies that say it helps prevent skin cancer might automatically qualify someone for a recommendation. What happens if tomorrow night Kevin on the tonight show shows up with his bong and stash. If not him, it will be someone.This is totally big. The lid has come off the pot.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by Max Flowers on December 16, 2003 at 21:52:47 PT
Rev Adler
I would like your thoughts on the following: I have pondered for a long time the question of a Constitutional religious defense to cannabis use and possession if it were genuinely religious use, but in an individual's private sense of God; that is to say, if he had his own unique, sovereign one-man church. I've heard that the religious defense is only valid if it involves an established religion and a church meeting certain standards etc, but I say that's BS because no other man, be he a congressman or senator or judge or whatever, can judge my own deeply personal religious experiences as invalid (or grant them validity). The spirit of constitutional religious freedom embodies that very freedom, the ability to practice whatever religion we like, regardless of how much any government authority may dislike it.If my personal religion is to pray to a Cannabis Goddess Spirit several times by partaking of her divine essence, that should be protected under the Constitution, right?MF
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by Rev Jonathan Adler on December 16, 2003 at 21:32:29 PT:
Legal if not bought? Non-medicinal use?
I still have to laugh at the rulings as they edge closer and closer to full-blown recognition of our medical rights. First I would ask, is any use non-medicinal. All users are medically affected with or without a doctor's script. They are truely self-medicating. And religious use, healing, worship and prayer. Are they illegal, when a church meeting the Andrew's test is involved? I think it is a great decision if it results in more freedom of choice. I still think religious use is a cure-all for this dilemna regarding distribution. The ONLY medicine you can now legally have, but you can' legally GET it! Sounds like a solution may be
"sacramedicine" (TM) I hope so. Either way, BRAVO!
Hawaii Medical Marijuana Institue
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by Virgil on December 16, 2003 at 21:30:35 PT
I have a new word- potlitics
I wonder how you would define potlitics?Since it is my word, I say it is "the effort of the people to be free of government oppression in regards to cannabis."It sure seems like the first paragraph of this article limits the scope of the ruling. My guess is it is inaccurate reporting, but we will see. The WashingtonPost.com did not produce a search result for marijuana for December 15 or 16. Those guys sure are tight with cannabis news. Such is the nature of the Nazi Press. This ruling will do great things for the cultivation crowd and their ability to move freely and speak freely. 
[ Post Comment ]

 


Comment #1 posted by FoM on December 16, 2003 at 20:27:02 PT

News Brief from The New York Times
National Briefing: WestPublished: December 17, 2003CALIFORNIA: RULING ON MEDICAL MARIJUANA A federal appeals court ruled that a law outlawing marijuana may not apply to sick people with a doctor's recommendation in states that have medical marijuana laws. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit said prosecuting these medical marijuana users under a 1970 federal law was unconstitutional if the marijuana was not sold, transported across state lines or used for nonmedicinal purposes. The finding was a blow to the Justice Department, which argued that state medical marijuana laws were trumped by the Controlled Substances Act of 1970. Eight other states have laws similar to California's.  (AP)  John M. Broder (NYT)Copyright: 2003 New York Times

[ Post Comment ]





  Post Comment