cannabisnews.com: Justices Skeptical Over Patients' Use Justices Skeptical Over Patients' Use Posted by CN Staff on November 30, 2004 at 10:32:20 PT By Gail Gibson, Sun National Staff Source: Baltimore Sun Washington -- Angel Raich smokes marijuana every two hours to control pain from an inoperable brain tumor and other ailments, and she sees only one outcome if the U.S. Supreme Court allows federal agents to prosecute medical marijuana users."If they decide against me, it means they will be giving me a death sentence," the 39-year-old mother of two from Oakland, Calif., said after her suit against Attorney General John Ashcroft was heard yesterday before the nation's high court. But a skeptical Supreme Court appeared uneasy about taking Raich's side. During yesterday's arguments, several justices questioned whether creating a loophole in federal drug policy for medical marijuana would simply add to the country's illegal drug woes."Not every user is going to get it from a friend or grow it in the back yard. ... They're going to get it on the street," Justice David H. Souter said, noting that the handful of states that allow sick patients to soothe themselves with marijuana would be hard-pressed to weed out recreational smokers."Everybody will say mine is medical," said Justice Stephen G. Breyer, who also questioned why advocates for medical marijuana use had not pressed federal regulators for a change in the drug's classification before taking their fight to the courts."That would seem to me the obvious way to get what they want," Breyer said.At issue is not whether marijuana should be considered a legitimate drug. Instead, the justices must decide whether marijuana that is grown and possessed within a single state - and for which no money trades hands - should be subject to the U.S. Constitution's commerce clause, which regulates interstate trade.That central issue of state's rights means the outcome of the case is hard to predict.Several of the court's more conservative justices - including Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas - also strongly support giving states more power to make and enforce their own laws.Rehnquist, who is undergoing treatment for thyroid cancer, was not on the bench for yesterday's arguments. But he is expected to participate in the case, which will be decided by late spring.How the court rules could have broad implications for the future of the medical use of marijuana. In 1996, California was the first state in the country to adopt a state law allowing marijuana to be used by physically ill patients. Since then, 11 other states have adopted laws allowing medical marijuana use under certain conditions.In Maryland last year, lawmakers approved an "affirmative defense" statute that requires state judges to consider medical use of marijuana as a mitigating factor in any state prosecutions of marijuana crimes.Federal drug laws classify marijuana as a Schedule I narcotic and make no exceptions for medical use. In 2002, Raich and another California woman, Diane Monson, sued Ashcroft and Asa Hutchinson, then head of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, after federal agents cut down six marijuana plants growing on Monson's property. Monson uses the drug to treat chronic back pain.The lawsuit initially failed. But a federal appeals court sided with the two women late last year, saying their drug use did not amount to interstate commerce.Justice Sandra Day O'Connor picked up that theme at yesterday's arguments."None of this home-grown, for medical-use marijuana will be on the interstate market," O'Connor said.Acting Solicitor General Paul D. Clement, who argued the case for the government, disagreed."I think it might be a little bit optimistic to think none of these marijuana plants grown for medical use will be diverted to the interstate market," Clement said.Justice John Paul Stevens returned to the same issue in questioning Randy Barnett, a Boston University law professor, who argued yesterday's case for Raich and Monson. If there were an exception in federal drug policy for medical marijuana, what would the impact be on the illegal drug trade, Stevens asked."Can I pick 'trivial' impact?" Barnett said, predicting the only effect would be a slight reduction in price due to the reduced demand on the illegal market from individuals using marijuana for medical reasons."If you reduce demand, you reduce prices?" Stevens said. "Are you sure?"After the arguments, Raich and Monson told reporters that they each saw marijuana - and this case - as their only hope."I was taking Vioxx. Thank God, I quit Vioxx," Monson said, referring to the anti-inflammatory medicine found to raise the risk of heart attacks, particularly among individuals who had existing heart problems or who took the drug for longer than 18 months. "I feel very confident this is the best medicine for me."Raich offered her own proof: At home in Northern California, she said, she typically smokes marijuana every two hours to ease the pain in her body and to stimulate her appetite. She had to dispense with that schedule to travel across the country for yesterday's court hearing, and her body responded almost immediately, she said.After a day of travel, she suffered muscle spasms and her appetite had vanished - problems usually alleviated, she said, by frequent doses of marijuana that have proved more effective than any mainstream prescription."It is the only medicine that is keeping me here today," she said.Note: Court hears arguments in Calif. medical marijuana case. Source: Baltimore Sun (MD)Author: Gail Gibson, Sun National StaffPublished: November 30, 2004Copyright: 2004 The Baltimore SunContact: letters baltsun.comWebsite: http://www.baltimoresun.com/Related Articles & Web Sites:Raich vs. Ashcroft http://www.angeljustice.org/Angel Raich v. Ashcroft Newshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/raich.htmCourt Hears Medical Marijuana Casehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19919.shtmlPot Case Heard At The Tophttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19918.shtmlHigh Court Must Take Lead in MMJ Debatehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19917.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #14 posted by kaptinemo on December 01, 2004 at 04:14:35 PT: Whadidhesay? Huh? *And, as an aside, how do you think Canada decriminalizing marijuana would affect the border? (Laughter.) PRESIDENT BUSH: It will probably affect those who use marijuana a lot more than it will affect the border.*Non sequiter. Nothing but a total non-sequiter. Bush is a living example. I keep looking for the slot in his suit to stick the floppy in to program him.This says it all: http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/graphics/bush_pope.jpg [ Post Comment ] Comment #13 posted by dr slider on November 30, 2004 at 20:42:12 PT: Pres. Chucklehead What? Is he channeling Rodney Dangerfield?Its comforting to know that as Bush ends this little experiment with government of the people, that'll he'll always be good for a chuckle. [ Post Comment ] Comment #12 posted by FoM on November 30, 2004 at 20:24:48 PT Here's What George Bush Said Today Q My question is to President Bush. After September 11th, there were complaints that the Canada-U.S. border was too porous. Since then there have been many changes. But can you please expand on your vision of the border in the future? Does North America need a common security perimeter? And, as an aside, how do you think Canada decriminalizing marijuana would affect the border? (Laughter.) PRESIDENT BUSH: It will probably affect those who use marijuana a lot more than it will affect the border.http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/11/20041130-4.html [ Post Comment ] Comment #11 posted by dr slider on November 30, 2004 at 20:14:52 PT: justice schmustice "If you reduce demand, you reduce prices? Are you sure?" "Justice" Stevens has apparently never studied the most basic economics. The first thing they teach you is, given free supply, prices rise and fall with demand.Who's paying Angel's lawyer? They're not getting their money's worth. This "rendering of justice" is ignoring the true issues. Was the original classification of cannabis sativa as "schedule one" erroneous? Does it indeed have medical utility? Is it indeed the most non-toxic pharmacologically active substance known to man? Is it INDEED the only thing keeping thousands(millions?) of Americans alive?I know a bit about sober drunks, having met literally thousands in my quest to master or shun that drug. I give thanks that I've the acumen not to be fooled by the "conventional wisdom" about addiction to booze. The one in the White House is the kind that I'd avoid like the plague. The divinely selfrighteous smug and rich pricks that I'd secrectly wish to see in the gutter because he'd not learned the lessons that are the true reason for addictions. We've entered the rabbit hole now. Let nothing surprise you. [ Post Comment ] Comment #10 posted by FoM on November 30, 2004 at 18:33:30 PT The Need To Have Character As we go thru life we meet all different types of people but one thing that always stands out in my mind is a person's character. George Bush lacks qualities that I would find pleasant. He reminds me of a man with an inferiority complex who is stuck on himself and his power. That's not a good combination. That's a dangerous combination. [ Post Comment ] Comment #9 posted by kaptinemo on November 30, 2004 at 18:05:33 PT: Projection FoM, given what has happened these past 4 years, I can't help but think of something I saw on the History Channel recently, about Hitler's (quack) doctor, and all the psychotropic drugs (and truly bizarre and gross stuff I won't go into here) that he gave Hitler. Hitler may have been one of the shrewdest politicians imaginable in his early career, but at the end he was literally a wreak of a man, and the huge doses of meth he was given couldn't have done anything but stoke his incipient paranoia and mania.When some people point out the flaws of others, very often it is to mask the same observation they make about themselves privately. The psychological term for this is projection. When Bush called for nationwide screening for mental illness, I immediately became suspicious of his rationale for doing so. There have been (unsubstantiated, mind you) rumors of his standing up in the middle of meetings and exhibiting glossolalia ( sometimes known as 'speaking in tongues') and was restrained. That might be acceptable in members of certain Christian sects, but such behavior in a person whose fingers hover over the nuclear 'football' is alarming to say the least. I still remember him on the evening of 9/11, facing the reporters gathered around him; to say he had a 'deer in the headlights' look about him is to engage in understatement. Dull, dazed with shock, uncomprehending, skittish...he looked like every sad, sad case of 'zoning' and 'walking wounded' I had ever seen. Nothing since then has caused me to re-appraise his behavior; he is 'not a well man', not in the least. This latest bit is just more confirmation. God help this country. [ Post Comment ] Comment #8 posted by FoM on November 30, 2004 at 17:36:37 PT kaptinemo It was really weird but Bush is really out there in his own world and he never makes sense to me. All I think of is.Yahoo giddy up cowboy! Yee Ha! LOL! [ Post Comment ] Comment #7 posted by kaptinemo on November 30, 2004 at 17:31:44 PT: More ' Madness of King George' I haven't seen this clip, so I must take it on faith Lil' Georgie was at his shallow, smirking best. Is it just me, or is the present government behaving almost like the one The Founders broke away from? I see the same callousness to the entreaties for rationality and compassion, stunning ignorance coupled with acerbic arrogance, and a failure to see beyond the moment to the effect its' actions will have on future generations that caused our forebears to sever relations with what they were formerly proud to call themselves citizens of.It was reported that the number of Americans requesting information about emigrating to Canada tripled immediately after the election. If one assumes the usual ratio of 1 activist for every 10 harboring the same thoughts, the interest is actually much greater. Barring some kind of 'anschluss', I expect that next year Canada might find a small, steady rise in population. Truly ironic, as many of the early settlers in Canada were themselves 'invited' to leave the US for having harbored Royalist loyalties.Now, many Americans may face a similar 'choice'...and make a similar decision. [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by FoM on November 30, 2004 at 11:41:41 PT Dankhank That was weird. I'm tired of their giggles. Why should a substance that always causes people to giggle be illegal? [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by Dankhank on November 30, 2004 at 11:38:46 PT Yes ........ crazy line, wasn't it?The mind races when trying to parse that comment ...Whew! Mozilla Friendly [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by FoM on November 30, 2004 at 11:28:41 PT Did You Hear Bush? He just said that marijuana would effect the person more then the border. That might not be word for word. He grinned too! Weird. [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by FoM on November 30, 2004 at 11:19:51 PT Slate: Dude, Where's My Integrity? Medical marijuana tests the Supreme Court's true love of federalism.By Dahlia LithwickMonday, Nov. 29, 2004http://slate.msn.com/id/2110204/ [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by FoM on November 30, 2004 at 11:15:13 PT Online NewsHour: Audio, Video & Transcript November 29, 2004 Two California patients who use marijuana under the supervision of their doctors are arguing the federal government should not be allowed to overule the state law that permits the use of the drug in their treatment. After a report on the case, a Supreme Court expert discusses Monday's court session. http://audio.pbs.org:8080/ramgen/newshour/expansion/2004/11/29/gi28.rm?altplay=gi28.rmhttp://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/july-dec04/marijuana_11-29.html [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by afterburner on November 30, 2004 at 11:05:48 PT Have You Never Heard of ID Cards, Sir? "Everybody will say mine is medical," said Justice Stephen G. Breyer [ Post Comment ] Post Comment