cannabisnews.com: Supreme Court To Hear Case on Medical Pot





Supreme Court To Hear Case on Medical Pot
Posted by CN Staff on June 28, 2004 at 07:37:20 PT
By Anne Gearan, Associated Press 
Source: Associated Press 
Washington -- The Supreme Court said Monday it will consider whether sick people who smoke pot on a doctor's orders are subject to a federal ban on marijuana.The court agreed to hear the Bush administration's appeal of a case it lost last year involving two California women who say marijuana is the only drug that helps alleviate their chronic pain and other medical problems.
The high court will hear the case sometime next winter. It was among eight new cases the court added to its calendar for the coming term. The current term is expected to end this week.The marijuana case came to the Supreme Court after the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in December that a federal law outlawing marijuana does not apply to California patients whose doctors have prescribed the drug.In its 2-1 decision, the appeals court said prosecuting medical marijuana users under the federal Controlled Substances Act is unconstitutional if the marijuana is not sold, transported across state lines or used for non-medicinal purposes.Judge Harry Pregerson wrote for the appeals court majority that smoking pot on the advice of a doctor is "different in kind from drug trafficking." The court added that "this limited use is clearly distinct from the broader illicit drug market."In its appeal to the justices, the government argued that state laws making exceptions for "medical marijuana" are trumped by federal drug laws.Congress passed the Controlled Substances Act to control "all manufacturing, possession and distribution of any" drug it lists, Bush administration Supreme Court lawyer Theodore Olson wrote."That goal cannot be achieved if the intrastate manufacturing, possession and distribution of a drug may occur without any federal regulation."California's 1996 medical marijuana law allows people to grow, smoke or obtain marijuana for medical needs with a doctor's recommendation. Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, Oregon and Washington state have laws similar to California. Thirty-five states have passed legislation recognizing marijuana's medicinal value.In states with medical marijuana laws, doctors can give written or oral recommendations on marijuana to patients with cancer, HIV and other serious illnesses.The case concerned two seriously ill California women, Angel Raich and Diane Monson. The two had sued Attorney General John Ashcroft, asking for a court order letting them smoke, grow or obtain marijuana without fear of federal prosecution.Raich, a 38-year-old Oakland woman suffering from ailments including scoliosis, a brain tumor, chronic nausea, fatigue and pain, smokes marijuana every few hours. She said she was partly paralyzed until she started smoking pot.In 2001, the Supreme Court ruled that members-only clubs that had formed to distribute medical marijuana could not claim their activity was protected by "medical necessity," even if patients have a doctor's recommendation to use the drug.Last fall, however, the high court refused to hear a separate Bush administration request to consider whether the federal government can punish doctors for recommending the drug to sick patients.The case is Ashcroft v. Raich, 03-1454.On the Net:Marijuana Policy Project: http://www.mpp.org/Supreme Court: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/Source: Associated Press Author: Anne Gearan, Associated Press Published: Monday, June 28, 2004Copyright: 2004 The Associated Press Related Articles & Web Site:Raich v. Ashcroft in PDFhttp://freedomtoexhale.com/ruling.pdfSupreme Court May Take Up Pot Casehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19073.shtmlStage Set for Legal Showdown Over Pot http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread18876.shtmlPot Luck: A Victory for Federalism http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread18005.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #10 posted by cloud7 on June 29, 2004 at 09:30:52 PT
Looking more closely...
The ruling you talked about had only the minor positive of allowing detained suspects the right to contest the charges in a court; the rest of the ruling basically stated that the US government has the power to hold citizens and foreign nationals without charges or trial and without interference from judges or lawyers indefinitely. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by John Markes on June 29, 2004 at 06:50:43 PT
Feds screwed up...
The feds argument is easily set aside. The CSA, the federal drug laws are not written to control the use of drugs and dangerous drugs. As the preface to the CSA states, it is for the purpose o preventing recreational drug use. Angel and Diane are clearly using it for medical purposes. Someone pass this on to Angel and tell her I said hello...
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by Dr Ganj on June 28, 2004 at 10:19:54 PT
Supreme Reams
Here we go again. I'll wager big these cretins of the high court will once again stomp on our rights and give more power to the DEA.
This is a horrible time to be an American. I'm truly embarrassed for us. Look at how our system is so thoroughly corrupt, and wrong. 
I hate cops, jailers, bailiffs, judges, prosecutors, and the Supreme Ream Court all the more now.
This world would be so much better off without humans. We have almost ruined this world. Take a look around you, and you'll know I'm right. (Ever been to Detroit, New Jersey, or Cleveland?)
See you all in jail. Oh, when we're all in jail, is that when the war on drugs has been won?  
http://www.cdc.state.ca.us/InstitutionsDiv/INSTDIV/facilities/fac_prison_SQ.asp
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by cloud7 on June 28, 2004 at 09:41:16 PT
Max Flowers
While that is a good ruling, they also recently ruled that we only have the right to remain silent after we've been arrested (having to tell the police our names if they ask).
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by Sam Adams on June 28, 2004 at 09:36:01 PT
Britain
Max - england has been that way for a lot longer than 225 years. They ended slavery completely in 1833. So, American blacks got screwed. If we had not fought the Revolutionary War, they would have been free 32 years earlier.From what I've read, there was a lot of rebellion against the upper class brewing in the colonies in the 1700's. The territory was huge and the government small (no standing army or police), the rich had no means to ensure their exploitation.So they turned the poor & middle classes against King Charles instead of them. Very convenient. This also meant they wouldn't have to share their riches with King Charles every again.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by Richard Paul Zuckerm on June 28, 2004 at 09:35:49 PT:
INTERSTATE COMMERCE CLAUSE JURISPRUDENCE 
I hope The Court narrows federal jurisdiction from the interstate commerce clause. Moreover, I hope The Court, at least a dissenting opinion, addresses the validity of the Cannabis laws, www.judgesagainstthedrugwar.org, State v. Mallan, 950 P.2d 178, 208-209, 218-219 (Hawaii 1998)(Dissenting opinion by Justice Levinson). The Canadian Supreme Court decision, about six months ago, had a fine dissenting opinion joined by a number of Canadian Supreme Court Justices on the validity of Cannabis laws! I'd like to see Justice Stevens, Thomas, and the others comment on why there are laws against Cannabis in light of absolutely NO LETHAL DOSE and it's industrial and potential therapeutic benefits! Richard Paul Zuckerman, Box 159, Metuchen, New Jersey, 08840-0159, (Cell telephone number)(908) 403-6990, richardzuckerman2002 yahoo.com.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by FoM on June 28, 2004 at 09:32:19 PT
News Brief from United Press International
Court To Hear Medical Marijuana CaseWashington, DC, Jun. 28 (UPI) -- The U.S. Supreme Court Monday said it will review a lower-court ruling that said Congress exceeded its authority when it banned the use of medical marijuana.California has exempted the use of medical marijuana from its criminal laws since a 1996 referendum, and in October 2002 four Californians who use the plant for medical purposes filed suit in federal court against the Justice Department.The group -- three of the four live in Oakland -- said marijuana was prescribed by their physicians for severe medical conditions.A federal judge refused to issue an injunction against the Justice Department for continuing to prosecute those using medical marijuana, but a federal appeals court panel issued a temporary order restraining the department, saying the four were likely to win their case on the merits.The appeals court said Congress, which enacted the Controlled Substances Act under the constitutional clause authorizing it to regulate interstate commerce, exceeded its power under the clause when it included medical marijuana.Copyright: 2004 United Press International
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by Max Flowers on June 28, 2004 at 09:18:52 PT
I feel slightly more hopeful after reading this
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday decided the case of a terror suspect Jose Padilla on narrow procedural grounds and ruled a federal court in New York lacked jurisdiction over the case, a decision that sidestepped whether President Bush has the power to detain him.By a 5-4 vote, the justices ruled that Padilla should have brought the case instead in South Carolina, where he has been held in a U.S. military jail as an "enemy combatant."The four dissenters said they would have decided the heart of the case. "At stake in this case is nothing less than the essence of a free society," Justice John Paul Stevens, one of the dissenters, wrote. [end excerpt]I would have thought that any case about war (war on the American people over cannabis, war on terror, etc) would be ruled in Bush's favor, but looking at this it appears perhaps not. Maybe I won't have to go live in Europe after all.I exchanged email with a cannabis lover in England the other day and he told me how he feels very safe growing and smoking there, and I couldn't help but be bowled over by the incredible irony that Britain, the country which we fought for independence from due to its evil and draconian policies is now, 225+ years later, a country far more likely to respect individual freedoms (like using a healing plant) than "the land of the free".
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by Max Flowers on June 28, 2004 at 08:53:11 PT
Yep, this will be huge either way
If they rule treasonously, to my great sadness I think I will have to try living in another country because I don't think I'll be able to be comfortable at all here anymore, knowing that the SC rules so illogically, at the behest of an illegitimate administration which is so obviously criminal, and in total disregard of the Constitution and what is so clearly the RIGHT ruling... right as in ethically right, which is what justice and law are supposed to be about (or so I thought for so long).
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by cloud7 on June 28, 2004 at 08:09:40 PT
This is it
This will decide clearly whether we are the United States or the United State. The CSA is so blatantly unconstitutional that for the SCOTUS to rule for Ashcroft would be nothing less than outright treason. This case is explicitly about state's rights, regardless of the MMJ issue. Although a near impossibility, just once I would like to see the honored justices pause for a second, actually read the constitution, and issue a proclamation to the effect of "I dont know how this fraud has continued for so long, but the federal government has almost no power within the states. The CSA is unconstitutional and is null and void." But of course, our lords will never give anything other than the most narrow, strained ruling that only the sickest and most needy of the serfs have any rights to keep and grow plants. "Congress passed the Controlled Substances Act to control "all manufacturing, possession and distribution of any" drug it lists, Bush administration Supreme Court lawyer Theodore Olson wrote."That goal cannot be achieved if the intrastate manufacturing, possession and distribution of a drug may occur without any federal regulation." That would really be a shame for the feds to lose so much control. The need for the federal government to regulate the activities within a state's borders as extensively as it does illustrates just how far the CSA violates the principles of our republic. 
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment