cannabisnews.com: Court To Hear Marijuana Case





Court To Hear Marijuana Case
Posted by CN Staff on November 28, 2004 at 20:29:04 PT
By Charles Lane, Washington Post Staff Writer
Source: Washington Post 
Local sheriff's deputies and U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration agents disagreed when they converged on Diane Monson's house in Oroville, Calif., two years ago. The county cops accepted Monson's explanation for growing six marijuana plants: She had a doctor's permission to smoke it for back pain, so the pot was legal under the state's 1996 "medical marijuana" law.
But the DEA agents insisted that growing marijuana is still against federal law. They seized the plants and destroyed them. Today that federal-state clash continues at the Supreme Court, where the justices will hear oral arguments on whether the Constitution permits the federal government to take action against those who use homegrown marijuana for medicinal reasons within states where it is legal to do so. The case is the third medical pot case to reach the Supreme Court since voters overwhelmingly approved California's Compassionate Use Act. But the legal issues this time give the case importance well beyond the 11 states, mostly in the West, that since 1996 have eased or eliminated penalties for medical use of marijuana. Among these states is Maryland, which last year set a maximum fine of $100 for medical users of less than an ounce of pot. It has wider implications because Monson claims that federal drug busts of people such as her exceed Washington's authority under the commerce clause of the Constitution, which gives Congress the power to regulate trade "among the several states." Last year, the San Francisco-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled 2 to 1 that Monson was right. If the Supreme Court agrees, it could limit the federal government's power over not just the cultivation and use of marijuana, but also other activities. Much modern government regulation exists because the Supreme Court articulated a broad definition of interstate commerce during the 20th century. This permitted the court to uphold, as exercises of Congress's commerce clause power, a wide range of national laws -- from the economic policies of the New Deal to the civil rights era ban on racial segregation in hotels and restaurants. Perhaps the key ruling came in 1942, when the court held that the Roosevelt administration could enforce acreage controls against an Ohio wheat farmer who claimed his crop was entirely for his own use. The court said that even subsistence farming could change the overall supply and price of grain; this "substantial effect on interstate commerce" triggered Congress's authority. But in more recent years, the court has tightened its definition of interstate commerce. In 1995, the court struck down a federal ban on gun possession within 1,000 feet of a school, ruling that Congress's claims that school gun violence had a "substantial effect" on the economy were implausible. And in 2000, the court struck down a federal law giving women a right to sue rapists in federal court, ruling that such violence was not, "in any sense of the phrase, economic activity." Monson and her co-plaintiffs -- Angel McClary Raich, an Oakland woman who suffers from a variety of painful chronic disorders, and two people identified as John Doe One and John Doe Two, who give Raich pot free of charge -- argue that these recent cases favor them, because using small amounts of marijuana they grow for themselves, or passing it along for "compassionate" reasons, cannot affect the broader market for the drug. "This case is and always has been about federalism and state sovereignty," Monson's lawyers argue in their brief. But the Bush administration counters that even small-scale use of a fungible commodity such as marijuana can affect price and quantity in the black market. "Excepting drug activity for personal use or free distribution from the sweep of [federal drug laws] would discourage the consumption of lawful controlled substances and would undermine Congress's intent to regulate the drug market comprehensively to protect public health and safety," the administration argues in its brief. The federalism issue in the case has created unusual alliances. Three conservative Deep South states, Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi, have filed a friend of the court brief supporting the marijuana users on states' rights grounds. "California is entitled to make for itself the tough policy choices that affect its citizens," the states' brief argues. Legal analysts say the likeliest supporter on the court for the marijuana users may also be its most conservative member: Justice Clarence Thomas, who, though a harsh critic of drug abuse, has also written that the court must narrowly define Congress's commerce clause powers. Meanwhile, a liberal environmentalist group, the Community Rights Council, filed a brief in support of the Bush administration, noting the group's interest in "ensuring . . . legislative flexibility to address national concerns." In two previous cases at the Supreme Court, medical marijuana advocates have a split record. In 2001, the court ruled 8 to 0 that there is no "medical necessity" exception to federal drug laws against producing and distributing marijuana, so California's "cannabis clubs" cannot escape prosecution by saying they save lives. But in 2003, the court refused to hear the Bush administration's appeal of a 9th Circuit ruling that said doctors have a right to discuss marijuana as a treatment option with their patients. That left the 9th Circuit ruling on the books. Thus, today's case is critical to the medical marijuana movement. With cannabis clubs unable to distribute pot legally, a doctor's right to recommend it would be meaningless unless users or their friends can grow it themselves. The case is Ashcroft v. Raich, No. 03-1454. A decision is expected by July. Note: Legality of Cultivating Plant for Medical Use Is at Issue.Source: Washington Post (DC)Author: Charles Lane, Washington Post Staff WriterPublished: Monday, November 29, 2004; Page A02 Copyright: 2004 Washington Post Contact: letterstoed washpost.comWebsite: http://www.washingtonpost.com Related Articles & Web Sites:Raich vs. Ashcroft http://www.angeljustice.org/Angel Raich v. Ashcroft Newshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/raich.htmShowdown Over Medical Marijuanahttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19896.shtmlCoping With a Life Full of Pain http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19895.shtmlWomen Make a New Case for Medical Marijuanahttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19893.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #6 posted by OverwhelmSam on November 29, 2004 at 08:45:49 PT
What a Bullshit Argument
If they're so concerned about public health and safety, what about alcohol and tobacco?If the Supreme Court rules against Raich, state's rights to legislate their own issues goes down the tube, and the 10th ammendment will be dead.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by FoM on November 29, 2004 at 07:07:16 PT
Kegan 
Thank you! 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by The GCW on November 29, 2004 at 05:49:44 PT
Court? Crock?
More like the Supreme Crock!We've already won. They will squirm funny, but We are not going to be stopped by some freak show, win or not.Cannabis is good.Period.Black robes don't make that decission.B show.Cannabis is good food, good plant, good meat, (see page 1 of the Bible.) (This is especially for You who just got out of church Sunday and You didn't get it.)This court should make clear what is already truth; cannabis is good; let them use it and grow it; how You regulate it is almost insignificant as long as they have a way...Instead they are going to decide some highway robbery case...The Green Collar Worker
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by afterburner on November 29, 2004 at 05:22:11 PT
Coincidence? 
I just heard on the radio that a chainlink fence is being erected on Parliament Hill. Sound familiar?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by Kegan on November 29, 2004 at 04:39:36 PT
"BC Buddy" has arrived!!!!
From the authors of Mommy's Funny Medicine(http://www.salvagingelectrons.com/mfm) comes:PRESS RELEASENOVEMBER 28, 2004"BC BUDDY" THE BEAVER COMES TO GREET GEORGE W. BUSH ON PARLIAMENT HILL, OTTAWAPictures:http://www.timmeehan.ca/bcb1.jpg 
http://www.timmeehan.ca/bcb2.jpgLeaving his home of mud and sticks in the Canadian Wilderness, the larger than life beaver and cannabis enthusiast has arrived in Ottawa for the upcoming "Smoke Out" on Parliament Hill during the visit of US President 
George W. Bush."When the world's number one prohibitionist comes to visit our nation's capital," said Buddy, "you gotta roll out the red carpet. So I shut off the lights in my garden, packed up my favorite bong, and headed for the Ottawa Valley."Buddy says his mission is to spread the good word through education, and lend his help in any way possible to the Canadian cannabis movement. He hopes to draw attention to the recent polls and studies that show that more Canadians than ever before are using and growing cannabis, and more than half of the country's population would like to see it legalized and regulated."The people have spoken, dude" said the loveable mascot as he satisfied his munchies with a big bowl of twigs and bark. "Prohibition has failed, and the time to straighten this mess out has finally come. I am gonna be out there on November 30th and December 1st, shaking hands and telling people that, hey - pot is not such a bad thing, and we ought to regulate the market. And, like, soon, man.... All the beavers back in my neck of the woods are total weed-lovers."Buddy insists that his cannabis use is strictly medicinal. "Man, I'm tellin'ya... you spend all your time chewing trees down, your jaw is gonna get sore! I wouldn't be able to feed my family if it wasn't for the Northern 
Lights." Buddy then added that his medical marijuana license is still pending, due to the fact that there is a serious shortage of doctors in the remote woodlands. "I hear that is a problem all over the country. That has to change, man."For further information, contact Russell Barth & Christine Lowe at 613-761-6504 or, on the days of the event, at 613-240-8957.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by mayan on November 29, 2004 at 04:22:27 PT
Sickening
But the Bush administration counters that even small-scale use of a fungible commodity such as marijuana can affect price and quantity in the black market. "Excepting drug activity for personal use or free distribution from the sweep of [federal drug laws] would discourage the consumption of lawful controlled substances and would undermine Congress's intent to regulate the drug market comprehensively to protect public health and safety," the administration argues in its brief.In other words, the pharmaceutical companies payed us gobbs of money to keep the herb illegal. "Protect public health"??? That would be comical if it didn't make me sick to my stomach!On an unrelated note, it seems that Britain's "war on some drugs" is going even better than Uncle Sam's...Street price of drugs crashes to record low - Cocaine now cheaper than a glass of wine. Setback for Blair's war against dealers:
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/story.jsp?story=587578A couple articles on the "media blacked out" vote fraud...Jesse Jackson demands Ohio presidential recount, blasts GOP election officials, and says Kerry supports the process:
http://www.freepress.org/departments/display/19/2004/947AMERICAN COUP II:
http://scoop.co.nz/mason/features/?s=usacoupTHE WAY OUT IS THE WAY IN...AMENDED AND RESTATED CITIZENS' COMPLAINT AND PETITION
TO ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK FOR AN INDEPENDENT GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION:
http://www.justicefor911.org/Justicefor911Index_111904.php9/11 Truth LA:
http://www.911truthla.us/Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil - by Michael C. Ruppert:
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/announce.shtml
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment