cannabisnews.com: Medical Marijuana Before Supreme Court 





Medical Marijuana Before Supreme Court 
Posted by CN Staff on November 27, 2004 at 21:14:44 PT
By Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
Source: San Francisco Chronicle
Two Northern California women who say medical marijuana is their only shield from a life of agony take their case to the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday in a clash between federal power to regulate drug use and a state's authority to determine medical care for its residents. It is a case of unusual alliances, with some prominent conservative organizations siding with the patients on the issue of states' rights and limited federal powers. A ruling is due by the end of June. 
This will be the court's first look at medical marijuana since 2001, when the justices upheld the federal shutdown of an Oakland pot dispensary and found no exemption in federal drug laws for claims of medical necessity. The case appears to represent advocates' last hope of winning legal protection from the federal crackdown that began in 1996, when Californians approved the nation's first law allowing patients to use marijuana with a doctor's approval. Similar laws have been passed since then in nine other states: Washington, Oregon, Alaska, Hawaii, Nevada, Colorado, Maine, Vermont and Montana. But federal law since 1970 has classified marijuana as a dangerous drug with no legitimate use and has prohibited possession, cultivation and distribution. The Bush administration has enforced the law aggressively in California, with a series of raids and criminal prosecutions. The question before the court is whether individual patients -- and, possibly, some of their suppliers -- are immune from federal enforcement. The argument goes like this: The Constitution authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce. But no interstate commerce is involved when patients, acting legally under state law, use marijuana that was grown within the state and supplied without charge. The counterargument, by the government and its allies, is that all illicit drug use affects interstate commerce. Even freely supplied marijuana boosts the demand for the drug, reduces the overall supply and may affect the price, the government says; in addition, pot looks the same whether it's grown locally or shipped between states. The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled in favor of the patients last December, saying their use of marijuana was noncommercial and was beyond the power of Congress to prohibit. The court also told federal judges to decide whether the ruling -- if it survives Supreme Court review -- would protect a marijuana cooperative in Oakland, which was closed by a government lawsuit, and another in Santa Cruz, which was raided by federal agents. Snipped:Complete Article: http://www.freedomtoexhale.com/before.htmSource: San Francisco Chronicle (CA)Author: Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff WriterPublished: Sunday, November 28, 2004 - Page A - 1Copyright: 2004 San Francisco Chronicle Contact: letters sfchronicle.comWebsite: http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/ Related Articles & Web Sites:NORMLhttp://www.norml.org/Angel Raich v. Ashcroft Newshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/raich.htmSupreme Court Is Set To Consider Med Marijuanahttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19890.shtmlMedical-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 #1 posted by Sukoi on November 28, 2004 at 04:28:50 PT
An EXCELLENT article about the case:
Pot ShotsAshcroft v. Raich: Medical Marijuana and the Supremeshttp://www.counterpunch.org/gardner11272004.html“Among the feds' arguments is one usually left unspoken: prohibition serves the interests of the pharmaceutical corporations. As expressed in the Solicitor General's brief, "Excepting drug activity for personal use or free distribution from the sweep of the CSA would discourage the consumption of lawful controlled substances." It would also undercut "the incentives for research and development into new legitimate drugs." That's as close as the government has come to acknowledging that wider cannabis use would jeopardize drug-company profits.”
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment