cannabisnews.com: Healing Weed? Healing Weed? Posted by FoM on September 13, 1999 at 18:54:00 PT Court Says Seriously Ill May Have Right to Pot Source: ABC News Medical marijuana users scored a legal victory over the Clinton administration today when a federal appeals court said seriously ill patients may have a right to use the drug despite federal narcotics laws. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals told a federal judge to rethink his order of last year that closed down some Northern California medical marijuana clubs, and consider an exemption for patients who face imminent harm without the drug and have no effective legal alternative. Depending on the judge’s response, the ruling could allow some of the clubs to reopen, at least for the most seriously ill patients. They could still face prosecution under state drug-distribution laws, although some local governments have followed hands-off policies since Californians approved a medical marijuana initiative in 1996. More broadly, the court appeared to recognize the defense of “medical necessity” for federal marijuana prosecutions throughout the nine states that make up the nation’s largest federal circuit. Five of those states — California, Arizona, Oregon, Washington and Alaska — have laws that provide some protection from state prosecution for medical marijuana users. Justice Just Says No But the Justice Department has argued adamantly that no claim of necessity can justify use of a drug that is classified by Congress to be among the most dangerous substances, with no approved medical purpose. The department persuaded U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, whose injunction last year contained no exemption for patients with medical needs for marijuana. But the appeals court said federal law does not rule out such an exemption. The government “has yet to identify any interest it may have in blocking the distribution of marijuana to those with medical needs,” and “has offered no evidence to rebut [a marijuana club’s] evidence that cannabis is the only effective treatment for a large group of seriously ill individuals,” the court said in a 3-0 ruling. Necessity, a commonly argued though rarely successful defense in criminal prosecutions, involves a claim that breaking a law is the only way to prevent a more serious harm. The court said patients would have to show they faced imminent harm, from a serious medical condition, and have found that legal alternatives to marijuana don’t work or cause intolerable side effects. The court did not order Breyer to grant the exception, but said it would be justified by the evidence he has already heard from seriously ill patients and their doctors. The ruling was signed by Judges Mary Schroeder, Stephen Reinhardt and Barry Silverman. “For the first time, we have a clear ruling that the federal Controlled Substances Act is not an absolute bar to the distribution of medical cannabis,” said Gerald Uelmen, a Santa Clara University law professor and lawyer for the Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative. The Justice Department did not return a telephone call about the ruling. Clubs Grew After 1996 Vote Medical marijuana clubs sprang up around California after the November 1996 approval of Proposition 215, which allowed patients with serious illnesses to obtain and use marijuana at their doctors’ recommendation without being prosecuted under state law. The drug is used to relieve pain and other effects of AIDS, cancer and certain other diseases and their treatments. The Justice Department responded by suing six Northern California clubs, saying the absolute federal ban on marijuana distribution overrode Proposition 215. Three of the clubs closed after Breyer’s injunction against marijuana distribution. Two, in Fairfax and Ukiah, have remained open because of a lack of evidence that they were violating the injunction. The sixth, in Oakland, which served 2,000 patient-members, was held in contempt of court by Breyer and ordered to close, despite the city’s attempt to preserve it by declaring a health emergency and designating club officials as city agents. The club has been allowed to reopen for hemp distribution and patient support. Elsewhere in California, patients are getting marijuana from a handful of formal and informal organizations that have avoided prosecution, as well as from private cultivation and illegal street sales. The case is U.S. vs. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative, 98-16950. Pubdate: September 13, 1999Copyright 1999 The Associated Presshttp://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/marijuana990913.html Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #2 posted by FoM on September 14, 1999 at 08:46:43 PT: Medical Marijuana Ruling Hailed By Peter Hartlaub and Emily Gurnon OF THE EXAMINER STAFF Tuesday, September 14, 1999 ©1999 San Francisco Examiner http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/cnews/article.cgi?file=/examiner/hotnews/stories/14/marijuana.dtl Seriously ill patients may have the right to use medical marijuana despite federal narcotics laws, a federal appeals court has ruled. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals told a federal judge on Monday to review his 1998 order that closed the Cannabis Cultivators Club in San Francisco, the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative and other Northern California clubs, and to consider an exemption for patients who face immediate harm without the drug and who have no alternatives. Though it will not immediately open the doors of any local marijuana clubs, the ruling constitutes a victory for patients who say marijuana is the only drug that will ease their suffering. "I'm ecstatic," said Dennis Peron, founder of the Cannabis Cultivators Club and author of the 1996 medical marijuana initiative, Proposition 215. He said the federal government may finally be moving toward the realization that availability of medical cannabis is a life- and-death issue for some users. The ruling reviews U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer's decision last year to shut down the Cannabis Cultivators Club in San Francisco and several other clubs. The government "has yet to identify any interest it may have in blocking the distribution of marijuana to those with medical needs," and "has offered no evidence to rebut (a marijuana club's) evidence that cannabis is the only effective treatment for a large group of seriously ill individuals," the court said in a 3-0 ruling. "Medical necessity' In their decision, the judges seemed to recognize the "medical necessity" defense for federal marijuana prosecutions, which says a person can violate the law when it is the only way to prevent a greater harm. "For the first time, we have a clear ruling that the federal Controlled Substances Act is not an absolute bar to the distribution of medical cannabis," said Gerald Uelmen, a Santa Clara University law professor and lawyer for the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative, which was the appellant in the case. The Justice Department has maintained that no claim of necessity can justify the use of a drug that is classified by Congress to be among the most dangerous substances, with no approved medical purposes. Avram Goldstein, professor emeritus of pharmacology at Stanford, said the issue of medical marijuana should be left for medical science, not the courts, to decide. "I really don't think judges ought to get into the medical business," Goldstein said. "They don't know anything about it." Prop. 215, passed by California voters in 1996, allowed patients to legally possess and grow marijuana for a variety of medical conditions, including AIDS and cancer, if recommended by a doctor. Clash with federal law But the initiative clashed with federal laws against distributing the drug, and the Justice Department sued six Northern California clubs. Breyer issued an injunction in May 1998 barring the clubs from distributing marijuana. Club lawyers presented their "necessity" defense to Breyer a few days after that ruling, but he rejected the argument, and the clubs appealed. Monday's ruling sends the "necessity" defense back to Breyer, asking him to reconsider. The opinion says the government relied "exclusively on its general interest in enforcing its statutes," without addressing the arguments in favor of giving pot to the seriously ill. "It simply rests on the erroneous argument that the district judge was compelled as a matter of law to issue an injunction (that follows the statute)." The 9th District represents nine states. Five of those states * California, Arizona, Oregon, Washington and Alaska * have laws that provide at least limited protection from state prosecution for medical marijuana users. Those who want marijuana can still find it through informal clubs, including several in San Francisco, and through private cultivation and street sales. The Oakland club, which served 2,000 patient-members, has been allowed to reopen for hemp distribution and patient support. State Attorney General Bill Lockyer announced in March that he would not interfere with medical marijuana providers, as long as they operate discreetly. Monday's ruling was signed by Judges Mary Schroeder, Stephen Reinhardt and Barry Silverman. The Associated Press contributed to this report. ©1999 San Francisco Examiner [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by observer on September 13, 1999 at 20:32:28 PT among the most dangerous substances "... no claim of necessity can justify use of a drug thatis classified by Congress to be among the most dangerous substances"That's right! And we can see exactly *why* it was the careful and studied medical opinion of Congress that this should be so, in important factual documentries like this movie: Reefer Madness (1937) http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/6303935419 [ Post Comment ] Post Comment Name: Optional Password: E-Mail: Subject: Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message] Link URL: Link Title: