cannabisnews.com: Top Court Will Take Oakland Pot Case 





Top Court Will Take Oakland Pot Case 
Posted by CN Staff on June 29, 2004 at 10:32:06 PT
By Josh Richman, Staff Writer
Source: Oakland Tribune 
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Monday to hear an Oakland-based case that could bring the ultimate decision on whether people who grow and use marijuana as medicine face federal arrest and prosecution. The court will hear the case this winter and rule by next summer. "This gives us an opportunity to make a nationwide precedent that will benefit patients," said Oakland attorney Robert Raich, among the lawyers for patient Angel McClary Raich, his wife; patient Diane Monson of Oroville; and two unnamed marijuana growers from Oakland.
They sued U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft and Drug Enforcement Administration chief Asa Hutchinson -- since replaced by Karen Tandy -- in 2002, tailoring their case to move the issue beyond the Supreme Court's 2001 ruling in the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative case. In that earlier case, "the Supreme Court was dealing with a cannabis distributor, not individual patients and their caregivers," Robert Raich said Monday. "Legally, the issue the Supreme Court dealt with in that case was just the doctrine of medical necessity for distributors, not the constitutional issues involved in this case." This case's plaintiffs claim federal interference violates their Fifth Amendment due-process rights to be free from pain, prolong their lives and maintain the physician-patient relationship's sanctity. They also argue the Ninth and 10th amendments limit federal power, leaving certain powers -- such as authorizing medical marijuana use -- to states. But the linchpin argument is that the Constitution's commerce clause lets Congress regulate only interstate commerce, and that Californians' medical marijuana use neither crosses state lines nor is commerce. This is the claim that provided the basis for December's 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling, which ordered a federal judge to issue a preliminary injunction barring federal raids against patients and providers at least until the full case is tried. It's that ruling that the U.S. government is appealing to the Supreme Court, claiming it guts federal ability to enforce the Controlled Substances Act's ban on illicit drugs. Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, Oregon and Washington state have similar laws allowing use and cultivation by patients with a doctor's recommendation. Boston University School of Law Professor Randy Barnett, also on the plaintiffs' legal team, said the court will be hard-pressed to rule against his clients. "To find for the government, the court would have to reject its landmark opinions... enforcing the limits on Congress' power under the commerce clause, and that would constitute a marked change in the direction of this court," he said. "This case stands for the proposition that federalism is not just for conservatives." As Marijuana Policy Project's communications director Bruce Mirken put it, the government argues two sick women's marijuana use and two people's cultivation of marijuana for them, all within California, fits the definition of "interstate commerce." "If that's true, then everything is interstate commerce and there are no limits to federal power," Mirken said. "And that should make conservatives' hair stand on end." Angel Raich said Monday she's ready to go to Washington. "I'm excited, I'm scared, I'm nervous and I'm ready," she said. "We literally designed this case to go before the Supreme Court... but going up to the Supreme Court does scare me a little bit because my life is literally on the line here." She has said she uses marijuana to combat scoliosis, temporomandibular joint disease, endometriosis, fibromyalgia, a uterine fibroid tumor and a rotator cuff injury. She also has an inoperable brain tumor and suffers post-traumatic stress disorder from childhood abuse and nonepileptic seizures. "The people really need to understand there is a much bigger issue here than medical cannabis," she said, adding that if she loses, "it really does cut down to the core of our constitution, because then the federal government will have power over who lives and who dies in this country." Mirken noted no matter what happens in this case, it applies only to federal law; medical marijuana patients' and providers' protection from state prosecution under laws passed in California and eight other states will stay intact. "At this point the momentum has become unstoppable for protection of patients...," he said. "This really is a movement that can no longer be stopped."Note: Medical marijuana issue to be ruled on by next summer, justices decide.Source: Oakland Tribune (CA)Author: Josh Richman, Staff WriterPublished: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 Copyright: 2004 MediaNews Group, Inc. Contact: triblet angnewspapers.com Website: http://www.oaklandtribune.com/Related Articles & Web Sites:Raich vs. Ashcroft http://www.angeljustice.org/Medical Marijuana Information Linkshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/medical.htmSupreme Court Justices To Decide MMJ Disputehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19094.shtmlMarijuana Backers Pleased by Justices' Decisionhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19093.shtml 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Post Comment