cannabisnews.com: Medical Marijuana Advocates Optimistic Medical Marijuana Advocates Optimistic Posted by FoM on August 30, 2000 at 16:33:19 PT By Jim Herron Zamora & Ulysses Torassa Source: San Francisco Examiner Despite the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling barring distribution of medicinal marijuana in California to people whose doctors prescribe it, local cannabis supporters are optimistic they will win the fight in the long run.Supporters, including San Francisco District Attorney Terence Hallinan, said Tuesday that they are not quite willing to give up the court battle. But they concede that the quest to legalize the medical use of marijuana will most likely be resolved in Congress and the White House rather than in court. "The federal classification of marijuana as a drug with no medical benefit is a case where the federal law is wrong," Hallinan said. "We hoped the courts would agree with the doctors on this. ... But I guess we may have to fight to change the law. We did it in California. We can do it nationally as well."The 7-1 ruling Tuesday, in response to an emergency request from the Clinton administration, postponed the effect of a federal court ruling that would have allowed the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative to distribute the illegal drug for medicinal use.But although it is the first time the Supreme Court has weighed in on the issue, it does not mean the justices have made their final decision on medical marijuana.Tuesday's brief order from the high court is a stay that suspends a lower court ruling — one favorable to cannabis advocates — until the issue could be appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and then heard by the Supreme Court. No dates have been set for the next round of appeals."This is just a small bump in the road," said Robert Raich, lawyer for the marijuana club. "The important decisions in this case will be made later."Hallinan and other supporters hope a new president and new Congress may be willing to revisit federal laws banning medical marijuana early next year.A Victory in Public Opinion:"Whether or not we prevail in court, we have always prevailed in the court of public opinion," said Jeff Jones, the cooperative's director and the lead plaintiff in the underlying suit. "There was a Gallup poll in March of 1999 stating that 73 percent of the people interviewed supported a patient's right to have access to cannabis as medicine."Tuesday's order was the latest development in a four-year conflict between federal narcotics laws and Proposition 215, the 1996 voter initiative that legalized medical marijuana in California."The federal government is way out of touch with medical reality and public opinion on this issue," said Hallinan, one of California's most vocal supporters of medical marijuana. "This is a step backward, but ultimately I think it will force the U.S. government to come to grips with this issue."This case raises a major conflict between state law and federal law. It's a states-rights issue with an interesting twist. This Supreme Court has been leaning in the direction of protecting states' rights. Let's see how the justices go when it comes to the rights of patients who are suffering from AIDS, cancer and other life-threatening illnesses," Hallinan said.Justice Department spokeswoman Gretchen Michael declined comment on Tuesday's ruling, which came out of a ruling last fall by the 9th Circuit.In that case, the court ruled that "medical necessity" is a "legally cognizable defense" to a charge of distributing drugs in violation of a federal law, the Controlled Substances Act.Because of that ruling, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer said in July that the Oakland cooperative could provide marijuana to people facing imminent harm from serious medical conditions and for whom legal alternatives to marijuana do not work or cause intolerable side effects. The club had sued to challenge its 1998 closure by federal agents.Threat To Drug Law Enforcement:On appeal, the Justice Department told the high court late last month that the ruling "threatens the government's ability to enforce the federal drug laws in the nine states within the 9th Circuit," with a total population of nearly 50 million. The Justice Department said the 9th Circuit's ruling created "incentives for drug manufacturers and distributors to invoke the asserted needs of others as a justification for their drug trafficking" and would "promote disrespect and disregard for an act of Congress that is central to combating illicit drug trafficking and use by giving a judicial stamp of approval to the open and notorious distribution of (illegal) substances to potentially thousands of users."Raich and other lawyers for the marijuana club argued that the government's emergency request be rejected."The government has provided no evidence that states ... that have passed medical cannabis laws have any difficulty prosecuting violations of their drug statutes," he argued to the Supreme Court.So far seven states besides California — Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, Oregon and Washington — have passed initiatives similar to Prop. 215. The seven justices did not discuss the reasons for Tuesday's ruling. Justice Stephen G. Breyer disqualified himself from the case because he is the brother of Judge Charles Breyer.The only dissenter, Justice John Paul Stevens, agreed with Raich that the government had not met the burden of proof.Federal officials, Stevens wrote, "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."Meanwhile, the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative remains open at its downtown office. It continues to issue identification cards for prospective users, provides information on medical marijuana and sells legal hemp products, like clothing.But it does not sell marijuana."We will comply with all orders of the court," Jones said.By Jim Herron Zamora & Ulysses Torassa of The Examiner StaffPublished: Wednesday, August 30, 2000 Source: San Francisco Examiner (CA) Copyright: 2000 San Francisco Examiner Contact: letters examiner.com Website: http://www.examiner.com/ Related Articles & Web Site:Oakland Cannabis Buyer's Cooperativehttp://www.rxcbc.org/ Medical Marijuana Sales At Standstill http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread6877.shtmlMedicinal Pot Use Set Backhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread6876.shtmlCalif. 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 Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #2 posted by dddd on August 30, 2000 at 21:35:19 PT optimism Yup,,I'm optimistic.These recent weird,egregious assaults on the California MMJ legalities,is going to backfire on the obscured demagogues,who are going thru the desperate death throes,of a dying monster,that will continue to do all it can to maintain its evil,and mean-spirited blasphemy of the rights,and freedoms of the now dimented dimockracy,that used to be the USA ....................dddd [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by freedom fighter on August 30, 2000 at 17:42:24 PT It's interesting that I could not find any comments from the 7 judges.Just one dissenter,Federal officials, Stevens wrote, "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."(More news from Alaska, a judge sentenced a 61 yr old man 17 years for growing the herb. From what I read, it sure made a lot of folks pretty incensed down there. I am pretty OPTIMISTIC! We will prevail!) [ Post Comment ] Post Comment Name: Optional Password: E-Mail: Subject: Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message] Link URL: Link Title: