cannabisnews.com: Marijuana Dispute Gets U.S. Supreme Court Hearing










  Marijuana Dispute Gets U.S. Supreme Court Hearing

Posted by CN Staff on June 28, 2004 at 10:50:13 PT
By Glenn Hall 
Source: Bloomberg.com 

The U.S. Supreme Court re-entered the debate over medical marijuana, agreeing to decide whether states can let seriously ill people use the drug to treat pain and other symptoms. The court will hear the Bush administration's appeal of a lower court decision allowing two California women to use marijuana on their doctors' recommendation. The government says the federal Controlled Substances Act, which makes it a crime to possess, grow and sell marijuana, also bans non-commercial medical use of the substance.
California and seven other states allow medical use of marijuana recommended by a doctor. In a previous marijuana case in 2001, the Supreme Court said there was no ``medical necessity'' exception to the controlled-substance law. Today's case asks whether Congress's authority to regulate interstate commerce allows a ban on medical use of locally grown marijuana. The appeals court ruling ``seriously undermines Congress's comprehensive scheme for the regulation of dangerous drugs,'' Justice Department lawyers said in court papers filed in Washington. Under the decision ``persons operating intrastate could function essentially as unregulated and unsupervised drug manufacturers and pharmacies,'' government lawyers said. The court will hear arguments in its term starting in October and rule by July 2005. The federal government lists marijuana among the most strictly controlled drugs such as LSD and heroin. Advocates of medical use say marijuana can ease cancer patients' nausea from chemotherapy and that it helps treat glaucoma, stimulate AIDS patients' appetite and ease pain for multiple sclerosis sufferers.  Seven Other States The other states that allow medical use of marijuana are Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, Oregon and Washington, government lawyers said in court papers. Today's case was filed by California residents Angel McClary Raich and Diane Monson, whose doctors say all other medicines failed to treat their symptoms or caused intolerable side effects. Raich, of Oakland, suffers from a number of conditions including an inoperable brain tumor, seizures and nausea. She uses marijuana grown free of charge by two caregivers who also joined the suit. Monson, of Oroville, who suffers from chronic back pain and muscle spasms caused by a spinal disease, grows her own marijuana. After federal drug agents raided Monson's home in August 2002, Monson, Raich and the two unidentified caregivers filed suit seeking to stop federal officials from enforcing the controlled-substances law against them.  `Substantial Increase' in Activity A judge ruled for the government. The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed in December and granted a preliminary order barring enforcement of the law against Raich, Monson and the two caregivers. The court said they were likely to win their claim that the federal law didn't apply to them because their activities didn't appear to be linked to interstate commerce. The 9th Circuit returned the case to the judge for further proceedings. In appealing to the Supreme Court, Justice Department lawyers said the ruling ``threatens a substantial increase in the level of prohibited drug activity'' in the nine western states within the 9th Circuit. The government pointed to the Supreme Court's 2001 ruling that ordered the shutdown of the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative in California for violating the federal law. Though that ruling said the law didn't allow a medical necessity defense, it left unresolved whether the law overstepped Congress's authority to regulate interstate commerce. Lawyers for Raich, Monson and the two unidentified caregivers said the women used the drug for ``bona fide medical purposes'' and that Raich's doctor has said she might die without medical marijuana. The case addresses ``the right to preserve one's life'' as well as ``the fundamental right to alleviate unnecessary pain and agony and protect bodily integrity,'' the lawyers said. The case is Ashcroft v. Raich, 03-1454. Complete Title: Medical Marijuana Dispute Gets U.S. Supreme Court Hearing Source: Bloomberg.comAuthor: Glenn HallPublished: June 28, 2004Copyright: 2004 Bloomberg L.P. Contact: ghall bloomberg.netWebsite: http://www.bloomberg.com/Related Articles & Web Sites:Raich vs. Ashcroft http://www.angeljustice.org/Raich v. Ashcroft in PDFhttp://freedomtoexhale.com/ruling.pdfSupreme Court To Decide Medical Marijuana Casehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19080.shtmlSupreme Court To Hear Case on Medical Pothttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19078.shtmlSupreme Court May Take Up Pot Casehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19073.shtml

Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help






 


Comment #32 posted by FoM on June 29, 2004 at 17:57:21 PT

hubbs
Thank you and welcome to CNews. This case is far reaching and is requiring deep thought on my part and I know many of us feel the same way. I just keep thinking that this is it. One way or the other this case is very important. I'm sure over the next few months we'll explore different possible scenarios. We've come this far and won more often then not. The year 2004 could be a real turning point for changing the laws but I guess we will see really soon.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #31 posted by hubbs on June 29, 2004 at 17:31:03 PT

I'm shocked they took the case
Man, if I had bet on the SCOTUS taking this case I would've lost big time. I don't know if it's a good or bad thing. On the bad side they could rule that growing marijuana is manufacturing, and manufacturing anything is commercial (basically Judge Beam's dissenting opinion). On the good side maybe Chief Justice Rehnquist (who wrote the Court's opinions in US v. Morrison and US v. Lopez, which both times invalidated laws that abused Congress' Commerce Clause authority [1]) could be once again telling Congress they've gone too far in their use of the "Commerce Clause" and that the CSA can not be applied to the _noncommercial_ cultivation of marijuana. Remember, Raich v. Ashcroft et al is only about cultivation and not possession.Here's the question: is there SCOTUS president showing that the manufacturing of anything can always be considered commercial? How has the SCOTUS in the past defined "commercial activity?" This case goes much further than medical marijuana. If the SCOTUS rules against Raich et al then many, many activities could be commercialized. For example, if I make a single, original art print it's free speech, if I make ten to give to friends (with no intent of tangible gain) it would be commercial (subject to regulation and taxation).If it's any consolation I believe that Justice Rehnquist is a fair Justice. While I disagree with his politics (there's the understatement of the century) his record as a lawyer, judge and SCOTUS Justice is fair in the fact that he doesn't create law solely out of opinion, he renders decisions from case president.I'm researching this by (believe it or not) reviewing all related SCOTUS cases and how the current and past benches have ruled on them. Please remember, this case has little to do with medical marijuana but what is commercial activity. I'll give you guys the first look at what I find. Just give me a few months. =)BTW, thanks FoM for your noble work here. [1] An opinion from any SCOTUS Justice, including the Chief Justice, carries the same legal weight, but when the opinion is written by the Chief Justice instead of another Justice it "drives the point home with a bigger hammer". I believe Justice Rehnquist is on Raich's side in this case. Believe it or not, IMO Justice Thomas might also side with Raich.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #30 posted by FoM on June 29, 2004 at 10:55:23 PT

Hope
That made me laugh! Thanks!
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #29 posted by Hope on June 29, 2004 at 10:29:50 PT

News Brief
Two hundred nauseous people showed up for the Supreme's hearing on medical marijuana today.Every time a prohibitionist spoke, at least ten people made headlong runs for the doorways, trying to push others out of harms way as they frantically searched for places to puke. The accompanying gagging noises caused other intestinal tract responses in the crowd. It was an astounding case of mass nausea. Court had to be adjourned as clouds of cannabis smoke were pumped into the courtroom in an effort to quell the nausea of the crowd...heretofore to be known as the Barf Brigade.

[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #28 posted by Hope on June 29, 2004 at 10:19:10 PT

Behold, on the Drug War front
The Barf Bag Brigade is bornlol
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #27 posted by FoM on June 29, 2004 at 10:07:06 PT

Hope
I'll volunteer! 
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #26 posted by Hope on June 29, 2004 at 10:02:34 PT

Maybe
we should recruit some others like myself with a delicate gag reflex to be present at the hearings. Every time someone said something stupid...and they will...we could all let our involuntary systems take over and make these awful barfing and gagging sounds that accompany the puking episodes. 
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #25 posted by Hope on June 29, 2004 at 09:53:53 PT

My apologies
to you, Kap. Comment #1 is very serious and right on. The spittle business was just a bit too much for my weak stomach, but I shouldn't have mentioned it. All of this prohibition stuff is too much for my stomach. It makes a weakling out of me. But...I've found that a weak stomach can make statements, too. Like when I got too hot in a vigil at the governor's mansion here in Austin. I tried not to puke on the sidewalk...but the lawn wasn't so lucky.A medicinal puff would have helped that day probably.
 
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #24 posted by FoM on June 29, 2004 at 09:30:43 PT

Dankhank
I thought you might appreciate this link. I was sent this wonderful music. It is called Rarities. Here's a link for all the music that is on the five discs. It won't copy on my computer but it was so kind to receive such a gift. Check it out. My puter doesn't have a DVD just a CD.http://www.neil-rocks.de/rarities.html#Sethttp://www.neil-rocks.de/rarities.html
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #23 posted by dankhank on June 29, 2004 at 09:16:32 PT

Doc on drug War
MikeEEEEE,Ther is already a good doc on the cannabis war ...The movie is called "Grass."You can find it online with P2P browser.700Mb, with a DSL or Cable connect doesn't take long.The copy I got works best in a DiVX player, but that's OK.You can get a DivX player online.KaZaa your ass off ...Google Kazaa Lite ... no adware or crap. there's a site with older versions of KLite on first page of links, pick your poison. ;-)
Resist!!!
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #22 posted by John Markes on June 29, 2004 at 06:49:22 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 #21 posted by JustGetnBy on June 28, 2004 at 20:08:57 PT

Kapt.
  From your mouth to Gods ear ( with a slight detour through my heart.)
  You sure save me a lot of typing, cause you say it for me. Thank You
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #20 posted by fivepounder on June 28, 2004 at 18:39:42 PT

Bad news
The justices deciding to hearing it means a majority do not agree with the standing decision. Not good. Our best bet is the tenacity of the people involved. Angel Raich is tough. But still they can't let this stand. The decision will be totally political.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #19 posted by Virgil on June 28, 2004 at 18:36:13 PT

Cato Institute on Commerce Clause
Here we see what a truly conservative view of the Commerce Clause is. The Cato Institute speaks on the limited powers of government here- http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-216.html
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #18 posted by OverwhelmSam on June 28, 2004 at 17:31:05 PT

They Could Have Simply Refused To Hear The Case
And it would all be over. If they rule for the Bush Administration, we'll have no other option, but to dig up whatever dirt we can against the congressmen who support prohibition, and expose them to the public. At the same time, we will have to throw our full support behind those running for congress who will effect legalization.Hopefully, Americans will wise up and vote the right people into office in the upcoming election.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #17 posted by MikeEEEEE on June 28, 2004 at 17:30:45 PT

Bush administration
I saw Fahrenheit 9/11 today, it's a great documentary. The audience applauded at the end -- I haven't seen that kind of emotion about a movie in a long time. I feel this movie will really help unseat the administration.I hope Michael makes a documentary about the war on drugs.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #16 posted by sukoi on June 28, 2004 at 17:03:28 PT

A related article:
US Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to Pot Ban for Patients
http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGB486A21WD.htmlA side note; this is what the "Fuhrer" said about medical marijuana when he was the "Emporor" of Texas: “I believe each state can choose that decision as they so choose”.
http://www.mpp.org/news/dmn102099.html
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #15 posted by FoM on June 28, 2004 at 16:02:24 PT

Hope
I don't know but would like to know too. In a country where a court rules and another court makes another ruling and on and on I don't know when a person wins. I like yes meaning yes and no meaning no. That's one of the reasons I'm not a lawyer or politician I suppose.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #14 posted by Hope on June 28, 2004 at 15:56:13 PT

July, 2005
At the latest...earliest...sometime in October. Guess this will put MMJ back in the news for a while now. They do have the opportunity, as the Canadian High Court did, do they not, to strike down prohibition laws as unconstitutional?
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #13 posted by kaptinemo on June 28, 2004 at 15:32:13 PT:

Sorry for the gross-out Hope
I get carried away sometimes. But uglier analogies could have come to mind. I recall an African-American magazine cover once having a charicature of Judge Thomas in exactly that kind of attire and pose. The idea was not original, only embellished. But it conveyed the point. For the 'Sue-premes' to fail to cause the background behind the early War on Drugs to NOT be entered into evidence is to demonstrate mass senility. And if someone such as Judge Thomas didn't get a single blip of rising blood pressure after reading *sworn testimonials* liberally sprinkled with ethnic and racial slurs used as justification for Federal laws on drugs, then he's a Stepford Wife android, and they have the real Thomas stashed somewhere.It's why I keep saying that if a jury of modern day Americans, comprising all of our myriad backgrounds and racial compositions, were to have to hear all the old testimonials, the Drug War would be over that month. Too many Blacks,, Hispanics and Asians are unaware the drug laws were aimed SPECIFICALY at them. To use legalese, "with malice aforethought". It's the missing link in the chain so many minority leaders see attached to their necks, still. Think they wouldn't overturn those laws real quick after being made aware of their origin? They can see what it does to their communities. But they don't know it was really meant to be that way. On purpose. Deliberately.That's why the recent movement behind the churches taking an activist, anti-prohibition stand is so important, as most of the denominations involved have significant minority memberships. Word gets around fast in this day and age (smile). Minority community leaders have been complaining that they've felt something viciously biting them for years. But they never seemed to look down and see what was savaging them. Just last week, they have finally looked down. And made the connection between the pain and the drug laws. The truth will out in a court of law, and when that happens, there's no smothering reform anymore. May it start here. With this case.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #12 posted by Hope on June 28, 2004 at 15:30:25 PT

I'm not a legal scholar
But the ninth court's judgement looks pretty tight to me. They must think the government has a case for appeal, or they would have let the judgement stand as it was. I guess.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #11 posted by Hope on June 28, 2004 at 15:24:36 PT

No doubt
This is very serious.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #10 posted by FoM on June 28, 2004 at 15:15:58 PT

What Happens If They Rule Against Us?
Hope this seems very serious to me. This case is as important as anything done so far to bring change to the laws concerning medicinal cannabis. Our country is in turmoil like no other time and because of the Internet and multiple news channels we aren't missing anything. Here are cases that I think are very important that happened during this administration.I thought of three quickly.Killing Tom and Rollie at The Rainbow FarmLocking up Tommy Chong!Raiding Mike and Valerie Corral's Farm
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #9 posted by Hope on June 28, 2004 at 15:03:08 PT

How Supreme are they?
Hopefully, enough to say that marijuana prohibition is completely unconstitutional and immoral. They can, at the very least, tell the feds to get out of the state's businesses. They could change the world and save lives with one pure ruling at best. At worst they will keep us in the same bad situation we are already in.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #8 posted by FoM on June 28, 2004 at 14:49:39 PT

Hope
I really do hope this is it. I have been wondering about the Interstate Commerce Clause. I have thoughts about how this could go but I haven't been able to figure out what the bottom line will be and how the decision will be determined. How many options does the Supreme Court have in this case I wonder? 
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #7 posted by Hope on June 28, 2004 at 14:37:08 PT

FoM
It is! It is! It is! I think it could be, too. *smiling*
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #6 posted by Hope on June 28, 2004 at 14:35:09 PT

Dang!
That was so gross, Kaptinemo. I was eating. Yuck.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #5 posted by global_warming on June 28, 2004 at 14:23:40 PT

Wages of Sin
"Raich, of Oakland, suffers from a number of conditions including an inoperable brain tumor, seizures and nausea. She uses marijuana grown free of charge by two caregivers who also joined the suit. Monson, of Oroville, who suffers from chronic back pain and muscle spasms caused by a spinal disease, grows her own marijuana."The Bush administration should be a bit more concerned about the "polls", cause he's gonna lose. The American people do not want his "cowboy" type of dislexia or arrogance. The Barthwells and Walters, who mutually agree, both whore and bow before the alter of silver.It just sticks in their throats, "medicine" that some poor person can grow. It smacks the face of capitilism and smokey filled rooms of free enterprise.If you have some disdain for Judas (the Iscariot), you will have a belly full of the greedy bastards lineing up to get their small pieces of silver.They are lineing up, with hands out, they come in all sizes and shapes, proffesions. If you believe that they are Christians, you will be surprised, for they bow to the alter of Satan.The greedy bastards cannot live with this possibilty, that people can help themselves, people do not have to go to the high priced rich doctors, people can remain outside of the controls of the greedy bastards.There will come the day, for each of these greedy stooges, when they will have to explain and justify their existence. They will use the same old tired rhetoric, how they were saving the world from the evil ones.Be assured, the anti's agenda has nothing to do with saving the world, it has to do with keeping power over poor people, allowing them to continue to treat poor people like animals.Woe to your heavy hand, woe to your greedy soul, for the cage that is crafted for your tired soul, has been shaped by the cry's of the oppressed, by the tears you have caused, by your anger and confusion, by your selfish greed, and by the length and breadth of your errors in this world.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #4 posted by JSM on June 28, 2004 at 13:58:39 PT

Comment # 1
Kapt,You have a great way of putting this in its proper perspective. Amen brother,JSM
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #3 posted by E_Johnson on June 28, 2004 at 12:59:40 PT

Who will testify at hearings?
Are people lining up already? How are these things organized? How do they make their decisions?
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #2 posted by FoM on June 28, 2004 at 12:56:45 PT

kapt
This is it. This is it. This really is it. I think you get my point. When you throw a pebble in a lake it makes a splash and then it causes ripples in the water. This case will cause ripples like we've never really seen before I believe.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #1 posted by kaptinemo on June 28, 2004 at 12:47:52 PT:

The very heart of prohibition is at stake
And our opponents know it in their bones. The InterState Commerce Clause is THE cornerstone of Fed law regarding illicit drugs; it's tortuous twisting by pols and others these past 90 years has been the main prop holding everything together. Knock it out from underneath and the whole rotten edifice comes crashing down.This is the 'battle royale' we've been waiting for. I can only hope that the entire sordid history of drug prohibition is brought up during the proceedings, so that Clarence Thomas can read and hear for himself what the early DrugWarriors thought about people of his race. If he votes against Raich, then he may as well be licking ghostly spittle from Harry Anslinger's mouth off his face and smile like one of those pre-civil rights era lawn jockey statutes.
[ Post Comment ]





  Post Comment