cannabisnews.com: Court Weighs Exception To Marijuana Ban Court Weighs Exception To Marijuana Ban Posted by FoM on March 27, 2001 at 14:33:29 PT By Warren Richey, Staff Writer of The CSM Source: Christian Science Monitor There is no fundamental right under the US Constitution to consume illegal narcotics. When the nation's Founders wrote of "the blessings of liberty," they were not alluding to guaranteed consumption of recreational drugs deemed by federal regulators and national lawmakers to be devoid of healthful benefits. But what about people under the care of a physician who believes that smoking marijuana may help alleviate their suffering? Do those patients have a basic right to pursue the type of treatment they deem most appropriate, without interference or second-guessing from the federal government? Today, the thorny debate over the medical use of marijuana arrives at the US Supreme Court, where the justices are being asked to carve out a limited but clear exception to the federal ban on marijuana sales and use. At issue in the case - US v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative - is whether the court should endorse the idea that distributors and users of marijuana who are acting under a "medical necessity" should be excused from compliance with federal drug laws. Under existing laws in certain states, such a determination of medical necessity would be made by a treating physician. Advocates say this would help prevent the program from becoming a Trojan horse for drug dealers and traffickers. They say eventually marijuana should be available as a prescription drug sold in pharmacies. Proponents of strict drug laws warn that so-called compassionate use of marijuana is merely a first step toward total legalization. And any easing of a complete ban, they say, would be a disaster for American youths. "If you allow this for even this compassionate use, it gives the kids the excuse that it is not harmful, that it is medicine," says DeForest Rathbone of the National Institute of Citizen Antidrug Policy, a parents' group in Great Falls, Va. "It is harmful, and we just can't do that as a government policy." State Laws Unaffected: Chuck Thomas of the Marijuana Policy Project in Washington says since 1996, eight states have adopted laws permitting the medical use of marijuana, and more are on the way. "Even if the Supreme Court issues an unfavorable ruling, it will not overturn any of these state medical-marijuana laws," he says. Mr. Thomas says because 99 percent of all arrests for marijuana possession and use are made by local or state police - rather than federal agents - state laws play a much bigger role in the medical-marijuana issue than a federal statute. "The federal government doesn't have the resources or the mandate to go into the states and pick up the slack," he says. "There are still going to be tens of thousands of patients in these states growing and using their own marijuana at home - and little chance of federal agents finding out about it." The heart of the case before the Supreme Court involves a challenge by the US Justice Department to Proposition 215 in California, the 1996 referendum that opened the door for medical-marijuana use in that state. After the measure passed, several "cannabis clubs" opened to help distribute marijuana to patients seeking it for medical reasons. Prosecutors asked a federal judge to shut down the clubs on grounds that they were violating the federal Controlled Substance Act, which outlaws growing, selling, or consuming marijuana anywhere in the US. The prosecutors targeted six clubs, including the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative in Oakland, Calif. The judge in the case, US District Judge Charles Breyer, brother of US Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, issued an injunction, shutting down the cannabis clubs. But the federal appeals court reversed, ruling that US drug laws didn't apply when the defendants could prove the drug activity in question was a medical necessity. In a brief to the Supreme Court, the US Solicitor General's Office says Congress and other top government officials carefully considered whether to enact a total or partial ban of marijuana, and opted to outlaw its use entirely. "A district court may not override those determinations by reweighing the scientific and medical data and social policies ... and concluding that the public interest supports the illegal distribution of marijuana," the brief says. A Legitimate Purpose? Lawyers for the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative counter that the congressional ban on marijuana is not a specific finding that "cannabis has no medical use, or that it can never serve any legitimate medical purpose." The government has recognized medical-necessity exemptions in the past, they say. The lawyers add that under state law, patients enjoy basic rights that Congress may not take away. "The people have recognized a fundamental liberty interest in allowing access to cannabis to alleviate illness," the brief says. It adds: "If the court were to adopt the government's position, such an interpretation would deprive patients of their fundamental liberties."Note: Advocates argue today that 'medical necessity' excuses compliance with US law. Source: Christian Science Monitor (US)Author: Warren Richey, Staff Writer of The Christian Science MonitorPublished: March 28, 2001Fax: (617) 450-2031Copyright: 2001 The Christian Science Publishing Society.Address: One Norway Street, Boston, MA 02115Contact: oped csps.comWebsite: http://www.csmonitor.com/Forum: http://www.csmonitor.com/monitortalk/intro.htmlRelated Articles & Web Sites:Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Co-op: http://www.rxcbc.org/USA V. OCBC & Jeffrey Jones: http://www.druglibrary.org/ocbc/High Court To Hear Medical Marijuana Case: http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9174.shtmlSupreme Court To Hear California's Marijuana Case: http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9152.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #13 posted by Dan B on March 29, 2001 at 10:51:53 PT: Thanks, Observer . . . for reminding me of Marbury vs. Madison. Great quotation.Dan B [ Post Comment ] Comment #12 posted by tom on March 29, 2001 at 10:05:36 PT george is rolling over in his grave The Founders would have found this whole debate disgusting.Imagine trying to tell Washington that he shouldn't take amedicine because "Federal regulators and lawmakers deem thatit has no medical use". He'd tell you in plain english intowhich orifice the constitution says those regulators couldshove their proclamations. I wouldn't go to the averagecongressman with a scraped knee, let alone to get arecommendation for a good anti-nausea drug. [ Post Comment ] Comment #11 posted by observer on March 28, 2001 at 23:44:10 PT Marbury vs. Madison Dan B writes:it is unconstitutional to make substances illegal in the first placeMoreover, An act of Congress repugnant to the Constitution is not law. When the Constitution and an act of Congress are in conflict, the Constitution must govern the case to which both apply. Congress cannot confer on this court any original jurisdiction. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited, and those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten is the reason the Constitution was written. -- Marbury v. Madisonhttp://www.webleyweb.com/klh/constunl.html [ Post Comment ] Comment #10 posted by observer on March 28, 2001 at 06:44:52 PT forbidden as a medicine Dan quite nicely exposed Richey's lame constitutional thinking. Why an amendment needed for alcohol? Why none needed to prohibit cannabis? Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now. Thus in France the emetic was once forbidden as a medicine, and the potato as an article of food. Government is just as fallible, too, when it fixes systems in physics. Galileo was sent to the Inquisition for affirming that the earth was a sphere; the government had declared it to be as flat as a trencher, and Galileo was obliged to abjure his error. ... Reason and experiment have been indulged, and error has fled before them. It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself. -- Thomas Jefferson, "Notes on the State of Virginia," 1787Make the most of the Indian Hemp Seed and sow it everywhere. -- George Washington[The intoxicating properties of hemp flowers were known to Europeans at and prior to this time. For example, Francois Rabelais 1483-1553 http://www.google.com/search?q=pantagruelion+which+is+hemp Rabelais: "in this pantagruelion I have found so much efficacy and energy, so much completeness and excellency, so much exquisiteness and rarity, and so many admirable effects and operations of a transcendent nature..." Rope fibers can be fine things, granted, but Rabelais seems not to be talking about twine, there. Some weasel, "Washington was not know known to have smoked hemp, to cover the fact they cannot demonstrate that the known medicinal properties of cannabis were not utilized by Washington.] Richey: When the nation's Founders wrote of "the blessings of liberty," they were not alluding to guaranteed consumption of recreational drugs deemed by federal regulators and national lawmakers to be devoid of healthful benefits. Jefferson:``Thus in France the emetic was once forbidden as a medicine, and the potato as an article of food. Government is just as fallible, too, when it fixes systems in physics.''It is easy to see that on the subjects of the Founding Fathers and the Constitution, Richey is either ignorant of the facts, or intentionally . . . selective, shall we say. [ Post Comment ] Comment #9 posted by kaptinemo on March 28, 2001 at 05:20:41 PT: Dan is quite right The only reason we have any drug laws at all was because of some unworthy political chicanery having to do with the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Which is the only way how the proto-antis had managed to do an end-run around the barriers of the 9th and 10th Amendments.If the specious and paper-thin construct that was the reasoning behind the drug laws were examined in a truly objective Supreme Court, I have no doubt that it would be rendered unConstitutional on its' face, and be thrown out.But because it has been allowed to go on for so long, it has acquired a life of it's own. That kind of inertia is hard to kill.But if those who are arguing in favor of MMJ in the Supreme Court can cause the Court to examine the origins of the drug laws or cause those origins to be included as a prologue to the case, then the chance remains for a challenge at a later date.Which is why the antis are screaming particularly loudly outside the Supreme Court this morning. They know what can happen if just one tiny particle of evidence of the racist origins of the MJ laws are brought to light where they must be examined. Because if it is brought up - and ignored by the Court - then the Court, itself becomes a political liability. And as FDR proved so long ago, even the Supreme Court can be pressured to back down in the face of popular anger over its' decisions.The weather outside is still chilly, but I think Spring is gonna heat up, real quick. [ Post Comment ] Comment #8 posted by Dan B on March 28, 2001 at 01:21:42 PT: Just to let everyone know . . . I sent an expanded version of my comments in #3 to the Christian Science Monitor as an LTE. It's too long, but maybe they'll still print (or some version of it). It's possible that they might print it as an opinion piece, which has no length restrictions. We'll see.Dan B [ Post Comment ] Comment #7 posted by Rambler on March 28, 2001 at 00:30:47 PT Constitution? what constitution? I think Dan B summed it up quite nicely.The constitution has alreadybeen compromised in many ways,and it will be no problem for them tointerpret it in any way they want.The biggest concerns about Constitutional matters lately,are in thequestion of campaign finance reform,and of course,the Constitution isbeing fiercly defended on this matter;but when it comes to the drug war,all of a sudden the Constitution is open to all sorts of abstract interpretationsand convolutions.It is f*#king ABSURD,to even use the term;"exception" in the title of this article.The "exception",is the one that has already been made to allow such frivolousand draconian laws in the first place.The Christian Science Monitor is no strangerto carrying the party line [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by AmericanSmoker on March 27, 2001 at 21:52:14 PT We the people of the United States of America... The Constitution does not say that the government has permission to control the consumption of anything. The US Constitution does not list the rights the government gives to citizens, it lists the rights the citizens give to the government. It even says it in the 9th and 10th amendments.Take note to this line from the 10th, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution." United States - Grouping of independent states under a central government Constitution - Rules for The United State written by the people:-P [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by FoM on March 27, 2001 at 21:46:35 PT Just a Question Does anyone have an idea how many people voted for the Medical Marijuana Initiatives in all the States? I wonder if anyone totaled them up. I'm curious about the numbers. Thanks in advance. Medical Marijuana Information [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by Toker00 on March 27, 2001 at 21:27:05 PT Try this. Please sign this petition.http://www.primaryfundamentalright.org/Thanks.Peace. Realize, then Legalize. [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by Dan B on March 27, 2001 at 21:12:17 PT: Learn the Constitution There is no fundamental right under the US Constitution to consume illegal narcotics. When the nation's Founders wrote of "the blessings of liberty," they were not alluding to guaranteed consumption of recreational drugs deemed by federal regulators and national lawmakers to be devoid of healthful benefits. Really? Then why was a Constitutional Amendment required to begin alcohol prohibition? What is meant by Article IX, which states the following:The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.???What is meant by the Article X, which states the following:The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people???No place in the U. S. Constitution is any substance banned from consumption. ANY substance. At all. Period.In a sense, the author is correct, though. The U. S. Constitution does not allow for the consumption of illegal substances. That's because it is unconstitutional to make substances illegal in the first place!!!Dan B [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by Cuzn Buzz on March 27, 2001 at 19:03:55 PT: HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!! It's like all these anti-types are cryin that the grim reefer should be illegal because it is illegal!That's right folks, no need for sanity in laws.Why bother about whether or not a thing is good or bad as long as you don't like the sort of people who do it, keep the counter-productive laws on the books for purposes of societal control.If I lived near DeForest Rathbone, I'd toilet paper his house......weekly.Hmmm, I wonder if they make hemp toilet paper? [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by sm247 on March 27, 2001 at 17:29:56 PT Irrelevant Oh but you sure have the FREEDOM to DRINK yourself to DEATH LEGALLY [ Post Comment ] Post Comment Name: Optional Password: E-Mail: Subject: Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message] Link URL: Link Title: