cannabisnews.com: High Court To Hear Medical Marijuana Case High Court To Hear Medical Marijuana Case Posted by FoM on March 27, 2001 at 14:06:48 PT By Daniel Evans of The Examiner Staff Source: San Franscisco Examiner Walking inside the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative, in a rather nondescript part of Oakland's downtown district, visitors can quickly become distracted by the colorful hemp clothing and -- no kidding -- hemp lip gloss. Well-lit and brightly decorated, it's easy to miss signs of the cooperative's true business: the just-as-colorful smoking apparatus tucked into a corner. Welcome to the front lines of the medical marijuana movement, which faces its strongest legal test this week since the overwhelming passage of Proposition 215 four years ago. On Wednesday, attorneys will face off before the U.S. Supreme Court, trying to somehow reconcile a federal law that deems marijuana illegal with a California law that allows it for sick people. The justices have stepped into a three-year court battle between six Northern California clubs -- in Oakland, San Francisco, Santa Cruz, Marin County and Ukiah -- and the U.S. Department of Justice. In 1998, the Clinton administration filed the injunction to test the issue, and it has been slowly making its way through the system. The court will look at a 1999 ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. That court, which sets the law for nine western states, held that "medical necessity" superceded federal drug laws, allowing marijuana to be given legally to patients in dire need. But Oakland attorney Bill Panzer, who coauthored Prop. 215, says the entire case has little meaning. The definition of "medical necessity" is so strict, he said, that even if the federal high court rules in the cannabis clubs' favor, not much would change. And that may be why Oakland founder Jeff Jones isn't worried about losing the case. "I don't think it will kill medical marijuana," he said. "These patients are trying to end their suffering. They're going to do whatever they can, and whether it is accepted in a western medical sense or accepted legally will make little difference." Much Ado: Jones, dressed in a blue suit and tie, said he was spurred to found the cooperative after watching his father die of kidney cancer. Though only 26, his hair has begun to gray, a condition he attributes with a small, almost serious laugh to his legal troubles. He said he is nonplused about why the federal government even cares about this case, nor why he should trust them to do the right thing. "If the feds won't or can't solve our energy issues, why would we want to leave them with this very important issue, an issue that deals with peoples' suffering?" he said. Though eight other states have passed laws allowing cannabis to be used for medical purposes, and a number of others are gearing up to do the same, pot clubs in Northern California were the first to raise federal ire. The issue before the court is narrow, and the justices are unlikely to decide the fate of medical marijuana laws no matter the outcome. But the case will likely create some shockwaves because it will indicate how the court is leaning, providing a clearer picture of medical cannabis' ultimate fate. It is also possible the decision would influence a case currently before the California Supreme Court, which agreed earlier this month to consider whether Prop. 215 provides immunity from criminal prosecution for medicinal marijuana users. Lightning Rod: Though this is the first medical marijuana case to reach the Supreme Court, the law was headed to the courthouse almost immediately after its passage in 1996. And that's partly due to its controversial and occasionally outrageous founder, Dennis Peron. Peron has been publicly criticized for his attempts to completely legalize marijuana, a stance some say unnecessarily complicates and clouds the issue. Peron, who would often light-up before television cameras, ran against stringent medical marijuana opponent and then-state Attorney General Dan Lungren on the 1998 Republican ticket for governor. Despite all this, Jones and a number of other activists say it is because of Peron that anything at all has been accomplished. "Dennis Peron's major error was that he wanted all uses of marijuana to be medical," said Jones. "He wanted it to be similar to all other over-the-counter remedies, or similar to St. John's wort." And people might be turned off by his in-your-face methods, said Jones, but it's still his right to say it. Martin Delaney, founding director of Project Inform, a group that puts on educational programs dealing with AIDS-related drugs, agrees. The medical marijuana movement -- a rare point of agreement between Delaney's group and its traditional nemesis, ACT UP San Francisco -- would never have got off the ground without Peron. "When something as controversial as medical marijuana comes out, it's not unusual to find a charismatic leader like him at the front of it," he said. "But you have to hand it to him," Delaney added. "He didn't keep riding his political horse. He got off, and went back to doing whatever it is that he does. That is, smoke a lot of pot and sell it to his friends." In any event, said Oakland cooperative attorney Robert Raich, the movement has continued on from Peron. Raich and Santa Clara University law professor Gerald Uelmen, who will argue the case before the Supreme Court, are in Washington D.C., preparing for the big day. "The Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative is simply trying to fulfill its mission in providing its medicine to very ill Californians," he said, speaking from his hotel room. "This is not about hippies trying to get stoned." Though the existence of the club is based on compassion, Raich said, the cooperative's argument will focus on state's rights. "Our argument is that California and Californians have the ability to control their own public health and their own public safety," he said. "It's really a shame the Clinton administration felt it had to step in for political reasons." E-mail Daniel Evans at: devans sfexaminer.com Source: San Francisco Examiner (CA)Author: Daniel Evans of The Examiner StaffPublished: March 27, 2001Copyright: 2001 San Francisco ExaminerContact: letters examiner.comWebsite: http://www.examiner.com/Related Articles & Web Sites:Marijuana.org: http://www.marijuana.org/Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Co-op: http://www.rxcbc.org/USA V. OCBC & Jeffrey Jones: http://www.druglibrary.org/ocbc/Medical Marijuana on Trial: http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9168.shtmlSupreme Court To Hear California's Marijuana Case: http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9152.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #4 posted by dddd on March 28, 2001 at 00:10:27 PT Place your bets Well Dr.Ganj,,it should come as no suprize where I'llplace my bet....I'm quite confident that somehow they willfind a strange way to justify screwing us....After all,after theelection sham,do you think anyone would be suprized by anythingthey rule on?They barely decided in favor of not locking up pregnantmoms..I'll put my money on the negative ruling.I hope I'm wrong,,,I'veonly got a sawbuck to wager anyway....dddd [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by FoM on March 27, 2001 at 22:42:23 PT Supreme Court! Awesome! What a day it is too Dr. Ganj. I hope and pray that wisdom guides them. We've waited so long for this to happen and you're right it's show time! I wish everyone good luck that is involved in this monumental case! [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by Dr. Ganj on March 27, 2001 at 22:14:01 PT Any Bets On This One? I'm a gambling man, but this is a real tough one to pick.My heart prays for the right decision, but after decades of enduring so many setbacks, I can't bet my marijuana farm on this. :-)I'm really proud of Rob Raich, Angel McClary, and of course, Jeff Jones, all of whom are my friends-and I really hope the Supreme Court justices rule fairly, and recognize the benefits of cannabis, and the will of a country.The hearing is tomorrow at 11:00am edt, and is most historic.Too bad we won't know what they'll rule for a few months, but at least we'll know from the attorneys what they think might happen.Cheers everyone, as we made it all the way to the Supreme Court! Think about that!Dr. Ganj [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by Mary Deibert on March 27, 2001 at 21:03:17 PT: Good luck Jeff We're following the case on the web and news Jeff - all are hoping for a ruling in your favor - Momma Mary [ Post Comment ] Post Comment Name: Optional Password: E-Mail: Subject: Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message] Link URL: Link Title: