cannabisnews.com: U.S. Justices To Weigh Medical Marijuana Laws U.S. Justices To Weigh Medical Marijuana Laws Posted by FoM on November 28, 2000 at 08:44:53 PT By David G. Savage and Tim Reiterman Source: Los Angeles Times The Supreme Court announced Monday that it will decide the fate of the medical marijuana laws in California and eight other states. The case, to be heard early next year, poses a clash between the strict federal laws against distributing marijuana and California's limited move to legalize its use for those who are seriously ill. In August, the high court tipped its hand by issuing an emergency order that halted the legal distribution of marijuana by a cannabis club in Oakland. Usually, the justices intervene in a pending dispute only when they are convinced that the lower court is wrong. In this case, the federal appeals court based in San Francisco had said that it should be legal to give marijuana to patients whose medical need is apparent. The justices now will decide formally whether there is a "medical necessity" exemption to the zero-tolerance federal drug policy. Four years ago, California voters approved Proposition 215, a measure that authorized patients or their caregivers to get marijuana if they had a doctor's recommendation. Advocates of the Compassionate Use Act--who say marijuana is effective in relieving pain and nausea in some patients who suffer from cancer or AIDS--continued Monday to express optimism, despite the latest in a series of court actions against them. "We would argue that medical necessity, an ancient defense that goes back centuries in Anglo jurisprudence, continues to exist," said Robert A. Raich, attorney for the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative. "Patients have no other effective therapy . . . and they have a right to access to that medicine." Raich said that however the Supreme Court rules, the validity of patients' rights under Proposition 215 will not be affected. The high court indicated that it will be ruling only on whether medical necessity is a valid defense to distribution of marijuana under federal laws, he said. Additionally, Raich said, the club's legal team will argue that--to be consistent with its previous positions on states' rights--the high court should respect the decision of California voters in approving the Compassionate Use Act. Federal officials, however, have ignored such arguments and called for the narrowest reading of federal drug laws. They insist that the state had no power to waive federal narcotics laws, which make it a crime to grow and distribute marijuana. And they add that marijuana has "no currently accepted medical use." Despite this stark dispute, the U.S. Justice Department did not choose to challenge violations of the law simply by prosecuting individual users. Instead, federal lawyers sued six Northern California cannabis clubs and sought court orders making their operations illegal. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer agreed that the state law "directly conflicts with federal law" and that in such situations, the federal power prevails. But last year, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed in part. It said that the law must make an exception for "seriously ill individuals who need cannabis for medical purposes." Its opinion referred to this as a "medical necessity exemption" to the federal drug laws. In July, Breyer revised his order to allow the Oakland club to give marijuana to those who will "suffer imminent harm" if they are denied the drug. The Justice Department reacted quickly and asked the Supreme Court to intervene on an emergency basis. On an 8-1 vote, the justices issued an order that prohibited the legal distribution of marijuana at the Oakland club. Only Justice John Paul Stevens dissented, saying that the "orderly enforcement of federal criminal statutes" was not threatened by the medical use of marijuana. After winning the emergency order, U.S. Solicitor General Seth Waxman petitioned the court and asked for a ruling that reversed the liberal standard set by the 9th Circuit. Distributing marijuana legally, even on limited basis, will "promote disrespect and disregard" for the drug laws, he said. The court granted his appeal Monday in the case of U.S. vs. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative, 00-151. Justice Stephen G. Breyer said he was recused from the case because his brother was the judge who issued the original order. If the justices rule for the government, their decision would mean that the distribution of marijuana is illegal, regardless of the circumstances. Such a ruling would not necessarily mean the government would prosecute individuals who possessed marijuana for personal medical use. However, it would limit the means of distributing the drug to those who need it. Previous legal actions have failed to stem the growth of the Oakland club and other medical marijuana distributors operating in the Bay Area. The membership of the Oakland club has expanded from 2,200 to about 7,000 in the last two years. However, Raich said, no marijuana currently is being distributed. Now, he said, the cooperative is issuing identification cards only to patients who have a verified recommendation for medicinal marijuana from a physician. Those patients then are referred to medical marijuana providers that remain open. Seven or eight such providers are operating in San Francisco, and another is scheduled to open in January. Randi Webster, a director of the Patient Resource Center in San Francisco, estimates that several thousand patients in the area have identification cards that entitle them to use medical marijuana. Dennis Peron, a chief author of Proposition 215, had his Cannabis Buyer's Club in San Francisco shut down by the state attorney general two years ago. He says he now is operating a medicinal marijuana growing cooperative on a 20-acre farm in Lake County. There are 50 members who grow their own medicinal marijuana, he said. "The initial buy-in is $100," he said. "You need a letter of diagnosis from a doctor, and you sign a form saying we are your primary caregiver." Besides California, eight states have adopted medical marijuana laws. They are Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, Maine, Oregon, Colorado, Nevada and Washington. Savage reported from Washington and Reiterman from Northern California. Source: Los Angeles Times (CA)Author: David G. Savage, Tim Reiterman, Times Staff WritersPublished: Tuesday, November 28, 2000 Copyright: 2000 Los Angeles TimesContact: letters latimes.comAddress: Times Mirror SquareLos Angeles, CA 90053Fax: (213) 237-4712Website: http://www.latimes.com/Related Articles & Web Sites:Marijuana.orghttp://www.marijuana.org/Oakland Cannabis Buyer's Cooperativehttp://www.rxcbc.org/US Supreme Court to Hear Oakland Medical Pot Casehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread7796.shtml High Court Could Boost or Undermine MMJ Law http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread7795.shtmlHigh Court To Hear Medical Marijuana Case http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread7791.shtmlSupreme Court Agrees to Rule on Prescription Pothttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread7789.shtmlSupreme Court To Decide Medical Marijuana Case http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread7784.shtmlSupreme Court Accepts Medical-Marijuana Issue http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread7783.shtml END SNIP --> Snipped Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #3 posted by Walter Gourlay on November 30, 2000 at 03:45:44 PT: Supreme Court I don't know for sure how the Supreme Court will decide on the medical marijuana issue. Sometimes the Court makes decisions that respect individual liberties and sometimes it rules against them. Recently the Court struck down drug checkpoints by the police, it also has decided that employees in certain jobs must be rehired even if found to have marijuana in their blood as long as they go for treatment. In another case the court has said that partial birth abortion is legal. On the other hand, the Supreme Court has ruled very conservatively on certain issues, like banning gay scout leaders from the boy scouts and temporarily shutting down the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Club from supplying medical marijuana to patients with lawful prescriptions. Sometimes the court sides with the states and sometimes with the feds. Clinton-Gore and most of the people in Washington are opposed to medical marijuana, claiming it is a schedule 1 drug and has no medicinal value. This position is wrong and omits the huge amount of evidence that marijuana is indeed helpful for many physical and even emotional illnesses. This country's drug laws and prohibition of marijuana invades basic human rights and many believe is unconstitutional. The Supreme court may respect the rights of the states to provide marijuana for the needy or it may chicken out and side with the politicans and law-enforcement creeps. At any rate, no matter what the Court decides the medical marijuana movement and its sister, the anti-drug war drive is not going away. I think its too late for the politicians to stop these driving forces. Sooner or later, regardless of any Supreme Court decision, the growing, intensifying power of the people will prevail. The states will defy any attempt to thwart the mandate of their citizens. Right now there are 9 states I think that have medical marijuana laws. The Supreme Court passed the Dred Scott Decision in 1857, which decreed that a slave who entered a free state was still a slave. Technically, a slave had no rights as a citizen. This conservative and evil decision did not stop the anti-slavery and abolitionist movement. Congress in 1850 passed the Fugitive Slave Act, which decreed that a slave that escaped to the North had to be returned to his master. This was widely opposed and resented by the northern states. It led to the underground railroad and in Michigan at least an open act of defiance by a local sheriff who refused to turn over a slave to a bounty hunter who came to claim the poor man. So, even though this was a long time ago, it goes to show that neither the courts nor the government can oppose the people when there is enough resistance. More recently, during the late sixties, the American people successfully put an end to the horrors of the Vietnam War, this inspite of the fact that in the early years of the war, 1965-1967, it was supported by the majority of Americans. Before that prohibition was a national law that was defied by enough people that the government gave in. So, I don't think it's really going to matter what the Supreme Court says in the long run but it would be a lot smoother and nice if it came to its senses and recognized the constitutional rights of individuals to use marijuana for medical, spiritual and recreational use. [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by freedom fighter on November 28, 2000 at 18:20:39 PT Hi brett I am from Colorado too. I would love to help you set up a coop here in Colorado. Ought to get in touch with Martin Chultla(sp), the dude who wrote the ballot. I am also a carpenter and could build a cabinet or two to grow the six plants your place and will gladly help anyone grow them. What is your favorite species of cannabis? Silverhaze? Blueberry? Bubblegum? [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by brett on November 28, 2000 at 09:11:11 PT: this is crazy i am in colorado and we just passed medical marujuana. i am living with stage 4 lung cancer. and i currently am looking to help orginize a cooperative here in colorado. if you have any helpful information i would be greatly appreciative. does anyone have a feeling on how the supreme court is going to act? [ Post Comment ] Post Comment Name: Optional Password: E-Mail: Subject: Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message] Link URL: Link Title: