cannabisnews.com: High Court Considers Medical Marijuana Case 





High Court Considers Medical Marijuana Case 
Posted by CN Staff on November 29, 2004 at 12:21:39 PT
By James Vicini 
Source: Reuters
Washington -- Several U.S. Supreme Court justices expressed reservations on Monday about allowing medical marijuana for sick patients whose doctors have recommended they smoke it for pain. The justices appeared sympathetic to the federal government's argument that it has the power to prosecute or take other action against patients who use home-grown marijuana in states with laws allowing medical use.
The justices are deciding whether a federal law outlawing marijuana applies to two seriously ill California women whose doctors recommended cannabis for their pain. California is one of 10 states allowing medical use of marijuana, experts said. At issue is whether the federal law, the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, amounts to an unconstitutional use of the U.S. Congress' power to regulate commerce among the states and does not apply to medical marijuana. The case is seen as critical to the medical marijuana movement. The Supreme Court last ruled on the issue in 2001 when it said California cannabis clubs may not distribute marijuana as a "medical necessity" for seriously ill patients. The Bush administration appealed to the Supreme Court after a federal appeals court in California ruled that marijuana used for medical purposes was different from drug trafficking. The appeals court said states could adopt medical marijuana laws as long as the marijuana was not sold, transported across state lines or used for nonmedicinal purposes. The lawsuit was brought in 2002 by Angel Raich, who has an inoperable brain tumor and other medical problems, and Diane Monson, who suffers from severe back pain. Their doctors recommended marijuana for their pain. Monson cultivates her own marijuana while two of Raich's caregivers grow the marijuana and provide it to her free of charge. In 2002, Drug Enforcement Administration agents destroyed six cannabis plants seized from Monson's home. Randy Barnett, a law professor at Boston University who argued on behalf of the two women, said medical use of marijuana was a noneconomic activity that falls outside the power of Congress to regulate trade among the states.  SCALIA ASKS ABOUT OTHER LAWS Justice Antonin Scalia said Congress also has adopted endangered species laws making it unlawful to possess items such as eagle feathers or ivory. "Are those laws likewise unconstitutional?" he asked. Justice David Souter asked Barnett about the government's estimate that as many as 100,000 people could use marijuana for medical purposes if the court rules for the two women. Barnett disputed the 100,000 number. But Souter said there could easily be 100,000 cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy in California. He said that would undercut Barnett's argument that the amount of marijuana used for medical purposes would have a "trivial impact" on the market nationwide and on prices. Justice Stephen Breyer said the two women could have gone to U.S. regulators and asked them to allow the use of medical marijuana. If denied, they then could have sued. "That seems to me the obvious way to get what they want," Breyer said. "Medicine by regulation is better than medicine by referendum." The California law was adopted in a voter referendum in 1996. Acting Solicitor General Paul Clement, arguing for the government, cited the health dangers from smoking marijuana. "Smoking is harmful," he said. "It's true of tobacco, but it's also true of marijuana." He said it would be "very hard" for the government to enforce the nation's drug laws if an exception was made for medical marijuana. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, however, told Clement that two recent Supreme Court's rulings limiting the reach of Congress's power to regulate commerce among the states "dictate some concern." Plus, the California law involving home-grown marijuana concerned an "area traditionally regulated by the states," she said. A ruling in the case is due by the end of June. Source: Reuters (Wire)Author: James Vicini Published: November 29, 2004Copyright: Reuters 2004Related Articles & Web Sites:Angel Raich v. Ashcroft Newshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/raich.htmWary Court Considers Medical Marijuanahttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19901.shtmlHigh Court To Hear Medical Marijuana Casehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19899.shtmlCourt To Hear Marijuana Casehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19898.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #6 posted by OverwhelmSam on November 29, 2004 at 22:06:44 PT
Sukoi
It's true. The federal government has no power to enforce drug laws at the state level when the activity is produced and consumed wholly within a state, and they shouldn't according to the constitution. That's up to the states until the activity crosses a state or federal boundary. Only those activities which cross those lines may rightfully be controlled by Congress. Congress has been oversteping their authority since the beginning, but the people and the courts let them get away with it. So much for checks and balances.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by afterburner on November 29, 2004 at 13:57:13 PT
I Hope the *Justices* Are Playing Devil's Advocate
Justice Antonin Scalia said Congress also has adopted endangered species laws making it unlawful to possess items such as eagle feathers or ivory. "Are those laws likewise unconstitutional?" he asked. [Is he kidding? If the federal government had their way, cannabis would become an *extinct* species as they have already done everything in their power to endanger it. If laws against eagle feathers from the national bird are unConstitutional, then go to the legislature and pass a Constitutional Amendment.]Justice David Souter asked Barnett about the government's estimate that as many as 100,000 people could use marijuana for medical purposes if the court rules for the two women. Barnett disputed the 100,000 number. 
But Souter said there could easily be 100,000 cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy in California. He said that would undercut Barnett's argument that the amount of marijuana used for medical purposes would have a "trivial impact" on the market nationwide and on prices. [Which is more important: maintaining the black market price of cannabis or helping as many as “100,000 cancer patients” by easing their pain and nausea. Priorities, people!]Justice Stephen Breyer said the two women could have gone to U.S. regulators and asked them to allow the use of medical marijuana. If denied, they then could have sued. 
"That seems to me the obvious way to get what they want," Breyer said. "Medicine by regulation is better than medicine by referendum." The California law was adopted in a voter referendum in 1996. [Referendum, or more appropriately initiative, *is* a *legal* populist method of enacting laws that the legislators, with their over-reliance on lobby groups and the campaign money they provide, refuse to seriously consider!]Acting Solicitor General Paul Clement, arguing for the government, cited the health dangers from smoking marijuana. "Smoking is harmful," he said. "It's true of tobacco, but it's also true of marijuana." [Research indicates that no one has died from smoking exclusively cannabis. The smoke-a-phobia of the federal government is based on tobacco research. Tobacco is a bronchial constrictor; cannabis is a bronchial dilator. Assuming a correlation between them is totally unscientific. Besides, this so-called health concern is so much “crocodile tears” when so many unhealthy prescription medicines and natural plants are still legal.] 
He said it would be "very hard" for the government to enforce the nation's drug laws if an exception was made for medical marijuana. [If the nation‘s drug laws are so weak that they would be difficult to enforce if the federal government “allowed" medical cannabis, then the legislators should seriously reconsider the entire Controlled Substances Act of 1970.]Nixon the narc 
by Dana Larsen (12 Sept, 2002) Tricky Dick's evil legacy lives on in the modern drug war. http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/2500.html
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by Sukoi on November 29, 2004 at 13:55:31 PT
Taylor121
Neither do I but take a look at what freedom23 posted here in comment #3; that gives me a little hope!http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19901.shtml
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by Taylor121 on November 29, 2004 at 13:42:06 PT:
Well
I don't like the tone of the justices in this article one bit. I don't like what I'm hearing and reading at all.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by Sukoi on November 29, 2004 at 13:05:30 PT
OverwhelmSam
If they rule that the feds are overstepping their bounds with regard to medical marijuana in states where it is legal because there is neither interstate activity nor commerce involved, then wouldn’t that mean that they would be overstepping their bounds with regard to any cultivation or use if there is neither interstate activity nor commerce involved regardless of state laws? How would they differentiate between the two and be able to justify that differentiation?With regard to regulating illegal markets; I’ve thought a lot about that too and you’re right, it doesn’t make sense!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by OverwhelmSam on November 29, 2004 at 12:43:54 PT
Is it possible?
If the Supreme Court rules that it is beyond the power of the federal government to regulate home grown marijuana for medical purposes, then home grown marijuana soley within a state where it is legal for recreational purposes, should be protected too. I'm sure they understand this fact.Another question that bothers me, the Justices ask questions about the impact of medical marijuana on the market, and Congress' power to regulate commerce. They're talking about the marijuana black market here. Is the Supreme Court considering the extent to which Congress' power to regulate commerce includes illegal markets too? Doesn't make sense.
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment