cannabisnews.com: Supreme Court Is Set To Consider Medical Marijuana Supreme Court Is Set To Consider Medical Marijuana Posted by CN Staff on November 27, 2004 at 17:18:00 PT By The Associated Press Source: New York Times Oakland, Calif. -- Traditional drugs have done little to help Angel Raich. Beset by a nightmarish list of ailments that includes tumors in her brain and uterus, seizures, spasms and nausea, Ms. Raich, 39, says she has been able to find comfort only in marijuana, which was recommended by her doctor. It eases her pain, allows her to rise out of a wheelchair and promotes an appetite that prevents her from wasting away, she said. Her doctor, Frank Lucido, said marijuana was "the only drug of almost three dozen we have tried that works." On Monday, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case that will determine whether Ms. Raich; another plaintiff, Diana Monson; and similar patients in California and 10 other states can continue to use marijuana for medical purposes.At issue is whether Congress has the constitutional authority to enforce federal drug laws in states that allow the use of drugs the federal government has banned.California passed the nation's first so-called medical marijuana law in 1996, allowing patients to smoke and grow marijuana with a doctor's recommendation. The Bush administration, which asserts that marijuana has no medical value, maintains that the California act violates federal drug law."I really hope and pray the justices allow me to live," Ms. Raich said as she crammed a blend of a marijuana variety known as Haze X into a machine that vaporized it inside large balloons. She then inhales the vapor.The case will address questions left unresolved from the first time the court considered the legality of medical marijuana.In 2001, the justices ruled against clubs that distributed medical marijuana, saying they could not claim "medical necessity" of the patient as a defense against federal law enforcement. The ruling led Ms. Raich's supplier in Oakland to close and other cannabis clubs to operate in the shadows.The decision did not address whether the government could block states from adopting their own medical marijuana laws.The federal government took the offensive after the ruling, often over the objections of local officials. It began seizing individuals' medical marijuana and raiding their suppliers. Nowhere was that effort more conspicuous than in the San Francisco Bay area, where the nation's medical marijuana movement was founded.Ms. Raich and Ms. Monson sued Attorney General John Ashcroft. After a two-year legal battle, they won injunctions barring the Justice Department from prosecuting them or their suppliers."This has been a nightmare," said Ms. Monson, a 47-year-old accountant from Oroville whose backyard crop of six marijuana plants was seized in 2002. "I've never sued anyone in my life, never mind the attorney general of the United States of America. For crying out loud, here in California we've voted to allow medical marijuana."She regularly uses marijuana on a doctor's recommendation to alleviate back problems. She says it also helps cope with the recent death of her husband, who had pancreatic cancer.Last December, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, ruled in the plaintiffs' favor. It said that controlling the noncommercial cultivation and use of marijuana exceeded the jurisdiction of Congress.The appeals court said states were free to adopt medical marijuana laws as long as the marijuana was not sold, transported across state lines or used for nonmedicinal purposes. The other states with such laws are Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington.The court ruled that marijuana for medicinal purposes was "different in kind from drug trafficking" and outside the scope of federal oversight.The same court last year said doctors were free to recommend marijuana to their patients. The government appealed, but the Supreme Court declined to hear the case.In June, however, the justices agreed to hear the Raich-Monson case. A ruling is expected to decide the states' rights issue the court left unanswered in 2001.Paul Clement, the acting solicitor general, told the justices in briefs that the government, backed by the 1970 Controlled Substances Act, had the power to regulate the "manufacture, distribution and possession of any controlled substance," even if such activity takes place entirely within one state.Even some states without medical marijuana laws have criticized the federal government's position. Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi told the court they supported "their neighbors' prerogative in our federalist system to serve as laboratories for experimentation."A number of medical groups, doctors and marijuana supporters also wrote the court, saying marijuana benefited sick patients.But Calvina Fay, executive director of the Drug Free America Foundation, an antidrug group that filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case, said in a statement: "We cannot allow individual states to undermine federal antidrug laws. Medical questions should be decided by the F.D.A. - in consultation with the medical profession - not by pro-drug activists preying on public ignorance."The case is Ashcroft v. Raich, 03-1454.Source: New York Times (NY)Published: November 28, 2004Copyright: 2004 The New York Times Company Contact: letters nytimes.com Website: http://www.nytimes.com/ Related Articles & Web Site:Angel Raich v. Ashcroft Newshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/raich.htm Medical-Pot Fight Goes To Justiceshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19888.shtmlSupreme Court To Hear Medical Pot Casehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19887.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #12 posted by FoM on November 28, 2004 at 16:52:55 PT Just a Comment I've been thinking about America and how we are now. The days of fun and games stopped when that dreadful day in September 2001 happened. Then there was a moment in time that there seemed to be hope that life might get a little more back to normal for everyone except those in New York that would have a much harder time. Bin Laden hadn't been caught but it wasn't as important as it was and we just assumed he would be captured or killed. Then Iraq came into the picture. Everything since then has been moving very fast. We need to slow down and see where we are going as a country. I don't know if that will happen but it would be good for us all. Thanks for reading my mini rant. [ Post Comment ] Comment #11 posted by FoM on November 28, 2004 at 10:41:58 PT BGreen Thank you. We now do live in a Theocracy. What is wrong with people who think that Bush is a good guy? He is the worst president in my life. Something is really wrong with America and I don't know if it can be fixed. I am beginning to really dislike self righteous people. They are more corrupt them most people. Maybe the end of world is coming soon. [ Post Comment ] Comment #10 posted by BGreen on November 28, 2004 at 10:24:40 PT Cannabis, Morality and Christianity Since this country is now a Theocracy and since many Christians insist on the "Literal Translation" of the Bible, I was wondering why they rewrite what they don't like? Baptists and Assemblies of God denominations will kick out a member for drinking alcohol without repenting and quitting, even though the Apostle Paul wrote on several occasions that a little wine was good. Jesus turned water into wine, but the "Literalists" have changed the meaning of the word "wine," literally "oinos" which means "Wine." I heard preacher after preacher tell us the wine of the Bible had only a tenth of the amount of alcohol as today's wine and therefore was not intoxicating to those who drank it except in massive amounts.The Assemblies of God mission statement says that ALL alcohol must be avoided because of the harm it does to society. This rewrite of the Bible to suit their own agenda is exactly why they say that cannabis is evil and harmful without Biblical or scientific evidence to back up their belief.The "pick and choose" Christianity is exemplified in a wonderful "letter" to w. shrub. I don't know who the author is but I had some very similar thoughts as this author regarding OTHER things mentioned in the Bible ... especially SLAVES.The Reverend Bud Green***********************************************************President Bush, I need some advice regarding God's Laws and how best to follow themDear President Bush:11/26/04 "ICH" -- Congratulations on your election victory and for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from you and understand why you would propose and support a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. As you said, "in the eyes of God marriage is based between a man a woman." I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18.22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. However, I do need some advice from you regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how best to follow them. 1. Leviticus 25.44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans but not to Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians? 2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21.7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her? 3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanness (Leviticus15.19-24). The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense. 4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord. (Leviticus 1.9) The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them? 5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35.2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it? 6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Leviticus11.10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there degrees of abomination? 7. Leviticus.21.20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here? 8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Leviticus19.27. How should they die? 9. I know from Leviticus 11.6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean. May I still play football if I wear gloves? 10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Leviticus 19.19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Leviticus 24.10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, as we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Leviticus 20.14) I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging. Yours truly, An Inquiring Supporter P.S. I look forward to your answers because there are a number of other issues that I'd like to get settled as soon as you've enlightened me on these ... Thanks again. (In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Information Clearing House has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is Information Clearing House endorsed or sponsored by the originator.) President Bush, I need some advice regarding God's Laws [ Post Comment ] Comment #9 posted by Hope on November 28, 2004 at 08:19:56 PT Stress I shudder to think what it might be doing to our dear ladies. [ Post Comment ] Comment #8 posted by afterburner on November 28, 2004 at 07:23:37 PT Kap, I had a Similar Thought about Karma... just before I read your post.The second irony is that Chief Justice Rehnquist himself now needs that medical cannabis that he fought so hard against.If the Supreme Court Justices would pay attention to Chicago's fines and treatment options as well as the groundswell of states joining the medical cannabis bandwagon, they would realize that the cause of prohibition is already lost in the minds and hearts of the electorate (2004 election results not withstanding). [ Post Comment ] Comment #7 posted by goneposthole on November 28, 2004 at 07:13:00 PT Calvina Fay's 'two minutes of hate' But Calvina Fay, executive director of the Drug Free America Foundation, an antidrug group that filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case, said in a statement: "We cannot allow individual states to undermine federal antidrug laws. Medical questions should be decided by the F.D.A. - in consultation with the medical profession - not by pro-drug activists preying on public ignorance."Sounds like this:"We cannot allow individual states to undermine federal slavery laws. Slavery questions should be decided by the F.S.A. - in consultation with the slavery trade - not by anti-slave activists preying on public ignorance."Little bit ot: Live FREE or die! The New Hampshire Gazette's definition of a chickenhawk:http://www.nhgazette.com/news/chickenhawks/ [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by kaptinemo on November 28, 2004 at 05:16:29 PT: It's karma-uppence time Along the same lines of 'come-uppence' time.The timing of this case, coupled with the disease (and 'treatment') that Mr. Chief Justice Rehnquist is currently suffering from, to be anything but accidental. The word 'irony' is just not strong enough for what I believe is happening.If Mr. Rehnquist's physicians are giving him the same ineffectual (and exhorbitantly expensive) anti-nausea drugs as they gave the 79 year old cancer victim I cared for, he'll still be horrendously, terribly ill...like all those whose suffering he aided and abetted in his rulings against MMJ. The remaining times of lucidity he has on this Earth will be marked with unremitting misery. I expect very shortly we'll be hearing of further health problems leading to news of him being in a comatose state and then his eventual demise in short order.I used to know an old Buddhist who explained the basics of karma to me once. It certainly made sense to me in light of my own religious catechism and life experiences. So, I don't have to wish anyone evil; they usually bring it upon themselves. I tend to believe the Golden Rule has some indefinable spiritual teeth to it. And I believe that Mr. Rehnquist is feeling those teeth gnawing away at him right now. [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by Industrial Strength on November 27, 2004 at 23:48:39 PT God Bless America! The Greatest Country in the World!Treat the sick with subpenas. Liberate the oppressed with bombs. Four More Years! What will y'all think of next? [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by CannabisMark on November 27, 2004 at 20:51:24 PT: Im Sad Sadness overwhealms me. Millions of people look to pot as their only relief from the pain they suffer. Many of these people could die at any moment. As they lie on their deathbed, the government still persists in taking their only hope in life. How cruel can one be? This lady's list of diseases is longer than my shopping list. THE only medication that seems to work for her is pot. Without it she is immobile. FK THE GOVERNMENT AND THEIR CRUEL INTENTIONS! [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by FoM on November 27, 2004 at 19:46:48 PT ekim You're welcome. This is all very nerve racking for me and I bet many of us here. I had my hopes up so high that Kerry would win and then he lost that I'm afraid to get my hopes up again because it hurts too much when we lose. We need good news very badly. [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by ekim on November 27, 2004 at 19:33:30 PT thanks FoM please let the judge be helped buy countless thoughts of good will. as many are watching, hoping, that the care he is receiving refelects all human understanding. http://www.leap.cc/events [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by FoM on November 27, 2004 at 18:44:35 PT Related Article from ScoutNews Rehnquist to Miss Next Supreme Court SessionNovember 27, 2004 Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, who missed the Supreme Court's November argument session while being treated for thyroid cancer, will be absent for the December session as well, the court has announced.The New York Times reported that Kathleen Arberg, the court's public information officer, said Rehnquist was continuing to receive chemotherapy and radiation treatments as an outpatient and was meeting with his law clerks and court officials at his home. Arberg said she had no information on when the 80-year-old chief justice might return to the court.Given the apparent seriousness of his illness, there has been widespread speculation that the chief justice will announce his retirement sometime this winter, the newspaper reported. Jan. 7 will mark his 33rd anniversary on the court. The Supreme Court resumes Monday and will begin hearing arguments in a case that will decide whether patients in 11 states can legally use marijuana for medical reasons.The court has to decide whether states have the power to allow the use of drugs that are banned by the federal government, the Associated Press reported.Currently, the states of Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Oregon, Nevada, Vermont and Washington all have laws that allow the use of medical marijuana, which can't be sold, transported across state lines or used for non-medicinal purposes.The Bush Administration contends that such laws violate federal drug laws and that there is no medical value in marijuana.Copyright: 2004 ScoutNews, LLC. http://www.healthscout.com/news/1/1505299/main.html Angel Raich v. Ashcroft News [ Post Comment ] Post Comment