cannabisnews.com: High Court Takes on Pot





High Court Takes on Pot
Posted by FoM on December 13, 2000 at 07:13:38 PT
Editorial
Source: Bakersfield Californian
The U.S. Supreme Court is almost entirely the master of it own fate in regard to cases it takes on appeal. But it was almost inevitable that it eventually had to step into the testy controversy over the medicinal use of marijuana. The court has set a hearing for next year's term on the conflict between laws passed in several states allowing the use of marijuana and federal law prohibiting it. But whether the court will clarify the muddled legal issues is difficult to say. 
Medicinal use of marijuana is usually regarded as a California matter as the result of the passage of Proposition 215 four years ago. It allows defendants charged with possession of small amounts of marijuana for personal use "medical necessity" as a legal defense against drug possession charges.Advocates of smoking marijuana to alleviate the pain and nausea of cancer, multiple sclerosis, severe glaucoma and other chronic and painful conditions argue that the smoked form of the active ingredient is far more effective than a synthesized form that is available as a pill on an experimental basis. Regardless of their personal views on drug use, most physicians agree that diffusion of medication through the lungs is one of the most effective ways to introduce many substances into the bloodstream.Since Proposition 215 passed, eight other states also have enacted so-called "compassionate-use laws" of one type or another. All such laws conflict with federal zero-tolerance rules that make possession of illicit or dangerous drugs a crime under almost any circumstances.The conflict between the state and federal laws has not yet led to federal arrests of individuals, but the federal government has attempted to shut down marijuana distribution centers.It is the distribution aspect of the drug use that lies at the heart of federal regulations. Generally, charges of criminality in the use of marijuana are handled in state and local courts.Increasingly, the Supreme Court has been reluctant to overturn state laws. But how it would rule in a drug case that also involves federal rules is unclear. If the court rules narrowly on the distribution issue — as is expected — and upholds federal rules, individuals could still be protected from arrest at the state and local level. But groups distributing the drug could be shut down. That would keep the legal situation as muddled as it is now.Another possible hindrance to a definitive ruling is the possibility of a rare tie on the nine-justice court. It is expected that Associate Justice Stephen Breyer will not take part, leaving eight justices who could conceivably deadlock. In the event of a tie, the federal rules would prevail.Breyer's brother is a federal trial court judge in Oakland, and has previously ruled on Proposition 215 — in favor of the federal government.The situation is one of those cases where it is more important that one side or the other wins definitively, almost regardless of the merits, rather than have the situation remain in limbo.Source: Bakersfield Californian (CA)Published: December 13, 2000Copyright: 2000, The Bakersfield Californian.Address: PO Box 440, Bakersfield, CA 93302-0440Contact: opinion bakersfield.comWebsite: http://www.bakersfield.com/CannabisNews Medical Marijuana Archiveshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/list/medical.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #11 posted by Peter on December 16, 2000 at 04:34:14 PT:
Supreme Mess
Dr. Ganj's comment about people who can't drive to work due to the fear of a major migraine attack sounds like me. I essentially quit driving and a lot of other activities due to migraines. Been through all the standard drugs. Only drug that I've found that works so far is cannabis. When I first wanted to try cannabis ( it was recommended to me by a doctor) I had no idea how to obtain it. I'm a middle-aged man who hadn't used it for many decades and knew nothing about the illegal markets. It was only though contacting a compassion club that I found out how what type to use, how to use it, and how to obtain it.Before cannabis, my life was severly restricted due to migraines. Much better now, thank God. And thanks to the people in the compassion clubs.Assuming my use qualifies as medical neccesity, how am I suppose to legally get the cannabis? Even receiving seeds is illegal. And once I have the seeds, it will take months to have a usable medicine. And a lot of people with other disorders aren't functional enough or don't have the resources to grow their own. Many don't even have the energy or social contacts to find a "care taker" to do it for them. So I don't see how the Supreme Court can rule against all forms of compassion clubs if they allow the concept of medical neccessity. To do so would essentially say that it's OK to use cannabis only if you obtain it illegally. I hope they don't make a stupid ruling like that!-Peter
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by JT420 on December 15, 2000 at 19:34:40 PT
Why?
Why do these newspapers keep reporting that the Supreme Court will decide if prop 215 is Constitutional? That is not the issue before the Court. The Supreme Court will decide the narrow issue of whether a common law "necessity" defense is valid as it relates to medical marijuana. There has been no challenge filed to Proposition 215, therefore, the Supreme Court cannot decide if it is valid.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by kaptinemo on December 15, 2000 at 05:22:11 PT:
Thank you, FF, for the link.
I was aware of the German Underground before, but not of the White Rose Group. It just goes to show how much one can learn by just stopping by here a few minutes a day.And yes, sometimes, just planting a few seeds can make a statement that a hundred bullhorns blasting empty slogans never could. Because that hemp seed represents *life*, and the antis betray themselves to all the world by viciously ripping a seedling from the ground and poisoning the soil with herbicides from sheer spite.Perhaps, in honor of those brave Germans, a white rose should be placed behind the cannabis leaf and red cross we use here for MMJ news. That way, when someone asks why, the story can be told, again. Thus putting another finger in the eyes of the supposedly freedom-revering antis.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by dddd on December 14, 2000 at 21:10:29 PT
Wavemaking
 You are right FreedomFighter. In my younger days,I did my share of screaming and trying to make waves by rocking the boat anyway I could.Now days,I still believe in speaking out as loudly as possible,but as the golden years continue to sneak up on us,I have found other ways to scream.......I will never stop fighting for Freedom...............Peace............dddd
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by freedom fighter on December 14, 2000 at 20:37:29 PT
dddd, no one will make waves
until kids start screaming!http://www.historyplace.com/pointsofview/white-rose1.htm would make a very interesting reading of who will make the wave. It has always been this way just like the Kent State.I can understand why older folks rather just mind their own business and be left alone, but everyone has a price to pay for. Silence is pretty expensive. Back in old days when nazis started to kill, they did not start outright with jews, they started with babies that were deformed and no one said anything. Next, they started with blind and retarded and the deaf. No one said a darn thing. But white rose did and they paid the price. Do we need another Kent State to make this happen? Silence is making no wave and it can be darn expensive. If we have to be silent, at least just walk by your local law enforcement buildings and plant 10 seeds. It is not too hard to just sit down on a ground and dispose the seeds about a quarter inch down on the ground. There must be at least 100k of 50 year old males out there who can do that without attracting attention. 100k times 10 seeds equal a million of chances. Just maybe then can silence make a wave.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by FoM on December 13, 2000 at 19:14:47 PT
Hi kapt
Hi kaptinemo,I don't have high expectations for Bush at all. I didn't have any expectations for Gore either. They both are basically the same. I remember a skit on I think it was MADD TV called Lowered Expectations. Could have been SNL but you know how short term memory loss is! That's me and politics I suppose! We'll keep telling them that we want change and sooner or later they will be forced to hear. Maybe we are doing the wrong thing. Maybe we should go to the White House and march around it 7 times and blow the trumpet and maybe the walls will fall like they did at Jericho. Peace, FoM!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by dddd on December 13, 2000 at 17:23:18 PT
Civil unrest
 Dr.Ganj ends his eloquent commentary with a valid point ;"At the very least, more states will continue to pass their own MMJ laws, and in time the feds will HAVE to change their position, as you can't stop the whole will of a country without causing civil unrest, or anarchy." It started me thinkin' about civil unrest.......I thought;,heck,I am already so disgusted and angry with the imperialistic behemoth that our government has mutated into,,that I would love to go out and protest,and speak out in the tradition of a true patriot....The only problem is,,,I dont like being gassed,,or peppered with rubber bullets,,or cudgeled with batons,,,or incarcerated because I look like a longhaired hippie protester. I dont know about everyone else,but I find the reaction of law enforcement to even the threat of civil unrest quite alarming.The WTO Battle in Seattle,was most disturbing,and then there was the obscene oppression,and uncalled for brutality of the wonderfully choreographed conventions in Phil. and LA.When you think about it,we are getting very close to a situation,where the police state paramilitary is so well armed,and has the solid backing of corporate media monopolys,,the days are almost here when you have to avoid making waves in public. I know this probably all sounds much like I am being a bit of an alarmist crackpot,,but I thought the police presence in these three events was pretty spooky...........dddd 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by kaptinemo on December 13, 2000 at 16:47:10 PT:
I wouldn't bank on it, FoM
I don't wish to sound like I'm peeing on the birthday cake, but Bush is Big Oil. And we know how Big Oil feels about the industrial uses of cannabis. Namely, the BioFuel aspect of it. The first chance he gets, he'll start suffering from the kind of short-term memory loss his buddies claim cannabis use causes, and make as if he's never said he supported States' Rights in this matterNo, we cannot put any faith in a man who would not tell the American people the truth about his own waywardness and 'youthful indiscretions'.We have to keep doing what we're doing; pushing back the lies with every opportunity. By lawsuit, by ballot, we're winning. The antis have only recently tumbled to the fact that not only is their opposition becoming increasingly vocal, but increasingly *listened to*. Some brave pols like Congressman Barney Frank are daring to publicly voice what many pols privately acknowledge: the DrugWar has failed. Pundits, writers, even some ex-cops are speaking out. And being heard. The issue will *not* dry up and blow away, no matter how fervently the antis wish it would.What we are witnessing is the truth of the old adage about when the people lead, the leaders follow. Slowly, painfully, fitfully, kicking and screaming and dragging their heels...but they are starting to grudgingly follow, until only the fulminating, foaming hard-core fanatics are left. The day one such as that is laughed off a talk show studio dais, we will truly have won.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by FoM on December 13, 2000 at 15:50:06 PT
I hope this Bush keeps his word
It's ironic that Gore could have won the election if only he would have said he would legalize marijuana. Because he didn't Nader took votes. Many people would have voted for Gore if they didn't have a felony conviction for a drug charge, that would have made a difference. But the one that really gets me is the Supreme Court not listening to the Florida Supreme Court and that lost him the election. The very thing Clinton is trying to do to Prop 215. Bush: Marijuana Laws Up to Stateshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/3/thread3373.shtmlGeorge W. Bush Backs States' Rights On Marijuanahttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread3355.shtml
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by Dr. Ganj on December 13, 2000 at 15:16:50 PT
Supreme Mess
Well said, dddd!This article might be wrong, as I'm a good friend of Robert Raich, one of the three attorneys handling this case, and he said in the event of a 4-4 deadlock, it goes back to the 9th circuit court of appeals, and the OCBC wins.We'll learn more as it gets closer, and I'm now thinking we might win this thing. Very close, and very tough to call, considering all the ramifications of this. Legal medical marijuana across the whole nation-at least for those who can qualify for "medical necessity". That by the way, is a lot more people than we think. Factor in the people who can't drive to work for fear of a major migraine attack, and could pose a danger to other drivers. However, because they use medical marijuana, their migraines are manageable. Interesting, huh?As to the Supreme Court ruling against the Florida Supreme Court, and in effect stopping Al gore's request for a recount of all the votes in Florida-and giving the election to Bush, that shows us how ONE vote changed the course of history. They got in the way of state's rights verses federalism. This is what might happen with the medical marijuana appeal. Really, it should be each state to decide how to handle this, and the feds should only intervene if there is interstate transfer.George Bush, believe it or not, said something similar to this line of thought. We'll see if he keeps his word.At the very least, more states will continue to pass their own MMJ laws, and in time the feds will HAVE to change their position, as you can't stop the whole will of a country without causing civil unrest, or anarchy.Dr. Ganj 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by dddd on December 13, 2000 at 10:50:00 PT
mellowed judgement
 The high court should not take on pot,,the high court should toke on pot.That would give them a higher understanding of the issue. After this election trainwreck,and the less than coherent antics from this group of somewhat arrogant,and stuffy black robed overlords;I am starting to think that it wouldnt be that unlikely,for this court to make the wrong decision. There's something that bothers me about people who are appointed to a position for life.It's just not healthy when you consider the ramifications of this little groups decisions;and the fact that this country is already no longer even close to being for,or by the People.Hope for the best
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment


Name: Optional Password: 
E-Mail: 
Subject: 
Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]
Link URL: 
Link Title: