cannabisnews.com: Supreme Court To Decide Medical Marijuana Case Supreme Court To Decide Medical Marijuana Case Posted by CN Staff on June 28, 2004 at 10:00:07 PT By James Vicini Source: Reuters Washington -- The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Monday to decide whether a law outlawing marijuana applies to medical use by two seriously ill California women whose doctors recommended cannabis for their pain. The high court said it would review a ruling that the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 cannot be applied constitutionally to the manufacture, possession and distribution without charge of marijuana for medical use. The ruling by a U.S. appeals court in San Francisco found the two women had demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on their claim that the federal law, as applied to them, is an unconstitutional use of Congress's power to regulate commerce among the states. "The cultivation, possession and use of marijuana for medicinal purposes and not for exchange or distribution is not properly characterized as commercial or economic activity," the appeals court said. It said marijuana used for medical purposes was different from drug trafficking. The lawsuit had been brought in 2002 by Angel Raich, who has an inoperable brain tumor and other medical problems, and Diane Monson, who suffers from severe back pain. Their doctors recommended they use marijuana to relieve their pain. Monson cultivates her own marijuana while two of Raich's caregivers grow the marijuana and provide it to her free of charge. In 2002, Drug Enforcement Administration agents destroyed six cannabis plants seized from Monson's home. Their lawsuit against Attorney General John Ashcroft and the head of the Drug Enforcement Administration sought a court order barring the government from enforcing the federal drug law, as applied to their conduct. A federal judge denied their request, but the appeals court overturned the ruling. Solicitor General Theodore Olson of the Justice Department appealed to the Supreme Court. He said the appeals court ruling has partially invalidated an act of Congress and "substantially undermines" the government's enforcement of the federal drug law. California and at least seven other states -- Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, Oregon and Washington -- have laws allowing medical use of marijuana, Olson said. Another seven states -- Connecticut, Florida, Missouri, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Utah -- are considering adopting their own medical marijuana laws, he said. He said federal law should take precedence over state law in the case. Attorneys for the two women urged the Supreme Court to reject the government's appeal. They said the case implicated "the fundamental right to alleviate unnecessary pain and agony and protect bodily integrity." The justices will hear arguments and then rule in the case during their term that begins in October. The Supreme Court last ruled on the issue in 2001 when it said California cannabis clubs may not distribute marijuana as a "medical necessity" for seriously ill patients. Source: Reuters Author: James Vicini Published: June 28, 2004Copyright: 2004 Reuters Related Articles & Web Sites:Raich vs. Ashcroft http://www.angeljustice.org/Raich v. Ashcroft in PDFhttp://freedomtoexhale.com/ruling.pdfSupreme Court To Hear Case on Medical Pothttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19078.shtmlSupreme Court May Take Up Pot Casehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19073.shtmlStage Set for Legal Showdown Over Pot http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread18876.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #6 posted by John Markes on June 29, 2004 at 06:50:00 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 #5 posted by FoM on June 28, 2004 at 16:56:03 PT Related Article from Common Dreams Supreme Court to Hear Medical Marijuana Case, Historic Ninth Circuit Ruling Protecting Patients Hangs in Balance WASHINGTON - June 28 - The U.S. Supreme Court announced today that it will hear the Bush administration's appeal of an appellate court decision protecting medical marijuana patients from arrest and jail. The case, known as Ashcroft v. Raich, stems from litigation funded by the Washington, D.C.-based Marijuana Policy Project (MPP) and will be heard by the court during the fall term.Last December, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals barred the U.S. Department of Justice from raiding, arresting, or prosecuting two California medical marijuana patients and their caregivers. The court held that the federal government had overstepped its constitutional authority in raiding patients whose medical marijuana activities were noncommercial and did not cross state lines. The ruling stated that "cultivation, possession, and use of marijuana for medicinal purposes and not for exchange or distribution is not properly characterized as commercial or economic activity" and is thus outside federal jurisdiction. Since then, the ruling has been applied in at least three other cases in the Ninth Circuit states that have medical marijuana laws -- Alaska, California, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington -- protecting patients and caregivers from arrest."While a ruling overturning Raich would not invalidate the protections that patients currently enjoy under state law, it would allow John Ashcroft's Justice Department to resume the federal government's war on patients," said MPP Executive Director Robert Kampia. "A ruling in favor of the federal government would mean that the phrase 'interstate commerce,' as used in the Constitution, has become essentially meaningless."For both moral and constitutional reasons, the Supreme Court should uphold the Ninth Circuit's ruling in favor of medical marijuana. Sick and suffering patients should not have to live in fear of armed federal agents breaking down their doors to take away their medicine," said Kampia. "In its appeal, the Justice Department is claiming that two patients and their caregivers who are growing and using medical marijuana within California -- using California seeds, California soil, California water and California equipment -- are somehow engaged in 'interstate commerce.' The Bush administration's assault on the meaning of the 'interstate commerce' clause should be of concern to all conservatives." http://www.commondreams.org/news2004/0628-08.htm Medicinal Cannabis Research Links [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by Agog on June 28, 2004 at 10:43:15 PT Butterfly Effect Economics The DOJ says: the appeals court ruling has partially invalidated an act of Congress and "substantially undermines" the government's enforcement of the federal drug law. Our best hope is a narrow interpretation of the commerce clause as the enabling CSA authority to enter states claiming federal jurisdiction. I fear greatly however that arguments will be deflected from that issue to more of a "compelling interest" of the feds to prosecute the drug war..... look how they've been shredding the Constitution on that argument for decades. Ironically, the most conservative justices on the bench may be our biggest allies in this battle... This could prove to be a real head spinner.Agog [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by FoM on June 28, 2004 at 10:35:32 PT dapoopa In the AP article it said winter. I assume that it is this coming winter after elections. [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by dapoopa on June 28, 2004 at 10:30:22 PT: Well it's about time... This is indeed the Big One. Does anybody know how long it might take for a decision to be handed down?Keeping my fingers crossed... [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by Truth on June 28, 2004 at 10:27:33 PT the big one Time to find out if we live in the land of the free. [ Post Comment ] Post Comment