cannabisnews.com: High Court To Take Oakland Pot Case 










  High Court To Take Oakland Pot Case 

Posted by CN Staff on November 25, 2004 at 07:55:34 PT
By Josh Richman, Staff Writer 
Source: Daily Review 

Oakland's Angel Raich says the marijuana she uses to keep herself out of pain and alive is grown in California and given to her free of charge. It's neither "interstate" nor "commerce," and so it's beyond the reach of Congress' regulation, she and her lawyers claim. On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear their arguments in a case that will decide whether the federal government should be permanently barred from prosecuting medical marijuana patients and providers.
It's a classically conservative argument for a classically liberal cause -- perhaps the only way to ever convince this Supreme Court to sign off on letting someone smoke marijuana. "Federalism is not just for conservatives," says Boston University law professor Randy Barnett, in what has become a sort of medical marijuana mantra. He'll argue the case to the high court Monday on behalf of Raich and her cohorts: patient Diane Monson of Oroville and two unnamed Bay Area people who supply Raich with marijuana. Barnett says his argument "reinforces the value of federalism, which all members of this court at one time or another have expressed great sympathy for ... and it's the appeal of that general principle which we believe will appeal to the majority of the court." The government -- which doesn't differentiate between "medical" marijuana and any other kind, deeming it all illegal -- argues Congress does have the power to control Raich and Monson's drug because it's inextricably tied to the illegal interstate and international marijuana market. This case's seeds were sown long before it was actually filed in October 2002. It rose from the ashes of the Supreme Court's May 2001 decision in the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative's case, in which the high court ruled there's no medical necessity exception to the Controlled Substances Act, which deems marijuana to have no valid medical use. But the court that day stressed it wasn't ruling on the constitutional questions underlying the medical marijuana debate, and so Raich, Monson and their lawyers set out to tailor-make a case raising exactly those issues. Raich says 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. Monson says she uses marijuana to control chronic back pain. When her home was raided in August 2002, local deputies and a local prosecutor agreed her six marijuana plants were within county guidelines under state law, but DEA agents took the plants without charging her with any crime. Their lawsuit raises four distinct issues: The Ninth and 10th amendments limit federal power, leaving certain powers -- such as authorizing medical marijuana use -- to the states. Federal interference violates the Fifth Amendment due-process rights of Californians to be free from pain, prolong their lives and maintain the physician-patient relationship's sanctity. Medical necessity provides an exception to the federal ban on marijuana -- an argument struck down by the Supreme Court in the OCBC case for distributors, but not necessarily for patients. The Constitution's commerce clause lets Congress regulate only interstate commerce, and Californians' medical marijuana use neither crosses state lines nor is commerce. It's that fourth claim, the commerce clause claim, on which the Supreme Court will hear arguments Monday. In March 2003 a federal judge in San Francisco denied the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction to halt federal raids on medical marijuana patients and providers. But in December 2003 a panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals voted 2-1 to reverse that ruling, finding the plaintiffs had shown a strong likelihood they could prevail at trial on their commerce clause claim, and ordering the trial judge to enter a preliminary injunction protecting Raich and Monson against federal raids. That injunction has been considered to apply to those "similarly situated," effectively tying the federal government's hands in prosecuting medical marijuana patients and providers throughout the eight 9th Circuit states that have adopted medical marijuana laws. The federal government appealed to the Supreme Court to reverse the appeals court and void the injunction. The government claims it has a right to regulate local activity that is an essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity. Marijuana trafficking regularly crosses state lines and involves money changing hands, it says, and all marijuana -- even when grown and given within a single state -- affects the overall black-market supply and so is subject to a federal ban. This case's issue resonates well beyond the 9th Circuit and beyond states with medical marijuana laws. California, joined by the states of Washington and Maryland, filed a friend-of-the-court brief on the Raich-Monson team's behalf -- as did Alabama, joined by Louisiana and Mississippi. Those Deep South states don't have medical marijuana laws and aren't likely to have them anytime soon, yet they feel strongly about keeping Congress from wielding power the Constitution doesn't award it. Call it modern conservatism, call it lingering resentment from Confederate days of yore -- whatever it is, this case has created some decidedly odd bedfellows. "This is such an obvious issue that, although certain entities in the federal government don't understand it, the overwhelming majority of Americans do," said Oakland attorney Robert Raich, a member of the patients' and providers' legal team, and Angel Raich's husband.Note: Justices on Monday will hear claim that medical marijuana does not violate interstate commerce laws.An archive of all documents filed in this case is available at: http://www.angeljustice.org/Source: Daily Review, The (CA)Author: Josh Richman, Staff WriterPublished: Thursday, November 25, 2004Copyright: 2004 MediaNews Group, Inc.Contact: revlet angnewspapers.comWebsite: http://www.dailyreviewonline.com/Related Articles & Web Sites:Angel Raich v. Ashcroft Newshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/raich.htmOCBC Vs. US Government Newshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/mj.htmBush's War On Patientshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19867.shtmlCannabis Fight Enters U.S. High Courthttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19864.shtmlThe Fate of Medical Pothttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19862.shtml Federal Government, Butt Out of Med Marijuanahttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19843.shtml

Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help





Comment #9 posted by FoM on November 27, 2004 at 14:20:32 PT
waynerson
You're welcome. I hope it goes our way.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by waynerson on November 27, 2004 at 13:00:48 PT:
Thanks,FoM & Treeanna
Hopefully it will MAKE A REAL DIFFERENCE!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by kaptinemo on November 25, 2004 at 14:28:02 PT:
This case will shake many foundations
of Constitutional law for decades, because of its' ramifications.The main control the Feds have had over the States has been financial. The threat of with-holding Federally collected taxpayers dollars from States that don't toe Fed lines for a long time held many States from rebelling. But that Fed money has dried up, thanks to this still crappy economy...and with that, the fiscal control wielded over States. The States are waking up to the fact they have less reason for Fed influence because of lessened funds being received. So now, if Feds are forced to let this CLEARLY DEFINED LIMIT on their power stand, the 'sovereign' States will indeed be back on the road to true sovereignty.The flow tide of Fed power has reached a point where a basic decision as to what limits Fed power has to be made. Either we drop the idea of States being bulwarks against central governmental tyranny...or get used to just using your street name and ZIP code for your address, as there won't BE any 'States' after this, and Federal power WILL reign supreme. And we all know how the Feds feel about us, don't we?SO MUCH is at stake here it's mind-blowing. This, of all things, may bring about a resurgence of liberty in this country, as States begin to take back usurped powers. The shock waves of the decision, however it turns out, will be echo-ing for years afterwards.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by Treeanna on November 25, 2004 at 09:36:58 PT
I can answer that question
All the Supremes decision will do at best is provide protection to medical patients within the 9th Circuit from federal prosecution.I imagine that some changes in state laws to protect employees may eventually be enacted, but that will not directly come about due to this case.I also expect the feds to try and weasel around this even if we do win by saying that some folks are operating outside of the definitions contained in the Raich case.
[ Post Comment ]

 


Comment #5 posted by FoM on November 25, 2004 at 09:20:52 PT

Love is a Rose
I love that song. I don't know what CD it is on. We are listening to Neil Young now. We don't listen to much music other then Neil Young's music. Four Strong Winds is one of our favorites too now. I hope he tours this year. I need a Neil Concert big time!
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #4 posted by FoM on November 25, 2004 at 09:16:24 PT

waynerson 
I wish I knew the answer to your question. I hope it really helps if we win. I wish all states had medical marijuana laws. That would be wonderful.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #3 posted by afterburner on November 25, 2004 at 08:46:37 PT

Another Thanksgiving Wish
Happy Thanksgiving, everyone. Big changes are in the air. This has been a year of struggle (as usual, maybe a little more than usual). We have a lot to be thankful for which. More states have come onboard the medical cannabis peace train. More studies have investigated and explained the benefits of cannabis. Despite a possibly hacked election, many city/state medpot/medcan initiatives passed with "flying colors." More public/health professional support has developed despite a vicious, villainous, virulent, vitriolic vendetta.Personally, we have our health (thanks to cannabis), some food to eat, a roof over our heads, clothes on our backs, and some cashflow to play the money game. G --. B -... NEIL YOUNG LYRICS"Love Is A Rose"Love is a rose
but you better not pick it
It only grows when it's on the vine.
A handful of thorns and
you'll know you've missed it
You lose your love
when you say the word "mine".I wanna see what's never been seen,
I wanna live that age old dream.
Come on, lads, we can go together
Let's take the best right now,
Take the best right now.I wanna go to an old hoe-down
Long ago in a western town.
Pick me up cause my feet are draggin'
Give me a lift and I'll hay your wagon.Love is a rose
but you better not pick it
It only grows when it's on the vine.
A handful of thorns and
you'll know you've missed it
You lose your love
when you say the word "mine".
Mine, mine.Love is a rose, love is a rose.
Love is a rose, love is a rose.http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/neilyoung/loveisarose.html
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #2 posted by waynerson on November 25, 2004 at 08:17:35 PT:

Can anyone answer this question?
I am a Medical Marijuana patient in Oregon.If this case is won in the Supreme Court, will it free up patients to use there medicine and not loose there jobs because employers say they only see federal law as true the law? In other words will this be the law of the land for all states that have a medical marijuana law ?Will this decision give patients federal protection? Thank You! 
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #1 posted by FoM on November 25, 2004 at 08:01:36 PT

A Thanksgiving Wish
I want to wish everyone a Happy Thanksgiving. I hope that we win this case. I know we won't know until maybe spring and I wish they would rule sooner rather then later. I also hope for Peace in the world. No more guns and war would be wonderful. Have a great day everyone!
[ Post Comment ]





  Post Comment