cannabisnews.com: High Court Must Take Lead in Med Marijuana Debate High Court Must Take Lead in Med Marijuana Debate Posted by CN Staff on November 30, 2004 at 08:03:36 PT By Paul Armentano Source: LewRockwell.com The Supreme Court heard oral arguments yesterday on whether Angel Raich and Diane Monson are legally protected medical patients or common criminals. In the opinions of their physicians and under the laws which govern their home state, both women are medically authorized users of marijuana - a substance they use therapeutically to relieve multiple ailments, including chronic pain, spasms and life-threatening appetite loss. Under federal law, however, both Ms. Raich and Ms. Monson, as well as thousands of seriously ill patients like them, are unrepentant lawbreakers who deserve to be prosecuted and incarcerated for flouting the government's ban on the use and cultivation of marijuana. First, some background. In 1996, voters in California chose overwhelmingly to legalize the physician-supervised use of marijuana. (Nine additional states have since done likewise.) Shortly thereafter, Ms. Raich and Ms. Monson, at the behest of their doctors, began using marijuana for symptomatic relief – a practice each continues to this day. In 2002, in response to a wave of federal arrests and prosecutions of state-authorized, California marijuana patients and providers (including an August 15, 2002 DEA raid on Ms. Monson's own six-plant medical garden), Ms. Raich and Ms. Monson filed suit in federal court seeking to bar the US Justice Department from taking legal action against them for their state-sanctioned use of medicinal cannabis. The pair argued that the federal prosecution of authorized patients who possess and cultivate marijuana for their own personal medical use in compliance with state law was an unconstitutional exercise of Congress' Commerce Clause authority.In December 2003, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 in favor of Ms. Raich and Ms. Monson, finding: "We find the appellants' class of activities – the intrastate, noncommercial cultivation, possession and use of marijuana for personal medical purposes on the advice of a physician – is, in fact, different in kind from drug trafficking. ... Moreover, this limited use is clearly distinct from the broader illicit drug market ... insofar as the medicinal marijuana at issue in this case is not intended for, nor does it enter, the stream of commerce. ... This conclusion, coupled with the public interest considerations and the burden faced by the appellants if, contrary to California law, they are denied access to medicinal marijuana," warrants the court to find in favor of the appellants' request for injunctive relief from federal prosecution.The US Justice Department is now asking the Supreme Court to overturn the 9th Circuit's decision.One of the fundamental questions before the court is whether there exists a recognizable use of marijuana for medicinal purposes that differs from the criminal use and trafficking of marijuana as defined by federal law. Numerous patients, doctors, medical associations (including the American Nurses Association, the American Public Health Association, and the prestigious National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine), as well as 80 percent of the American public say "yes." Federal lawmakers say "no." It's a legal and public health standoff that the High Court must ultimately settle.It isn't supposed to be this way. Throughout history, the public has looked to Congress – not the courts – to be the architects of public policy. Yet, despite decades of mounting scientific evidence in favor of amending the legal status of medical marijuana (as the governments of the Netherlands, Canada and Great Britain have recently elected to do), Congressional lawmakers have chosen to hide their collective heads in the sand. Their abdication of this issue has left seriously ill patients and their advocates with few alternatives: take their issue directly to the voting booth, or take their issue directly to the courts. To date, they have successfully done both.It has been argued that neither voters' plebiscites nor judicial activism makes for sound public policy. In this case, however, Congress has left America's sick and dying few alternatives. By steadfastly refusing to enact rational federal reforms, lawmakers have forced voters, and now the high court, to determine America's federal policy on medical marijuana. For the health and safety of Ms. Raich and Ms. Monson, and for the well-being of the thousands of patients like them who presently enjoy legal protection to use medicinal cannabis under state law, let's hope the court's nine justices do so with more common sense and compassion than that of their legislative brethren in Washington.Complete Title: High Court Must Take Lead in Medical Marijuana Debate Because Politicians Will NotPaul Armentano -- paul norml.org -- is the senior policy analyst for the NORML Foundation in Washington, DC. Newshawk: Cloud7Source: LewRockwell.com (US)Author: Paul ArmentanoPublished: November 30, 2004Copyright: 2004 LewRockwell.comContact: lew lewrockwell.com Website: http://www.lewrockwell.com/Related Articles & Web Sites:NORMLhttp://www.norml.org/Raich vs. Ashcroft http://www.angeljustice.org/Angel Raich v. Ashcroft Newshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/raich.htmIt's State Law vs. Federal Law in MMJ Casehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19913.shtmlStates' Rights Defense Falters in MMJ Casehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19912.shtmlMust The Ill Be Made To Suffer for Meager Gain?http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19910.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #3 posted by kaptinemo on November 30, 2004 at 17:06:52 PT: Not all, Sam True enough, most Americans clearly wouldn't give a damn. Not until they or a loved one are stricken with a disease or injury or both which cannabis alleviates.It has ALWAYS been a minority that led the majority, kicking and screaming, into enlightenment. And for their pains, the minority was often villified, scourged, and yes, killed. And after a length of time, when the minority is eventually exonerated and vindicated, the majority erect statues to them. Usually after some terrible pogrom has taken the lives of many innocents. And the majority, having their consciences pricked, swear they'll never do it again, and that they'll learn from history.And then they sink right back down into the muck again. This present sanctiminiously hypocritical government isn't worth a single MMJ patient's life. Any government so imbued with hate and callous dismissal of human suffering - which it aids and abetts - can never merit respect, only contempt. After all, look what it has done to helpless people in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now, it seeks, in spirit, to apply its' subconscious hankering for eugenics on its' own people by denying the sick the only means of maintaining a shred of quality of life.But so long as there remains a shred of human decency exemplified by that minority I spoke of, I refuse to yield to the temptaion to damn us all. We know who started this, we know who benefits from continuing it, and we know that they are, for all their power, just as mortal as we. And the Grim Reaper is the most egalitarian force in Nature. He doesn't play favorites. A fact which many antis will someday learn to their horror, when a doctor confronts them with the awful truth of their mortality with "You've got cancer." And they must take the horribly painful road of surgery plus chemo. To paraphrase a popular TV commercial..."Karma: it's not just for Buddhists, anymore." [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by Sam Adams on November 30, 2004 at 08:50:53 PT FDA - Fascist Drug Authority? Fascinating insight into the Vioxx debacle - it now looks like the FDA was not merely negligent in allowing Vioxx to be used by millions, but actually guilty of protecting the poison and the corporate profiteers behind it.This was buried under the Business section of the newspaper - to me it's shocking, it should have been page 1. This should be available to read today & tomorrow -(tuesday &wed)http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2004/11/30/vioxx_studys_publication_derailed_by_fda_queries/Now, what was the SC saying about working with federal regulators again? What a joke. What a pitiful, cruel joke our society & its government have become.America - the land of gluttony, laziness, and apathy, with a government that represents those values precisely. We're fat, dumb slobs & the government is using that to enslave us. [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by tokenitallup4162 on November 30, 2004 at 08:14:49 PT: GODSPEED HOPE ALL GOES WELL FOR MS RAICH AND MS MONSON, I HOPE THEY SEE SOME COMPASSION WITH THESE LADIES, GODSPEED, A FRIEND, TOKER [ Post Comment ] Post Comment