cannabisnews.com: Medicinal Pot Use Set Back Medicinal Pot Use Set Back Posted by FoM on August 30, 2000 at 09:13:49 PT By Martin Kasindorf, USA TODAY Source: USA Today The U.S. Supreme Court issued an emergency order Tuesday barring an Oakland, Calif., cooperative from distributing marijuana to members whose doctors prescribe the narcotic to relieve pain. The order sends a non-binding but chilling message to 35 other clubs currently supplying medicinal marijuana to 20,000 Californians under Proposition 215, a 1996 ballot initiative being challenged by the Justice Department. Also placed under a legal cloud Tuesday were similar laws that have been passed in Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, Oregon and Washington state. Voting 7-1, the court granted the Clinton administration's request to delay an order by U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco that makes "medical necessity" a defense to the federal Controlled Substances Act. The Supreme Court action prevents the 2,200-member Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative from supplying marijuana until further appeals can be heard. Jesse Choper, a University of California-Berkeley law professor, says the order has "substantial significance" in all eight states. He says the ruling signals that federal law penalizing all marijuana use must be followed until a final decision is made on the constitutional right to medicinal use of the substance.Proposition 215 has aroused the federal government's ire because it exempts patients from state penalties for growing, possessing and using marijuana for pain relief on a doctor's recommendation.The Justice Department sued six San Francisco Bay Area cannabis cooperatives in 1998, obtaining court injunctions against all. The Oakland cooperative was the only one to appeal. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed Breyer's original ruling against the club. After Breyer modified his injunction to permit marijuana use under highly restrictive conditions, Justice lawyers sought emergency help from Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. She referred the request to the full court. Justice Stephen Breyer disqualified himself because the trial judge is his brother.Writing in dissent Tuesday, Justice John Paul Stevens said the government "has failed to demonstrate that the denial of necessary medicine to seriously ill and dying patients will advance the public interest or that the failure to enjoin the distribution of such medicine will impair the orderly enforcement of federal criminal statutes."Jeff Jones, director of the Oakland cooperative, said he was confident of winning in the Supreme Court when and if the case is heard there. Contributing: Jessie HalladaySource: USA Today (US)Copyright: 2000 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.Contact: editor usatoday.comAddress: 1000 Wilson Blvd., Arlington VA 22229Fax: (703) 247-3108Website: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nfront.htmRelated Articles & Web Site:Oakland Cannabis Buyer's Cooperativehttp://www.rxcbc.org/ Calif. Clinic's Marijuana Distribution Barred http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread6873.shtmlMedical Marijuana Decision a Death Sentencehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread6871.shtmlSupreme Court Bars Distribution of Med. Marijuana http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread6868.shtmlCannabisNews Medical Marijuana Archives:http://cannabisnews.com/news/list/medical.shtml END SNIP --> Snipped Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #7 posted by Mari on August 31, 2000 at 08:01:34 PT: MSNBC Poll When I was up to vote last night the tally stood at 8% against/92%for legalisation!I have been going around feeling like I'd been stomach punched since this ruling was released.The numb is starting to wear off and now I am getting MAD!!We need every lawyer,every pol,every public person to file friend of the court briefs on this matter.We should have those reports from around the world showing the benifits and lack of harm of MMJ included in these briefs.And maybe we should consider a mass rally at the Supreme Court when this case comes before them.We have 1year to get our collective act together and put together the largest protest this country has ever seen.We need to make people understand that this case is about more than just the MMJ question.It is about wether or not the Congress can pass laws that have no constitutional or any other basis other than political expediance.The precedent this case may set could determine wether or not we can remain a free nation or wether we become a police state compleately.We must begin in our own neigborhoods to alert people to the danger they are in.Perhaps we can formulate a flyer that each of us can print off at home or have printed and start going door to door distributing them.We can pass them out at stores,courthouses,churches,anywhere people gather.We won't convince everyone,even during the Revolutionary War there were those opposed to freedom.But if we don't make every effort at our disposal NOW we will have no recourse later but emmigration or bloody revolution.I prefer the path of peace,but I will not stand by and watch the country my ancestors helped found be destroyed by greedy,evil men.They must be stopped!How much is your freedom worth?We can not sit back and take a wait and see attitude.We must act or submit. [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by FoM on August 30, 2000 at 19:11:52 PT 88 Percent is plenty to know we mean it! Hi Rainbow, I don't think you can vote more then once on MSNBC Polls but I could be wrong. Do they need a ton of bricks to fall on their heads until they get what the people want? Yes! Peace, FoM! [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by Rainbow on August 30, 2000 at 19:06:00 PT MSNBC poll The vote sure looks oveerwhelming. Hopefully people have not voted twice. This is amazing to be sure9:32 CST 8/30/00Should marijuana be legalized for medical use? * 10947 responses Yes 88% No 12% Get out the emails. Send one to Algore, scrub and the little tyRANT McCzar. I once again fired teh bozo but this time I fire the whole damn lot of the animals.I am mad and ready to throw a TV out the window. This government of "ours" is NOT.I can get a feeling of what the Vietnam protestors were going through.PeaceRainbow [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by kaptinemo on August 30, 2000 at 17:29:24 PT: The Imperial Court doesn't really want the plebian comments of the hoi polloi ruining their carefully contrived facade of decorum and sobriety:The URL is:http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/comments.htmlIt reads as follows:WHERE TO SEND COMMENTSTechnical questions about this Website should be directed to the GPO Access User Support Team by e-mail to gpoaccess gpo.gov, or by telephone to (888) 293-6498 [(202) 512-1530 from the D.C. metro area]. Substantive questions should be directed, in writing, to the Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, DC 20543.which will, of course, be promptly disposed of without even being opened, by the Supremes' lackeys.Someone should inform these nine Alzheimers-ridden geriatrics how to use a computer. We *are* in the 21st Century, right? [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by Dan Hillman on August 30, 2000 at 12:59:51 PT The Supreme Court Panicked The supreme court panicked, and for obvious reasons. The drug war which they have so faithfully upheld all these decades is coming apart at the seams. From one end of the country to the other, polls and ballots show that people are ready for some kind of basic change in the way illegal drugs, especially marijuana, are handled by the law. For decades the SC has steadily chipped away at the constitution. Lawyers have termed this "the drug exception to the constitution", referring to the way the SC tends to ignore constitutional rights when "drugs" form the basis for police actions. Further, marijuana, since it is by far the most popular illegal drug, is the wellspring of most of the constitution-nullifying rulings the SC has handed down.OF COURSE they are going to protect their interests! NATURALLY they will side with the police, as they have done so consistently though the years. And they did it *pronto*.The SC which usually moves at the speed of molasses in winter jumped up and gave this ruling in a relative matter of *hours*. Make no mistake, the 7 who voted "anti" are in a blind panic. Picture slow-moving judicial royalty, usually very solemn and serious suddenly thrown into a sweating, jerking, screaming panic and you will see what the vote was about.By the way, here's the SC website:http://www.supremecourtus.gov/I can't find any means by which to send feedback to the court. Can you? [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by kaptinemo on August 30, 2000 at 12:35:54 PT: Hoist by their own petard? The antis have really gone and done it, now.They are no doubt smugly slapping each other on the back and trading high-fives. They really put one over on the reformers! If anything demonstrates the lack of prescience these people evidently suffer from, this does. Bad move, guys, really bad move. For years, the Supreme Court has deftly avoided even touching the issue of MMJ. They've had four years to say something, but they haven't. And the antis have moved Heaven and Earth to keep this out of the higher courts for as long as possible. The reason is obvious. The higher this issue rises in the courts, the more notoriety it gains. The more notoriety, the more public interest. The more public interest, the more questions. The more questions, the more specious the answers are revealed to be. Before too long, the whole sordid history of cannabis prohibition may be front-page news. How the laws were specifically targeted at minorities, and how 'driving while Black' came to be. Something the antis cannot possibly afford to become common knowledge.We keep forgetting here that we know a good deal more than the average Joe does about the history of cannabis prohibition. Many people are clueless of the fact that cannabis was legal in this country until 1937. The vast majority of people out there think it *always was* illegal. Such ignorance has enabled the antis to 'put one over' on the sheep. But what if people were told that it was legal, and what happened to make it illegal? How can the antis justify racism?Imagine if every member of a minority had confirmed what they already have guessed; that the drug laws have traditionally been used as an excuse to justify their continued treatment as second class citizens. That's a lot of very angry people, out there.Cities have *burned* as a result of such anger. What we are seeing may very well be the beginning of a repeat of the Ontario Court of Appeals decision taking form here in the States. The OAP, after having to review the facts regarding MMJ, as well as the original basis for the law, came to the conclusion that the law itself was against their Charter. They had no other choice; the reality of the situation finally came home to roost, and the policy was simply untenable for any rational being to cling to. The Supreme Court is obliged to hear all sides in this matter. That means any and all evidence must be weighed when presented. Since it has deigned to finally make a decision regarding this matter, I would believe it is possible for the interested parties to present their cases. Which means, the antis may well be cut down tomorrow by the very body they have today enlisted to help them. It's not over yet, people. Not by a long shot. [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by FoM on August 30, 2000 at 10:56:37 PT Should Marijuana Be Legalized for Medical Use? Please Vote in MSNBC's Poll! If you go to the bottom of the page you can also vote for the article in MSNBC VIEWERS' TOP 10.Should Marijuana Be Legalized for Medical Use? http://www.msnbc.com/news/452895.asp?cp1=1 [ Post Comment ] Post Comment Name: Optional Password: E-Mail: Subject: Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message] Link URL: Link Title: