cannabisnews.com: Justices React Skeptically Medical-Marijuana Justices React Skeptically Medical-Marijuana Posted by CN Staff on November 29, 2004 at 15:44:43 PT By Jim Puzzanghera, Mercury News Washington Bureau Source: Mercury News Washington -- Several U.S. Supreme Court justices reacted skeptically Monday to the legal arguments of two chronically ill California women seeking immunity from federal prosecution for smoking marijuana because state voters have approved its use for medical purposes.The attorney for Angel Raich, 39, of Oakland and Diane Monson, of Butte County, argued that the federal government was violating the federal constitution in trying to prevent the two women from using marijuana prescribed by doctors, as allowed in California and 10 other states. The marijuana the women smoke to lessen severe chronic pain and avoid reactions from traditional drugs is grown only for their use and therefore is not an interstate commodity that the federal government can regulate, said their attorney, Randy Barnett.But although several members of the court, particularly conservatives, feel strongly about preserving the rights of states, they and other justices appeared critical of Barnett's arguments that medical marijuana users should be immune from federal law that bans the drug as a harmful and addictive controlled substance.Justice Antonin Scalia said it seemed logical that some of the estimated 100,000 Californians who use medical marijuana would buy it in the illegal market, making it an economic commodity that Congress could regulate. And Justice Stephen Breyer said people who believe marijuana should be allowed for medicinal use -- a point of debate in the medical community -- should take their case to the federal Food and Drug Administration first.``Medicine by regulation is better than medicine by referendum,'' Breyer said.The case has ramifications in 10 other states that allow marijuana use for medicinal purposes despite a federal ban on the drug.Paul Clement, who argued the case for the federal government as the acting solicitor general, said allowing ``any little island of lawful possession'' of marijuana would undermine the intent of Congress to ban the drug's use.Complete Title: Justices React Skeptically Medical-Marijuana ArgumentsSource: San Jose Mercury News (CA)Author: Jim Puzzanghera, Mercury News Washington BureauPublished: Monday, November 29, 2004Copyright: 2004 San Jose Mercury NewsContact: letters sjmercury.comWebsite: http://www.sjmercury.com/ Related Articles & Web Sites:Raich vs. Ashcroft http://www.angeljustice.org/Angel Raich v. Ashcroft Newshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/raich.htmCourt Questions Possible Abuse of Pot Lawshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19906.shtmlCourt Weighs Challenge To Medical Marijuanahttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19905.shtmlHigh Court Considers Medical Marijuana Case http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19903.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #13 posted by breeze on November 29, 2004 at 21:43:37 PT All who commented here spoke more than truth I have the urge to write, but cannot add to what realizations you have all presented- in stunning clarity.SamAdams was correct- there was a reason for the book being prescribed, and this was it. There is also a movie, though hard to find.Kaptnemo described the coming horror show with such a zeal that a rare few commentator's could surpass, the coming doom.FOM, MIKEEEE, Observer, Sukoi and others I may have missed- your observation recites wisdom I could only DREAM this nation's population had present.I am truly afraid that the only thing that would warrant a billion person march on the capital at this time, would be a resurrection of the draft. The news, talk shows, and other media certainly demonstrating the importance of this issue, and the wide reaching FREEDOM violations that it will entail. Once a court decides what can be deemed as medicine- and what CANNOT be deemed as medicine, taking the privelege from doctor's solely based on the calculations of commerce and how it is effected by a black market product, is a clear sign that freedom is near its end.This is a blasphemy to all who ever shed blood in the very name of FREEDOM. [ Post Comment ] Comment #12 posted by observer on November 29, 2004 at 17:43:42 PT Rehnquist, Hypocrite Justices appear unlikely to OK medical marijuana http://drugpolicycentral.com/bot/article/montereyherald5633.htm http://www.montereyherald.com/mld/montereyherald/10297780.htm''Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, sick with thyroid cancer, was absent from the bench Monday and is not expected back for the court's five remaining argument sessions this year. Rehnquist, who is receiving chemotherapy and radiation treatments, is working at home, court officials said. He is expected to vote in the medical marijuana case and could write the court's opinion.''I wouldn't doubt if Justice 'Plycidyl' Rhenquist, the biggest hypocrite of them all, is toking up on a fatty to ease his chemo-nausea, right this minute.And who could forget this big hypocrite?1981 -- Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist -- who has, for several months, been taking substantial doses of Placidyl [ethchlorvynol] to relieve intense back pain -- checks into George Washington Hospital for treatment of side effects, including speech so severly slurred that he was frequently incoherent in court and according to a hospital spokesman, he is "hearing things and seeing things that other people did not hear and see." http://www.eskimo.com/~recall/bleed/1227.htm In other words, we'd be locked up and/or committed for that; but the Supreme Hypocrite, he gets a big, white pass.Now, do you suppose he'd have much trouble rationalizing smoking pot himself, to ease his cancer-chemo, while opining that the little people (us) should go to jail for the same?I can't wait to hear his lying pontifications. Oh yeah, this should be good. [ Post Comment ] Comment #11 posted by MikeEEEEE on November 29, 2004 at 17:40:42 PT Kap The last candle of freedom is owned by the united states of corporate america.Yes, have your bags ready, or else cheer to the faith. [ Post Comment ] Comment #10 posted by Sukoi on November 29, 2004 at 17:32:05 PT FoM I agree that Angel did a superb job but Bill was a bit disrespective in at least a few instances. She is such a wonderful woman and I can't hope enough that she prevails. Like you said - bless her heart!!! [ Post Comment ] Comment #9 posted by kaptinemo on November 29, 2004 at 17:29:13 PT: Make no mistake, this is it Many of those who read here are aware of the trend towards greater and greater concentration of Federal power being used against the citizens who ultimately pay for the machinery of that power.Many here have asked themselves, and sometimes each other, what event would it take to cause them to decide to leave the 'Land of the Free' for nations less boastful but more serious about preserving individual liberty.This case is it. This case decides more than the lives of MMJ patients. It decides the course of America as a nation. This is the *absolute last* fork in the road; the last choice before either a new dawn of freedom, or the pit of an overwhelmingly powerful and irrestiable Federal fascism.I realize that this will sound rather melodramatic, but the facts are clear: this case determines the limits of ever-burgeoning, increasingly abused and unaccountable Federal power. Failure to find in favor of Raich/Monson is to declare the States, the last bulwarks against Federal abuses of powers, obsolete. Congress would then be free to legislate and micromanage every aspect of individual life.The name of the country might not change (to preserve the facade for the ignorant) but there would no longer be any 'United States'. Just ONE monolithic State. No need for 50 stars on the blue field of the flag; just one big, bloated one would do. To symbolize the faux 'unity'...a unity of Federal oppression.I sincerely do hope the Chief Justices are indeed playing 'devil's advocate' in their objections; many seem incongruous coming from the mouths of lawyers who are supposedly interested only in facts. Some of the absurd assumptions and speculations made by some of the Chief Justices belong in bull sessions, not the Highest Court of the nation. To hold that anyone with a medical claim who is able to grow their own medicine would seek it on the street is downright ludicrous; the only reason for doing so is lack of legally available supply. Which is the entire thrust of the argument in this case. If this kind of rampant, baseless speculation is truly what the SC defines as sober deliberation, we are indeed in deep doo-doo. Which brings us back to the main point.The SC's finding in favor of Uncle will signal to all who have eyes to see and a mind to reason with that the last candle of freedom has gone out in America. In that case, those who have waited in hope of things improving had better have their bags packed. And those who would ignorantly cheer the Supremes for finding so have no idea of what awaits them eventually, for that kind of power inevitably is turned against those who supported it's use against others. Some people never learn, ever. [ Post Comment ] Comment #8 posted by FoM on November 29, 2004 at 17:19:11 PT Sukoi Angel did a superb job! Bless her heart and Bill O'Reilly was respectful! [ Post Comment ] Comment #7 posted by Sam Adams on November 29, 2004 at 17:15:43 PT looks bad Deja vu. This is exactly what happened last time, before they nailed us 8-0. I would look for 7-1 or 6-2 this time. There's no logic here, let's face it, most of our government institutions have been reduced to empty shells, like a fake storefront in those old Western movie towns. It looks like a saloon but you open the door & see only tumbleweeds. The Canadian SC ruled against cannabis use being protected under their "Charter", even when confronted with the 550,000 deaths to 0 deaths when comparing legal drugs (cigs & booze) to cannabis. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be much justice left around here either. I like the way that Congress is allowed to ban medical MJ because it's mission is to "promote health". It doesn't get any more Orwellian doublespeak than that! I realize now why we read 1984 in high school - it's kind of like the one shot the teachers have to show you the truth in the midst of all the whitewashed bullshit in most of the textbooks. [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by FoM on November 29, 2004 at 17:06:07 PT Thanks Sukoi I turned on Fox! [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by Sukoi on November 29, 2004 at 17:03:47 PT Heads up!!! Angel Raich on the O'Reilly Factor NOW!!! Directv channel 360! [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by FoM on November 29, 2004 at 17:01:46 PT It's About The Money They push pills on tv so much that it seems almost obscene. They don't want people to be able to save money and have a few plants to help themselves because who would go to the doctor and pay all that money out for pharmaceutial drugs then? Liver damage is a big issue with many people because of HepC and HIV etc. Cannabis is too good and doesn't cost much compared to drugs for profit.Cannabis doesn't raise the Liver's enzyme level that I know of. [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by mamawillie on November 29, 2004 at 16:20:46 PT Its gotta withstand the test Think of it this way: if the MMJ argument is valid, then it can and will stand up to all the counter-arguments, both logical and illogical, smart and stupid. Remember, the comments these justices have made don't necessarily reflect what they personally believe. They like to play devil's advocate to see how strong the argument is.If this argument is going to be the one that sets the mmj users free, then it WILL withstand all of these arguments and it will prevail. [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by observer on November 29, 2004 at 16:10:38 PT same old corrupt fossils ``Medicine by regulation is better than medicine by referendum,'' Breyer said.Lying shill. We the people don't want to be locked up for using the cannabis plant. We voted not to be locked up. That is the point. Doc Briar intentionally re-frames this as 'which medicine is "better".' Nonsense. It is a matter of not being locked up for using a plant. Period. Folks, this is a tyranny, it is a despotism. The US isn't a free country, not even close. These corrupted fossils, cat's paws for those in power, the supreme court will of course decide that med patients need the treatment of jail. What's changed since 2001? Same scotus fossils, same anti-freedom attitudes. They will justify themselves (they will confirm their previous anti-mmj rulings) by voting to jail mmj patients. (But of course they won't mention the jail part ... they's not how they frame it.) http://drugpolicycentral.com/bot/ [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by FoM on November 29, 2004 at 16:07:54 PT AP: Excerpts of Medical Marijuana Arguments November 29, 2004 Excerpts from Monday's Supreme Court oral argument on medical marijuana, as transcribed by Alderson Reporting Co.:JUSTICE SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR: "As I understand it, if California's law applies, then none of this homegrown or medical-use marijuana will be on any interstate market. And it is in the area of something traditionally regulated by states."ACTING SOLICITOR GENERAL PAUL CLEMENT: "Well, Justice O'Connor, let me first say that I think it might be a bit optimistic to think that none of the marijuana that's produced consistent with California law would be diverted into the national market for marijuana. And, of course, the Controlled Substances Act is concerned, at almost every step of the act, with a concern about diversion, both of lawful substances from medical to nonmedical uses and from controlled substances under Schedule I into the national market."---CLEMENT: "Any little island of lawful possession of noncontraband marijuana, for example, poses a real challenge to the statutory regime. It would also, I think, frustrate Congress' goal in promoting health. And I think the clearest example of that is the fact that, to the extent there is anything beneficial, health-wise, in marijuana, it's THC, which has been isolated and provided in a pill form."JUSTICE RUTH BADER GINSBURG: "There is, in this record, a showing that, for at least one of the two plaintiffs, there were some 30-odd drugs taken. None of them worked. This was the only one that would. ... If there were to be a prosecution of any of the plaintiffs in this case, would there be any defense?"CLEMENT: "Well, Justice Ginsburg, I think we would take the position, based on our reading of the (2001) Oakland Cannabis case - and, obviously, different justices on this court read the opinion differently and had different views on the extent to which the medical-necessity defense was foreclosed by that opinion - I would imagine the federal government, in that case, if it took the unlikely step of bringing the prosecution in the first place, would be arguing that, on the authority of Oakland Cannabis, the medical-necessity defense was not available."---CLEMENT: "There's something like 400 different chemical components in crude marijuana that one would smoke, and it just sort of belies any logic that all 400 of those would be helpful. ... Smoked marijuana doesn't have much of a future as medicine is, as I think people understand, smoking is harmful. And that's true of tobacco, but it's also true of marijuana. And so the idea that smoked marijuana would be an effective delivery device for medicine, I think, is also something that really doesn't have any future as medicine."---RANDY BARNETT, representing two ill California women: "If you accept the government's definition of economic, then washing dishes, today, would be economic, and that would be within the power of Congress to reach."JUSTICE DAVID H. SOUTER: "You say it's noneconomic because one of these people is a self-grower, another one is getting it from a friend for nothing. But I don't see what reason that you have given, or any reason that you haven't given, for us to believe that, out of - now I'm going to assume, for the sake of argument, 100,000 potential users - everybody is going to get it from a friend or from plants in the back yard. Seems to me the sensible assumption is they're going to get it on the street. And once they get it, under California law, it's not a crime for them to have it and use it. But they're going to get it in the street."BARNETT: "They have a very strong incentive not to get it on the street, because getting it on the street is going to subject them to criminal prosecution, under both California and federal law. ... We are talking about a class of people here who are sick people, who don't necessarily want to violate the law."SOUTER: "And if I am a sick person, I'm going to say, `Look, if they're not prosecuting every kid who buys, what, a nickel bag or whatever you call a small quantity today, they're not going to prosecute me, either.' I mean, there's not going to be any incentive, it seems to me, to avoid the street market."---JUSTICE STEPHEN BREYER: "You know, he grows heroin, cocaine, tomatoes that are going to have genomes in them that could, at some point, lead to tomato children that will eventually affect Boston. You know, we can - oil that's never, in fact, being used, but we want an inventory of it, federally. You know, I can multiply the examples. And you can, too. So you're going to get around all those examples by saying what?"BARNETT: "By saying that it's all going to depend on the regulatory scheme."---JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA: "Congress has applied this theory in other contexts. One is the protection of endangered species. Congress has made it unlawful to possess ivory, for example. It doesn't matter whether you got it lawfully or not. Or eagle feathers, the mere possession of it, whether you got it through interstate commerce or not. And Congress' reasoning is, `We can't tell whether it came through interstate commerce or not, and to try to prove that is just beyond our ability; and, therefore, it is unlawful to possess it, period.' Now, are those laws, likewise, unconstitutional, as going beyond Congress' commerce power?"BARNETT: "Not if they're an essential part of a larger regulatory scheme that would be undercut, unless those activities are reached. ... This class of activities - because it's been isolated by the state of California and is policed by the state of California, so that it's entirely separated from the market." Copyright: 2004 Associated Presshttp://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/breaking_news/10298007.htm?1c [ Post Comment ] Post Comment