cannabisnews.com: Lockyer Pushes To Protect Medical Marijuana Law Lockyer Pushes To Protect Medical Marijuana Law Posted by FoM on February 21, 2001 at 07:54:42 PT By Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer Source: San Francisco Chronicle Attorney General Bill Lockyer urged the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday to stop federal interference with California's medical marijuana law. The court is scheduled to hear arguments March 28 over rulings by lower federal courts that would allow the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative to distribute marijuana to patients with cancer, AIDS and other diseases who can't benefit from legal drugs. California's Prop. 215, which paved the way for medical marijuana laws in eight other states, allowed patients whose doctors had recommended the drug to use it without risking prosecution under state law. Advocates say marijuana can have life-saving powers in combatting pain, nausea and loss of appetite suffered by some AIDS and cancer patients. But President Clinton's Justice Department invoked the federal ban on marijuana in suits seeking to shut down several Northern California dispensaries, including the Oakland cooperative. After losing early rounds in the case, the Oakland organization, supported by city officials, scored a major victory when the federal appeals court ruled last year that patients able to show a medical necessity could obtain marijuana under Prop. 215, the Justice Department persuaded the Supreme Court to review the case. The ruling, due by the end of June, is likely to determine the scope of medical marijuana laws in states that already have them and others that are considering them.E-mail Bob Egelko at: begelko sfchronicle.comSource: San Francisco Chronicle (CA)Author: Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff WriterPublished: Wednesday, February 21, 2001 Copyright: 2001 San Francisco ChronicleAddress: 901 Mission St., San Francisco CA 94103Contact: letters sfchronicle.comWebsite: http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/Forum: http://www.sfgate.com/conferences/Feedback: http://www.sfgate.com/select.feedback.htmlRelated Article & Web Site:Oakland Cannabis Buyer's Cooperativehttp://www.rxcbc.org/State, Activist Groups Back Oakland Marijuana Club http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread8745.shtmlCannabisNews Medical Marijuana Archiveshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/list/medical.shtml END SNIP --> Snipped Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #13 posted by military officer guy on February 22, 2001 at 17:19:42 PT good job doc russo... doc...that sounds great, i briefly looked ahead at other articles posted today and i saw the stuff you're talking about and are apart of...that's what i called doing something positive for the cause...damn glad to know you, well you know what i mean...we can win this war... [ Post Comment ] Comment #12 posted by FoM on February 21, 2001 at 20:12:00 PT Thanks Dr. Russo Thanks Dr. Russo,I don't understand why they won't need medical evidence in a case that surrounds a medical defense but I'm not a Lawyer. When the article is posted on http://www.maps.org/ please let me know. I'll check the web site but if I get sidetracked I could forget and I'll want to post it. [ Post Comment ] Comment #11 posted by Ethan Russo, MD on February 21, 2001 at 19:41:35 PT: Journal of Cannabis Therapeutics All the Supreme Court Justices were sent a copy. I would be surprised if it came up; they will spend almost all the time debating constitutional law. If you listen to a transcript, it may sound like cannabis is hardly mentioned. [ Post Comment ] Comment #10 posted by FoM on February 21, 2001 at 19:16:21 PT Question Dr. Russo, Will the Journal of Cannabis Therapeutics be used in the Oakland case? [ Post Comment ] Comment #9 posted by Ethan Russo, MD on February 21, 2001 at 18:50:12 PT: Another Amicus Curiae Brief Just yesterday, the Marijuana Policy Project, Rick Doblin of MAPS and I filed an amicus curiae brief in the Supreme Court case. Our allegation is that the Executive Branch, via NIDA and HHS has blocked cannabis research, and the lack of available protocols has effectively eliminated any recourse for medical marijuana patients. Thus, a medical necessity defense is the only available remedy. This should be posted at www.maps.org in a couple of days.BTW, I received a note from Clarence Thomas today thanking us for sending him the charter issue of the Journal of Cannabis Therapeutics. [ Post Comment ] Comment #8 posted by FoM on February 21, 2001 at 16:58:52 PT Thanks Jean! Thanks Jean,What a nice report! You in California are the future for us. What happens out there will benefit everyone I believe. [ Post Comment ] Comment #7 posted by Jeaneous on February 21, 2001 at 16:52:39 PT: By the way... The Oakland CBC is doing GREAT!!!! I was over there a couple of weeks ago and enjoyed seeing how the club has grown out of it's upstairs hideaway to an open storefront with such a professional manner. Way to go to Jeff and all.Now let's hope that this supposed "supreme" court will do what is right.... let the patients be allowed to buy their medication. [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by Jeaneous on February 21, 2001 at 16:44:35 PT: I say give him a chance. Being from California, I have been able to follow Bill Lockyer a little easier than most of the other "powers". Mr. Lockyer seems to have been supportive of the medicinal movement from the time he was elected. He has confronted the Clinton government asking them to honor 215 and was threatened with arrest. I think if given a chance to honor it he will, as it shows with him giving testimony. I believe he is an friend to the medicinal cause. I hope he can be one supporting factor for the "supreme" court to take into consideration towards honoring our law. I don't think he would be there testifying if he felt it was the wrong thing to do. [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by FoM on February 21, 2001 at 16:06:20 PT: Two News Briefs State Attorney General Backs Cannabis Club Against FedsBreaking News Sections Source: Associated PressPublished: Wednesday, February 21, 2001 Copyright: 2001 Associated PressWebsite: http://www.sfgate.com/(02-21) 15:40 PST OAKLAND, Calif. (AP) -- California Attorney General Bill Lockyer is backing an Oakland cannabis distribution club in its fight with the federal government over medical marijuana. Lockyer filed a brief in the Supreme Court on Tuesday arguing that the state has the right to enforce its medical marijuana law. The brief was filed in connection with a case scheduled to go before the Supreme Court on March 28. The law, Proposition 215, was approved by voters in 1996. It allows seriously ill patients to use marijuana. However, the law does not supersede federal antidrug laws, setting the stage for a three-year battle between supporters of the law and the U.S. Department of Justice. The case before the Supreme Court began when the Clinton administration sued the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Club and five other Northern California pot clubs in 1998. A federal district judge sided with the government in its efforts to halt the Oakland club from distributing the drug. But last year, an appeals court ruled that ``medical necessity'' is a legal defense. The Oakland club, the only one of the original six still functioning, is not distributing marijuana, but is issuing identification cards to be ready if it does get a favorable court ruling. Second Article:WALLACE, Calif. (AP) -- Members of a Universal Life church who were growing marijuana are considering a civil rights lawsuit against the Calaveras County Sheriff's Department. The Calaveras County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday rejected the 33 claims made by the Northern Lights Church and a number of individuals connected with it. Because its claims were rejected, the church now has six months to file a suit. Sheriff's deputies raided the church in August and found 290 marijuana plants growing on the property. Agents also seized weapons, smoking pipes, growing equipment, church documents and doctors' recommendations for medicinal-marijuana use. Ricky Dewayne Garner, 43, and Sue Melinda Garner, 40, said they were serving as caregivers for dozens of people who had a legal right to use marijuana, and therefore they had a right to grow it for them. The Calaveras County District Attorney's Office charged the two ministers with illegal cultivation. They await trial in April. [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by Narcoleptic on February 21, 2001 at 12:09:48 PT Bill Lockyer Defending Medical MJ? Yeah, I agree - I suspect this case may have rather profound implications as well. . . depending on how broad the ruling is. It could conceivably be the Supremes reaffirming the supremacy of Federal Law (though that would be ironic considering their big thing is "states rights").What really surprises me is that Lockyer grew a spine suddenly - he opposed Prop 26, disbanded the committee to implement prop 215 (under pressure from Gray Davis who's pollster was clearly having a bad day). Anyway - way to go Bill - keep it up! [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by dddd on February 21, 2001 at 11:17:21 PT another penny I must agree with FoM.It's true that this is mainly about the Oakland MMJ club,but the decision by the court will have far reaching ramifications concerningfederal weed policy......dddd [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by FoM on February 21, 2001 at 11:12:17 PT My 2 cents Hi meagain,I believe this ruling will be very important to all the states. It is a medical defense case. If I have it right the argument is that marijuana doesn't have any medicinal value that's why it is a Schedule I drug therefore medical marijuana initiatives would become invalid. That I do believe is the argument. I hope someone else can shed more light on this for me too. [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by meagain on February 21, 2001 at 11:03:20 PT Whats the deal? The ruling, due by the end of June, is likely to determine the scope of medical marijuana laws in states that already have them and others that are considering them.I believe the issue in this case is whether or not Oakland Cannabis club violated federal law in providing mj to patients NOTHING ELSE. [ Post Comment ] Post Comment Name: Optional Password: E-Mail: Subject: Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message] Link URL: Link Title: