cannabisnews.com: Courting Medical Marijuana





Courting Medical Marijuana
Posted by FoM on March 23, 2001 at 07:33:33 PT
By Alan W. Bock
Source: WorldNetDaily
Next week I'll be reporting from Washington, D.C., after sitting in on the U.S. Supreme Court's oral arguments in the Oakland Cannabis Cooperative medical marijuana case, scheduled for 11:00 a.m. on Wednesday, March 28. Most of the Washington media are expressing interest in this case and unless I'm misreading the situation there is more interest in drug law reform in the country than in decades. We should be seeing some "set-up" stories beginning this weekend, but not all the stories I've seen show an understanding of the potentially rather narrow federal issues involved. 
All the reporters, of course, really ought to read (here comes the shameless self-promotion part) my new book "Waiting to Inhale: The Politics of Medical Marijuana" (available in your local bookstore and from Amazon.com and laissezfairebooks.com), and my publisher, Seven Locks Press, is trying to arrange media appearances for me around the case. But I thought it might be useful to preview some of the issues that the Supreme Court will -- and will not -- have before it in this case. The Supreme Court on Wednesday next will hear United States of America v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative and Jeffrey Jones, No. 00-151. Contrary to what some observers think, the case will not give the high court the opportunity to rule on whether California's medical marijuana law (Prop. 215, now Section 11362.5 of the Health and Safety Code) or the similar laws passed in eight other states are valid. But it comes at a time when intellectual and political ferment over the country's drug laws is more active than anytime in my memory, and it could have a powerful influence on drug law reform in the near future. I'll listen to the oral arguments, talk to as many participants as possible, and report what I learn to WorldNetDaily (and Orange County Register, of course) readers. Some observers believe the Supreme Court took the case in an expedited manner so it could weigh in on the state-level medical marijuana laws that have passed by impressive margins wherever they have been on the ballot over the last five years. However, it cannot do so for the simple reason that the case before it does not involve a challenge to any of those state laws. In fact, none of the state laws passed since California passed Prop. 215 and Arizona passed Prop. 200 in 1996 have been challenged in federal court on the ground that they are in conflict with federal law or the U.S. Constitution -- or for any reason. In fact, federal courts have so far been more likely to reprimand the government for trying to ignore or undermine medical marijuana laws. Shortly after Californians approved Prop. 215, then-Drug Czar Gen. Barry McCaffrey announced that he would have federal agents pull the licenses to prescribe controlled substances of any doctor who recommended marijuana (or "Cheech and Chong medicine," as he so subtly put it). But a group of doctors in San Francisco filed an action in federal court and got a temporary restraining order and then a permanent injunction against the federal government or any of its multitudinous agents, ordering them not to threaten or invoke any legal sanctions against doctors who honor the new California law and recommend marijuana or cannabis to any of their patients. So the state laws have not been challenged and will remain intact no matter how the Supreme Court rules in this case. Since a recent Marijuana Policy Project study found that 99 percent of simple marijuana possession cases are handled at the local or state level, the action is still at the state level. The case against the Oakland Cannabis Cooperative was brought under federal law. The issue before the Supreme Court is a relatively narrow one -- whether under federal law an exemption to the strict federal prohibition of cultivation, distribution and use of marijuana, by virtue of its being on Schedule I of the federal Controlled Substances Act, can be allowed for patients who meet a strict four-pronged test of medical necessity. However, the briefs filed in the case discuss other related issues and could give the court the opportunity to rule more broadly if it chooses. In some ways the case presents the high court with an interesting dilemma. Over the past several years, beginning with the Lopez case in 1995, the high court has shown a pattern of taking cases that give it the opportunity to limit the power of the national government. In the Lopez case, it invalidated the Gun-Free School Zone Act not only because most states already had similar laws, but because it ruled that the Constitution's interstate commerce clause, while giving Congress broad authority, did not give it unlimited authority. The area around local schools cannot be construed to be involved in interstate commerce, a conservative 5-4 majority led by Chief Justice Rehnquist argued -- even though some of the guns involved might have been manufactured or purchased out-of-state -- so Congress didn't have the authority, in a government of enumerated and therefore limited powers, to pass the law. Similar rulings have limited the central government's power to punish certain rape cases, and to authorize suits under federal law against state governments over insurance and employment practices, by state employees. Some observers see the possibility that Chief Justice Rehnquist would like to leave, as part of his legacy, the beginning of a serious challenge on constitutional grounds to the growth of central government power and authority, an increase in which the courts have, for the most part, acquiesced since the New Deal. So here comes the Oakland Cannabis Cooperative case which could test whether the court, and especially its limited-government conservative members, really mean it. After Prop. 215 passed with a 65 percent majority in 1996, several clubs or cooperatives in Northern California (some of which had operated before the initiative passed) expanded their memberships and dispensed cannabis to patients who could show a recommendation from a licensed California physician. Some state-level cases tested whether the new law really allowed such methods of distribution without an unequivocal outcome. Then in January 1998 (most observers believe at the behest of then-California Attorney General Dan Lungren) the federal government sued in federal district court to shut down the clubs. Specifically, it sought an injunction against "engaging in the manufacture or distribution of marijuana, or the possession of marijuana with the intent to manufacture and distribute marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. Sec. 841(a)(1)," the federal Controlled Substances Act. The district court granted the injunction in May 1998, and rejected a "blanket" assertion of medical necessity for some patients that attorneys for the Oakland cooperative had requested. All the other Northern California clubs covered by the injunction went out of business (though new ones appeared), but the Oakland cooperative stayed in existence and appealed to the federal Ninth Circuit appellate court to have a medical necessity defense recognized under federal law. On Sept. 13, 1999, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court, holding that the court could take a medical necessity defense into account using its equitable discretion, and that the record justified such a modification of the injunction. On July 17, 2000, the district court modified its injunction to exempt from federal legal penalties the distribution of cannabis to patient-members who 1) suffer from a serious medical condition, 2) will suffer imminent harm if denied access to cannabis, 3) need cannabis to treat a medical condition and 4) have no reasonable legal alternative because other legal alternatives have been tried and found ineffective or intolerable in their side effects. The federal government appealed this modification and asked the Supreme Court to issue a stay until the matter could be litigated, which it did Aug. 29. The Ninth District was prepared to hear the case, but the Supreme Court took jurisdiction for itself. We're not talking about a lot of patients here. The cooperative's brief says only 14 of its several thousand members who qualify to use cannabis under the unchallenged state law would meet the injunction's test. But if the Supreme Court agrees that a medical necessity defense is available under the federal Controlled Substances Act, the ruling would apply nationwide, including in states that have not yet changed their laws to allow medical use of marijuana. It wouldn't be tough to set up such a system. As the Oakland brief notes, the federal government set up a Compassionate Investigative New Drug program in the 1970s in response to a glaucoma patient, Robert Randall, who secured a medical-necessity ruling from a lower court. That program, which stopped accepting new patients in 1990, still distributes cannabis, courtesy of the taxpayers, to eight patients. Nobody has argued that this program violates the Controlled Substances Act. (The government, in its brief, doesn't mention the program.) The government argues that a necessity defense, one of the oldest concepts in Anglo-Saxon common law—the tradition upon which our legal system is based—is simply not available under the Controlled Substances Act. It says Congress, by keeping marijuana on the Act's most restrictive schedule, Schedule I, has made its intentions clear in the matter and the courts cannot override it. In some ways, the government's case is what I call the "Taming of the Shrew" argument. In the Shakespeare play, the evidence that Kate had become a suitably obedient wife worthy of having her husband collect her dowry was her willingness to declare that what appeared to normal mortals to be the noonday sun was in fact the moon -- if her beloved lord and master declared it to be so. The government argues that marijuana is on Schedule I, and Schedule I contains, by definition, drugs with a large potential for abuse, no accepted medical uses and no ability to be used safely under medical supervision. Therefore no medical necessity or medical necessity defense is possible. You could easily argue, of course that in objective, scientific fact marijuana doesn't fit the criteria for Schedule I and has been incorrectly -- perhaps even illegally -- been placed on Schedule I. In fact, a petition to "reschedule" marijuana is currently working its way through the Health and Human Services and DEA bureaucracies. But so far, it is true, marijuana remains on Schedule I. The Oakland brief argues that it would have been necessary to rule out a necessity defense explicitly, and nothing in the act's language or legislative history suggests an intent to rule out a possible necessity defense. Oakland's case will be argued by Prof. Gerald Uelmen of Santa Clara University, who has argued more than 50 appellate cases and was on O.J. Simpson's "dream team." The government's case will presumably be argued by Solicitor General-designate Ted Olson of Florida post-election fame, a Supreme Court bar veteran. The Family Research Council and Drug Free America Foundation have filed amicus curiae or "friend of the court" briefs on behalf of the government. California Attorney General Bill Lockyer has filed an amicus brief loaded with solid 9th and 10th Amendment arguments on the power and liberties of the states and the people, on behalf of the Oakland cooperative and California's right to make its own decisions in this area. The National Association for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) and National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers have filed on Oakland's behalf, as have the California Medical Association, the California Nurses' Association, the Lymphoma Foundation of America, several AIDS patients groups and Elvy Musikka, a federal patient. A group of elected officials including New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, Cumberland County Sheriff Mark Dion and state Sen. Anne Rand in Maine, and California state Sen. John Vasconcellos have filed their own brief on behalf of the Oakland cooperative. With New Mexico passing some modest drug-reform laws, with nine states having passed medical marijuana laws and several passing or considering laws permitting the growing of industrial hemp, with a renewed national discussion on drug laws centered around the movie "Traffic" -- and with Canada's highest court having ordered the government to set up a medical marijuana authorization and distribution system or face the voiding of all its marijuana-possession laws and Mexican President Vicente Fox having endorsed the idea of drug legalization as preferable to the violence and corruption surrounding the current laws -- drug law reform is in play as it has not been since the 1970s. Indeed, public willingness to reconsider drug prohibition may be greater now than it was then. The Supreme Court's members serve for life, of course, theoretically making them immune to political pressure and the democratic passions of the moment. But most constitutional scholars say that the Supreme Court follows election results eventually. In this case the constitutional arguments -- prepared largely by attorney Robert Raich who has advised the Oakland cooperative since its inception, with key help from Randy Barnett, who teaches at Boston University's law school -- against the government's position are remarkably powerful and sophisticated. Alan Bock is author of "Ambush at Ruby Ridge" and "Waiting to Inhale: The Politics of Medical Marijuana." Senior editorial writer and columnist at the Orange County Register, he is also senior contributing editor at the National Educator and a contributing editor at Liberty magazine. Source: WorldNetDaily (US Web)Author: Alan W. BockPublished: March 23, 2001Fax: (541) 597-1700Copyright: 2001, WorldNetDaily.com, Inc.Address: PO Box 409, Cave Junction, OR 97523-0409Contact: letters worldnetdaily.comWebsite: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/Related Article & Web Sites:Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Co-ophttp://www.rxcbc.org/USA V. OCBC & Jeffrey Joneshttp://www.druglibrary.org/ocbc/Medical Marijuana: The Smoldering Debate http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9110.shtmlCannabisNews Articles - OCBChttp://cannabisnews.com/thcgi/search.pl?K=OCBC 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #1 posted by dddd on March 24, 2001 at 04:37:03 PT
Astounding!
This is going to be a fascinating case!....I will be very anxious tosee what sort of coverage it gets in the national mainstream media,,,or what I think we could now be justified in referring to,as;"The Corporate Media".Let's see if that independent journalist,Ted Koppel,will do one of his courageous,in depth reportson this story.,,,,,Or better yet,the concerned tone of Barbera Walters,giving usa touching view of how the stress from trying to deal with interpreting the law,has injuredthe family lives of law enforcement officials.,,,Then we'd see John Stossel,with one of his"Give me a Break",segments.,,,,,He would tell a tale of pot smokers who are not really thatsick,trying to get high illegally,,,he'd say in his sort of goofy,questioning tone;"Are these guysreally sick,or do they just want to get stoned?....Give me a break."d. . .. . .. . .......dd           ....... . .............                           d
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment


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