cannabisnews.com: Battle Lines Drawn on Medical Use of Marijuana Battle Lines Drawn on Medical Use of Marijuana Posted by FoM on March 28, 2001 at 07:17:33 PT By Lyle Denniston, Globe Correspondent Source: Boston Globe The Bush administration turns to the Supreme Court today for help in waging the war on drugs in a sector where popular support is growing for doctors who prescribe marijuana as a medicine.The legal issue awaiting an answer from the court: Is there a ''medical necessity'' exemption to the federal law that bans growing or distributing marijuana? A federal judge in San Francisco has ruled that there is such an exemption, if narrow in scope. But the Supreme Court, in a preliminary action last November, temporarily blocked that ruling until the justices themselves could rule. Administrations come and go, sometimes differing on antidrug policy, but on one thing there has been routine agreement: Marijuana, they argue, should stay on the list of banned substances.And yet, in no phase of the federal war on drugs is there such a wide gulf between official policy and public sentiment than on the use of marijuana to ease the pain or suffering of some seriously ill or dying patients. Time after time, government policy has been rejected in the voting booth.Since 1976, voters in eight states and Washington, D.C., have gone to the polls to vote on ballot measures supporting marijuana as a treatment alternative, and every time the measure has passed, sometimes by large margins. Legislatures in 26 states - including Massachusetts - and the nation's capital have passed laws recognizing the therapeutic value of marijuana and permitting its use for medicine in limited situations.The federal Controlled Substances Act, however, classifies marijuana as an illegal drug and puts it on a schedule of drugs that have no medical uses. The law permits changes in those categories but, so far, the government has refused to change marijuana's status.Advocates of marijuana as medicine have tried to get the drug reclassified, on the theory it does have recognized medical value - a theory that advocates say has been supported by panels at the National Academy of Sciences, the National Institute of Medicine, and by private medical groups. The claims are that marijuana can be used to ease pain and nausea, and to treat some aspects of AIDS, multiple sclerosis, and glaucoma.As the dispute reaches the Supreme Court for an hourlong hearing today, the divide between the two sides is wide.The Bush administration's Justice Department and its supporters argue that nothing less is at stake than the practical legalization of marijuana, even for casual users. But proponents of medical marijuana argue that nothing more is involved than access for a select group of patients under tightly controlled circumstances.As a result of the Supreme Court's blocking of the California judge's ruling last November, distribution by ''cannabis clubs'' has halted in California, postponing the effect of an initiative approved by the state's voters in 1996: the Compassionate Use Act. The voters approved a law to permit the cultivation and use of marijuana with a doctor's permission, for a variety of illnesses ranging from cancer to migraine headaches.US District Judge Charles R. Breyer of San Francisco last July permitted limited distribution of marijuana. He is the brother of Supreme Court Justice Stephen G. Breyer. As a result of that relationship, Justice Breyer has disqualified himself from taking part in the coming decision.The California judge exempted from the federal ban the distribution of marijuana to patients with serious medical conditions who need the substance to treat or ease their condition, have no legal alternative, and will suffer ''imminent harm'' if denied access to it.The Justice Department, in its appeal, argues that Congress has expressly rejected such a defense to a prosecution for distributing marijuana or other drugs on the banned list.Under existing law, the department has said, marijuana may be distributed legally only through a tightly controlled, federally approved research project, through a downgrading of its status to one recognizing medical uses, or through Food and Drug Administration approval of it as a safe and effective medicine.The buyers' cooperative in Oakland defends its distribution policies, saying that members must provide a statement from a doctor who treats them agreeing to marijuana therapy, and must submit to a screening interview by the staff as well as verification of the doctor's approval. No smoking is allowed on the property.This story ran on page 3 of the Boston Globe on 3/28/2001Source: Boston Globe (MA)Author: Lyle Denniston, Globe Correspondent Published: March 28, 2001Copyright: 2001 Globe Newspaper Company.Address: P.O. Box 2378, Boston, MA 02107-2378Contact: letter globe.comWebsite: http://www.boston.com/globe/Feedback: http://extranet.globe.com/LettersEditor/default.aspRelated Articles & Web Sites:Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Co-op: http://www.rxcbc.org/USA V. OCBC & Jeffrey Jones: http://www.druglibrary.org/ocbc/Court To Look At Marijuana Dispense: http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9180.shtmlCourt Weighs Exception To Marijuana Ban: http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9175.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #37 posted by The GCW on March 29, 2001 at 06:47:01 PT: From the Holy Spirit of Truth. In plant form, Cannabis is God. [ Post Comment ] Comment #36 posted by The GCW on March 29, 2001 at 06:05:44 PT: From the Holy Spirit of Truth! With cannabis you don’t need leaders. The 2%ers know full well that an end to the cannabis prohibition hampers them from every single direction. While the 90% today in the polls show the non-oppressive understanding, there will not be allowed the option of cannabis for it divides their wealth, which is nonconforming to their desire of greed. When we look at all plant implications, we see that there is what we do not know. What we do know is enlightening enough to help become aware of what we did not know. Example: We know our understanding of our relationship w/plants under the context of taste and eat: that is we know what is best to taste and eating and that includes what is the worst, what will kill you if you eat it. We know our understanding of our relationship w/plants under the context of touch and its implications including what plants we touch that heal, and heal best along with what plants irritate us and cause rash implicating wicked. What about the plant for smell implications? We are told by God and we know from the Holy Spirit of Truth that the smell implication of cannabis / kaneh bosm, is amongst good and Love. We know that you can not smell too much where other plants that we know are good to smell do not allow the full spectrum of smell to be had because they are not the best smells and may be one of the smells that kill. Cannabis is the Greatest smell our Lord gave us. Cannabis is the greatest taste and food given us. Cannabis is the greatest thing that you touch to your body. Cannabis likewise will show true to other similar applications. So are you of the crowd that consists of the 2% that represents greed. Greed is the mark of wicked evil. Truth is the mark of the God Awesome! [ Post Comment ] Comment #35 posted by Dan B on March 29, 2001 at 05:30:52 PT: Set Yourself Free First, Craven, I knew what you meant. I was reacting to the distortion of what you wrote. No hard feelings, I hope. We're all in this together. I am so glad I have become vocal on this issue. It is amazing how freeing that can be for all areas of one's life. I used to be fearful of stating my opinions for fear that others would find me offensive or (heaven forbid!) not like me. I've grown since then, and a lot of it has to do with being willing to speak out against the war on drug users. I view the drug war as the single most damaging policy the politicians in this country have ever concocted, and I make no apologies for that position to anyone I talk to. I know that many here have said they are "coming out of the closet" on this issue for the first time, and I commend you. It can be a difficult step to take, but once you take it you'll begin to wonder why you hadn't done so earlier.The politicians can make unconstitutional laws against us, the police can arrest us, and the Supreme Court can uphold those injustices, yet they cannot take our ability to make decisions for ourselves. In the end, freedom is a choice.Kris Kiristofferson once wrote (and Janis Joplin once sang), "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose," and I believe that's true. Nobody can give you freedom; you have to take it. You have to be willing to say that they can take your home, they can take your car, they can put you in prison and throw away the key, but they cannot reach into your heart and take your freedom away. The best way to keep our rights is to exercise them no matter the consequences.So, speak out and set yourself free. It's the best high you'll ever have.Dan B [ Post Comment ] Comment #34 posted by NEW Mexican on March 29, 2001 at 00:24:32 PT Extreme Kourt Burns Medical Marijuana Patients! Guilty! Take these jokers and their paymasters to a cancerclinic and have this issue put into perspective. They reallydon't have any idea of what pain and suffering are!Just ask anyone who uses cannabis for MS, Glacoma, AIDS,cancer, backache or muscular pain. It works great for stomach aches, as Scalia wondered. Did you notice hissarcasm and disrespectful approach to something that affectsso many of our lives (the right to effective God/Gaia medicine) There is no hope to be found in the Extreme Kourts' future decision, but the effect of it will backfire as Bushs'lurch to the far right is countered by the worlds'disgust for the republican/oil/Co2 rapefest of the Earth! Keep your eye on Mexico, Fox, the Zapatistasand Europe, they're fed up with U.S. Nazis from Bush/Texas! [ Post Comment ] Comment #33 posted by fixjuxa on March 28, 2001 at 23:31:05 PT: What..... ...the land of the free? Whoever told you that is your enemy. (sigh) I can't believe the supreme court is going to rule against sick people! This country is so fucking corrupt, i can't even stand to live here anymore. As soon as I get out of college, i'm getting the fuck out. I mean i love the idea of america, but it's just not the reality. Land of the free, for the people? (Pffft) If you say so.Adam [ Post Comment ] Comment #32 posted by MDG on March 28, 2001 at 22:10:54 PT Has anyone challenged the CSA... ...on it's unConstitutional footing? Instead of pruning the bush, why not rip the whole damn thing out at the roots?! Just wondering.Valkat, I think most here would tread very lightly when it comes to "telling you how to score some weed". For one thing, there's probably some law making us an accessory (I don't doubt it). I can tell you one thing for sure: Cannabis will help you.Now, it would be better not to have to "go downtown" to "hook-up", but go to a trusted pharmacy (or liquor store). But since that option doesn't exist, all one can say is "ask the right person". In fact, you probably know someone who has some (very possible). However, I can't tell you what to do for yourself, except to be well. That's about as much as any of us can hope for anymore, though idiot politicians and ignorant self-righteous people would just as quickly chop off our heads than open their eyes. Good luck to you.M...Vote Libertarian at every opportunity! [ Post Comment ] Comment #31 posted by Rambler on March 28, 2001 at 22:00:06 PT Grim Indeed I have the same outlook as Tim Stone.This court willfind some way to make the wrong decision.But if/when they do,they will open a bag of worms concerningstates rights,and pissing off alot of Californians,and many others.On the bright side,Gerald Uhlman(sp?),is on our side.Heck,he helpedget O.J. off the hook. [ Post Comment ] Comment #30 posted by FoM on March 28, 2001 at 21:24:51 PT Thanks zion I'm sorry I thought it was your site but I like what you said. Titles are plastic. People are real. There are many people who have Christian beliefs with no judgment of those who don't but what can you do. I understand why people don't like Christians but it really isn't everyone. [ Post Comment ] Comment #29 posted by zion on March 28, 2001 at 20:36:07 PT Not my website, FoM Didn't know about it until a link was was posted in this thread.Thank YOU for Cannabis News. You are a very dedicated hard working individual and I wish you and your husband the very best. Please know that Cannabisnews has changed my life with respect to Cannabis activism. -z [ Post Comment ] Comment #28 posted by FoM on March 28, 2001 at 20:14:03 PT I wish you success with your web site Thank You zion,Very good what you said. I feel that what I do here everyday is a "mission" I know I am doing the right thing and that gives me peace. I am ashamed of the way our leaders that are practicing christians do what they do. That's not the way to build a church. Not a real church. [ Post Comment ] Comment #27 posted by zion on March 28, 2001 at 19:52:47 PT It goes deeper than MJ I agree that Wednesdays's Supreme Court comments don't bode well for the June decision. But I also believe that the medical marijuana issue is just a symptom of a much deeper problem affecting the country.How long does everyone think we can endure the hypocrisy and schizophrenia in today's society? Robbie asks how the country got this way, so that the Supreme Court could turn its back on the Constitution and negate the rights of states and individuals in favor of the federal government. It's because of the ever-widening view of the Interstate Commerce clause of the Constitution, allowing federal juridiction over matters involving interstate commerce. Thus kidnapping becomes a federal crime because it can cross state boundaries. Growing marijuana is a ferderal crime because it is "intent to distribute" which can affect interstate commerce. The list of ferderal crimes with some loose connection to "interstate commerce" grows daily, and the judicial system upholds it with their ever-widening federal court system and appointed (note, not "elected") judges.How long does everybody think we can endure the hypocrisy and schizophrenia in today's society?We have the Supreme Court, which generally upholds state's rights, firmly embracing the Controlled Substances Act, flying in the face of the 10th amendment. We have the Supreme Court, which generally are staunch defenders of the 4th amendment against unreasonable search and siezure, supporting the ridiculously large brush of pervasive urine testing, drug sniffing dogs, and forfeiture of assets - all in the name of the war on drugs.We have Republicans, defenders of "personsal responsibility" and dismantlers of "big government", expanding government agencies, budgets and federal jursidictions to combat drugs. Heck, if you can't trust the federal government to manage welfare and solve social ills such as poverty, what in God's name makes you think the federal government can solve the social ill of drug abuse???We have Democrats, defenders of civil rights, spend the last 8 years running up the prison population to 2 million and jailing the most marijuana consumers of any administration, all to look tough on the issue of drugs.How long do you think Joe and Jane Q. Citizen can take it?We are the nation of the free, the land of the brave, defenders of the free world - yet are the number 1 country in the world for prison population. Amnesty International has us on their human rights watch list. We have random police roadblocks, we must show photo ID to travel by plane, we have metal detectors and assigned police in our high schools. We won the cold war, yet have increased the surveillance on our population. The threat of "terrorism" has made us feel far less safe in the last 10 years than the threat of nuclear war ever did in the last 50.We have Congress, scrambling to vote every which way the polls are indicating, but burying their head in the sand when 8 states across the nation say "enough is enough" and vote in favor of medical marijuana, often by large margins (larger margins than the election of the President in the last 3 elections). Heck, they voted to PROHIBIT the count of votes in Washington D.C. on the medical marijuana referendum.We have Christian groups who say they are for compassion, who are against the government telling them what they can believe in, but who are actively jailing citizens and fighting to supress any discussion or questioning of the insanity of this police state we are creating over "drugs".Thank you, Observer, for posting the link to Christians for Cannabis. It is heartening to see that there others who are fed up with groups like the Family Research Council and other government lobbyist leeches living off of the politics of division and hate. An excellent response to the FRC's amicus brief is included below.So how long can the nation endure its schizophrenia? Make no mistake, this isn't just about medical marijuana. We've been descending into a pit for the last 30 years, and most of it can be traced to the drug war.Up until this year, we enjoyed the greatest peacetime prosperity this nation has ever seen in its 200+ years of existence....but the majority of people felt the country was heading in the wrong direction. How long o Lord? How long will we be hypocrites?I am hopeful that more and more people are waking up to task at hand. There is a significant disconnect between the public and their representatives (legislative, judical & lobbyist) and it is growing. I know I wouldn't have considered "coming out of the closet" a year ago. I am vocal now.-z http://www.christiansforcannabis.com/article1002.html [ Post Comment ] Comment #26 posted by FoM on March 28, 2001 at 19:29:20 PT Hi Jean Thanks Jeaneous,It's good to read your comments. We've come so far haven't we? The Supreme Court. It's almost unbelievable that one little plant could cause this amount of ruckus but we sure know it has. I don't know what many of us and others would do without this law changing. It's really about an adults right to choose what they want to put into their own bodies because we are suppose to have that right. Freedom to be whoever we are and try to find peace in this mixed up world. That's all most of us want I believe. We're tired but fine and thank you for making me feel needed here. That always makes me smile. [ Post Comment ] Comment #25 posted by Jeaneous on March 28, 2001 at 19:01:11 PT: doesn't matter I am at a point where this issue is worth whatever actions it takes. If this court goes negative, I'm going public. I don't think I can just sit and watch this one. It is at the core of medicinal, and of course it is still not being taken seriously. They talk of not having a "patient" in front of them, Jeff Jones is thousands of people's voices as patients to this court. Again, this supposed supreme court will not make an impact on my thinking, I have no respect for their findings.. period. And I will protest. It is time to not be intimidated by them. I know nobody wants to end up in jail... but I'm about willing to at this point. I want my rights upheld.FoM...gl to both of you...thanks for all the hard work and info you supply for us... [ Post Comment ] Comment #24 posted by Tim Stone on March 28, 2001 at 18:09:04 PT Grim Outlook It's clear from news reports of Wed's Supreme Court medpot hearing that at least five justices are against any "medical necessity" argument going in. Justice Breyer is the brother of the CA. fed. judge who originally heard the case, and has therefore recused himself. So the best that can come out of this case is a 5-3 defeat. The Supremes only took this case to slap the medpot movement. The only question here is how hard are they going to slap. Will they rule just on the narrow legal point at hand, about a medical necessity defense, or will they rule more broadly and try to kill medpot once and for all?As far as the narcs and the media are concerned, it won't make any difference. The narcs have an 80-year history of taking narrow Supreme Court rulings and extrapolating way beyond the ruling in law enforcement policy...and getting away with it. And the media have an 80-year history of pliantly reporting whatever the narcs say is so. And so, when the ruling on this medpot case comes down in June or so, the narcs will once again take it as a green light to effectively nullify all the state medpot initiative laws now in effect. The (mostly state) narcs will gleefully bust every medpot "troublemaker" they can get their hands on, using this case as justification, even if they are extrapolating beyond what the Supremes actually say. And the media will dutifully report that medpot is dead because the narcs say the Supreme Court said so. And every politician in the U.S. will breathe a sigh of relief and now oppose any and all drug policy reform, using the excuse that the Supreme Court has spoken and settled the issue for all time. Yeah, like Dred Scott. This is a black, black day, folk. The Supreme Court ruling in this case - against - will probably set drug policy reform back by at least five years. And it will force things to get much more down and dirty than need have been, before any change actually happens. Jury nullification, mass civil disobedience, deja vu all over again. [ Post Comment ] Comment #23 posted by FoM on March 28, 2001 at 17:47:00 PT Thanks observer That's a really neat web site. I'm going to add it to my What's New page. What's New Page [ Post Comment ] Comment #22 posted by FoM on March 28, 2001 at 17:31:18 PT Thanks Everyone Thank you all for you kind wishes. Our day went well and now we're home and I can catch up on all this news. Robbie, I am going to do the March News again this year! I did news the last two years and soon I'll make a page for this years! I hope it is a great success!Million Marijuana March 1999http://www.freedomtoexhale.com/million.htmMillion Marijuana March 2000http://www.freedomtoexhale.com/mmnes20.htm [ Post Comment ] Comment #21 posted by valkat on March 28, 2001 at 17:22:15 PT: I have cancer I have cancer - stage i tic nomo breast cancer. I have been told that I may have pain for the rest of my life where my lymph nodes were removed. Its not a bad pain, I can bare it but I have not had a good night sleeps for a year and the thought of having pain for the rest of my life is not something to look forward to. I have tried other pain pills but all of them make me sick to my stomack -and herbal remedies don't work for me.I need something that will give me a good nights sleep. So I can function durning the day and also helps with the pain of my physical therapy. I want to try marijuana. How do I go about doing it. If it works it worth it. Please help me. [ Post Comment ] Comment #20 posted by CannabisMythsExposed on March 28, 2001 at 16:43:10 PT: Petition - Stop Arresting Medical Cannabis Users New worldwide petition to end the arrests of medical cannabis patients.A moment of your time good people. Aimed at both UK and US governments. STOP THE ARREST OF MEDICAL CANNABIS PATIENTS [ Post Comment ] Comment #19 posted by Mayan on March 28, 2001 at 16:09:19 PT Pharmaceutical puppets! The anti's don't even realize they are playing right into the hands of the timber,petrochemical & pharmaceutical interests...and the politicians who take money from these greedheads. A vast majority of Americans support medical marijuana. It's a shame that they have so few representatives. The anti's are so un-American. They would probably be much happier in China or Russia. They would definitely fit in better there. Oh well.....The truth will prevail in the end. [ Post Comment ] Comment #18 posted by Dan Hillman on March 28, 2001 at 15:32:14 PT Christian Science Monitor Poll on Medical Cannabis Poll question: Should it be legal to use marijuana if a doctor says it's a 'medical necessity'?http://monitortalk.csmonitor.com/n/main.asp?webtag=cs-society&nav=start&lgnf=y&msg=190%2E1 [ Post Comment ] Comment #17 posted by MikeEEEEE on March 28, 2001 at 15:28:51 PT I'm very hopeful yet... I wouldn't be surprised what the anti's do. I think they already have Dare groups outside the court.I'm expecting nothing from the Feds.Keep writing letters and send the correct message. We will win.Anti's are mindless, conditioned and foolish.FoM, good luck with your hubby. [ Post Comment ] Comment #16 posted by observer on March 28, 2001 at 15:16:16 PT Here's How the Pro-Jail Crowd Organizes see:Joyce "Carrie Nation" Nalepka's site:http://www.ourdrugfreekids.org``. . . If you have any questions feel free to call:Carla Lowe at 916 965-4825 or cell 916 708 4111or Joyce Nalepka 301 681-7861 '' [ Post Comment ] Comment #15 posted by NewsGrabber on March 28, 2001 at 14:09:46 PT Court Considers Medical Marijuana AP WashingtonCourt Considers Medical MarijuanaMarch 28, 2001 4:17 PM ESTby ANNE GEARAN Associated Press WriterWASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court took a first look at prescription pot Wednesday, hearing arguments on an issue that has pitted the federal government against cancer, AIDS and other patients who sometimes regard marijuana as a wonder drug.As far as the federal government is concerned, marijuana is illegal and should remain so. Federal enforcement efforts have led to confrontations and arrests in California and other Western states.The issue for an openly skeptical Supreme Court is whether a patient's need for marijuana trumps a 1970 federal law that classifies it as an illegal substance with no known medical value.President Bush supports federal prohibitions on marijuana, but also respects states' rights to pass voter initiatives, as was the case in California, spokesman Ari Fleischer said.''The president is opposed to the legalization of marijuana, including for medicinal purposes,'' he said Wednesday.Lawyers for the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative in California want to make what they call a ''medical necessity'' defense in federal court, and argue that federal judges and juries have the power to decide if the drug is warranted.Several justices seemed to think that approach was a stretch at best.''I thought the medical necessity defense was for an individual,'' Justice Antonin Scalia said. ''You would extend it to the person prescribing the drug, and even to opening a business,'' to dispense it.''That's a vast expansion beyond any necessity defense I've ever heard of,'' Scalia said.Justice Anthony M. Kennedy seemed to agree.''You're asking us to hold that this defense exists ... with no specific plaintiff before us, no specific case,'' Kennedy told the club's lawyer, Gerald Uelmen.The court's ruling is expected by the end of June.A ruling for the Oakland club would allow special marijuana clubs to resume distributing the drug in California, which passed one of the nation's first medical marijuana laws in 1996.A ruling for the federal government would not negate the California voter initiative, but effectively would prevent clubs like Oakland's from distributing the drug openly.One of the most vocal opponents of legalized prescription marijuana is Barry McCaffrey, the Clinton administration's drug policy director. He once dismissed the practice as ''Cheech and Chong medicine,'' a reference to the comedy team that celebrated pot-smoking.Advocates of medical marijuana say the drug can ease side effects from chemotherapy, save nauseated AIDS patients from wasting away or even allow multiple sclerosis sufferers to rise from a wheelchair and walk.There is no definitive science that the drug works, or works better than conventional, legal alternatives. Nonetheless, nine states have laws allowing the legal use of marijuana to treat a host of ailments.Scalia challenged Uelmen to list medical emergencies that could require marijuana treatment.''Death, starvation, blindness,'' Uelmen began.''Stomach ache?'' Scalia interrupted with an edge of sarcasm.Representing the government, Barbara Underwood, a holdover from the Clinton administration Justice Department, said the 1970 Controlled Substances Act ''leaves no room for the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative'' and others to act as ''marijuana pharmacies.''Bush's choice as chief advocate before the Supreme Court, Theodore Olson, has not been confirmed by the Senate.Several states are considering medical marijuana laws, and Congress may revisit the issue this year. A measure to counteract laws like California's died in the House last year.Activists on both sides gathered outside the court.The Clinton administration sued to stop distribution by the Oakland group and five other California clubs in 1998.U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, brother of Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, sided with the government. All the clubs except the Oakland group eventually closed down, and the Oakland club turned to registering potential marijuana recipients while it awaited a final ruling.The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, ruling that medical necessity is a legal defense. Charles Breyer followed up by issuing strict guidelines for making that claim.Stephen Breyer will not participate as the other eight justices consider their ruling. Should the court divide 4-4, the appeals court ruling would stand.Voters in Arizona, Alaska, Colorado, Maine, Nevada, Oregon and Washington also have approved ballot initiatives allowing the use of medical marijuana. In Hawaii, the Legislature passed a similar law and the governor signed it last year.The case is United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative, 00-151.- - - On the Net:Supreme Court site: http://www.supremecourtus.govFor the appeals court ruling in U.S. v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative: http://www.uscourts.gov/links.html and click on 9th Circuit.Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative: http://www.rxcbc.org [ Post Comment ] Comment #14 posted by Robbie on March 28, 2001 at 13:53:39 PT I think we're in trouble Re: previous article posted by Gary)The justices seem to be sticking to the Controlled Substances Act as if this were US doctrine. The CSA is not completely supported as a viable law according to the Constitution article that Dan posted yesterday. Namely, that rights guaranteed by the government should not negate the rights that states and/or individuals keep for themselves!!!Our government, ladies and gentleman, has come to a point where, in the name of the cohesion of their view of the Republic, the minutiae of the rights guaranteed by the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and subsequent amendments, are void and irrelevant to the health and well-being of our society.Have I missed that little change to our system? Have I missed that little caveat? It must have happened somewhere over the last 225 years. Now, at least implicitly, we are asked to accept that as they are spelled out in the Constitution (which we all believe in,) basic rights are no longer acceptible as the law? So Truth, Justice, and the American Way are so much horse-shit?We might as well dissolve the U.S. and divvy up the land amongst the nations from which we all came. If America does not have the one saving grace that excuses our excesses and our crimes, that of democracy and an individual's right to pursuit of their OWN happiness, what do we truly have?Life in a fantasy.I love my country, ladies and gentlemen, and the only way to save it is to fight against it.P.S. I hope Georgie Boy has lived up to your expectations. He has lived up to mine. Don't wait. Get people together to march for pot! [ Post Comment ] Comment #13 posted by observer on March 28, 2001 at 13:29:08 PT Christians... ... For Cannabis!see:Christians For Cannabishttp://www.christiansforcannabis.com/ [ Post Comment ] Comment #12 posted by Gary Storck on March 28, 2001 at 12:52:56 PT US REUTERS: Supreme Court Questions Medical Mariju Good luck FOM!Here is another report from the proceedings, and it sounds like the justices do not comprehend!-----------Wednesday March 28 2:05 PM ETSUPREME COURT QUESTIONS MEDICAL MARIJUANA USEBy James ViciniWASHINGTON (Reuters) - With the federal government warning against creating ``marijuana pharmacies,'' a number of Supreme Court justices expressed reservations on Wednesday about allowing marijuana to be given to patients who prove cannabis was medically necessary.In a major medical marijuana case involving a California cannabis club, the justices appeared sympathetic to the government's argument that patients may not get marijuana as a ''medical necessity'' because it has been classified as an illegal drug under federal law.The hour-long hearing marked a watershed for the U.S. medical marijuana movement, which has been mired in legal battles ever since California in 1996 approved the nation's first initiative legalizing medicinal use of the drug.U.S. Justice Department (news - web sites) lawyer Barbara Underwood criticized a U.S. appeals court ruling for allowing marijuana clubs in California to distribute the drug to those who prove cannabis was medically necessary.She said the ruling ``allows the operation of marijuana pharmacies.''Underwood said federal agencies had not established that marijuana was medically useful. In fact, she said agencies had established the drug has a high potential for abuse and alternative pain relievers exist, including the synthetic form of marijuana's active ingredient.Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (news - web sites) asked about examples of sick patients, such as a man with cancer who was constantly vomiting and benefited from using marijuana. ``Am I wrong in thinking there has been quite a bit of this going on?'' she asked.Several justices asked Underwood why the Justice Department did not simply bring criminal charges against the club, instead of the civil lawsuit seeking an injunction to stop it from distributing marijuana.Chief Justice William Rehnquist (news - web sites) asked Gerald Uelmen, the lawyer for the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative, whether there was any other case in which the Supreme Court has recognized the ``medical necessity defense.''Uelmen admitted no other case existed, prompting Rehnquist to remark that Congress ruled out that defense when it placed marijuana on the listed of illegal drugs under the federal law called the Controlled Substances Act.Rehnquist Asks How Ill A Person Must Be To Use MarijuanaRehnquist asked how serious the medical condition must be to justify use of marijuana, saying cannabis did not save lives, but only eased a person's pain and provided comfort.Uelmen said marijuana may be provided to seriously ill patients facing ``imminent harm,'' such as death, starvation or going blind.Justice Anthony Kennedy (news - web sites) disagreed with Uelmen's argument that it would create only a very narrow exception for medical marijuana use. ``It doesn't sound limited to me at all,'' he said. ``That's a huge rewrite of the statute.''Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (news - web sites) said the U.S. appeals court ''appeared to create a blanket exception to the Controlled Substances Act.''Justice Antonin Scalia (news - web sites) told Uelmen the defense can be raised by an individual, not by ``someone who opens up a business to provide illegal drugs to those who need it.''Under questioning from Scalia, Uelmen said the defense could apply to use of other illegal drugs by sick patients.Scalia called it an ``easy gamble'' for the patient. ``A jury versus the grim reaper. I'll take the jury any day,'' he said.The court will issue its ruling by the end of June. Is My Medicine Legal Yet? [ Post Comment ] Comment #11 posted by craven on March 28, 2001 at 12:40:36 PT I hear ya Dan.... What I meant (I'm craven, not the other guy, but he was responding to what I said) was that politicians fear opposing groups such as the Christian Coalition, because groups like this hold not only strong political ties, but also a sence in the community like THEY are the true hard-core christian types, and those who dont think like them must have anti-christian values. Politicians are careful to not go against these types of groups for fear people may see them as uncaring atheists/agnostics. Church and State are supposed to be separate, but if you look closely I bet you'll find many cases where the church or perceived christian values plays a HUGE role in what is done and not done in this country. In my opinion, we need to convince these groups (Christian Coalition, Bob Jones University, etc.) that outlawing this plant that God gave us is an example of politicians undermining Gods plan, questioning His ideals, and get them on our side. [ Post Comment ] Comment #10 posted by Robbie on March 28, 2001 at 12:38:34 PT Good luck, FoM! Good luck to you and to your husband, FoM!! We all hope that everything goes well for you, and I think we all definitely appreciate your efforts running this site.Thank You :-) Get up! Get out! Get to it! There's a storm comin'! [ Post Comment ] Comment #9 posted by NewsGrabber on March 28, 2001 at 12:19:37 PT Medicinal Dope on the Docket... Medicinal Dope on the Docket High Court Hears Marijuana Club CaseBy Geraldine SealeyMarch 28 -- Jeff Jones has witnessed firsthand the ravaging effects of cancer. He watched his father, Wayne Jones, battle his illness as well as the toxic treatments that left him nauseous, vomiting and weak.'Pot Club' Crackdown Justices Seem Skeptical States' Rights vs. War on DrugsA few years after his father died in 1988, Jones learned about the benefits marijuana could have provided his father. Using the drug can alleviate pain and nausea, and help patients hold down food, allowing them to stay stronger.Determined to put this knowledge to work for others, Jones opened the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative in California. Now, his non-profit group provides thousands of seriously ill people with information and support concerning the medicinal use of marijuana.Today, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on whether the Cooperative and other "pot clubs" can use "medical necessity" as a defense for using and distributing marijuana despite federal drug bans.'Pot Club' CrackdownUntil last year, the Cooperative provided marijuana to patients with letters of recommendation from doctors.Although marijuana is a Schedule I drug under federal law, California's 1996 Compassionate Use Act legalized the drug's use and cultivation for medicinal purposes in the state.Eight other states, plus Washington, D.C., have passed similar laws: Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, Oregon and Washington. At least 30 states have passed some form of legislation sympathetic to "seriously ill patients seeking access to marijuana for medicinal purposes."Today's case goes back to January 1998, when the federal government filed suit against Jones' Cooperative and five other "pot clubs" to prevent them from distributing marijuana. The club's practices violated the Controlled Substances Act, the government said. Further, the FDA had not declared marijuana safe for medicinal use.California officials argue the state has a right to enforce its own laws. Lawyers for the Justice Department have argued that distributing marijuana, even for the goal of helping ill patients, makes it difficult to enforce federal drug laws.Justices Seem Skeptical of ClubsSeveral justices seemed skeptical of the arguments for distributing medicinal marijuana. Defending so-called pot clubs, businesses organized to sell drugs, is different from arguing that a patient's need for the drug should override the law, Justice Antonin Scalia suggested."That's a vast expansion beyond any necessity defense I've ever heard of," he said.Justice Anthony M. Kennedy seemed to agree. "You're asking us to hold that this defense exists ... with no specific plaintiff before us, no specific case," he told the Cooperative's lawyer, Gerald Uelman.In lower courts, a federal judge ruled in favor of the federal government. But last year, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that "medical necessity" can be used as a legal defense.The government "has offered no evidence to rebut [a marijuana club's] evidence that cannabis is the only effective treatment for a large group of seriously ill individuals," the three-judge appellate panel said.States' Rights vs. War on DrugsThe case puts the rights of states to enforce their own laws at odds with a hard-line federal stance on illegal drugs. Those elements create an interesting dilemma for the court since the justices often defend states' rights and come down in support of federal drug law enforcement.In a legal brief, the Cooperative's lawyers appealed to the justices' commitment to preserving state's authority."The court in this case can affirm and deepen its commitment to federalism, fundamental liberties, and the powers reserved to the States and the people," they wrote, "and by doing so enable seriously ill patients to alleviate their suffering."Justice Stephen G. Breyer has recused himself from the case because his brother, Charles Breyer, is the federal district judge who ordered the club to stop distributing marijuana.A ruling in United States vs. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative is expected by June. scotus_marijuana010328.html [ Post Comment ] Comment #8 posted by NewsGrabber on March 28, 2001 at 11:29:50 PT Court Considers Medical Marijuana March 28, 2001 1:18 ESTCourt Considers Medical Marijuanaby ANNE GEARAN Associated Press WriterWASHINGTON (AP) -- Marijuana is an illegal drug, even if voters like the idea of using it in medical therapy, the federal government argued Wednesday as the Supreme Court took a first look at the debate over prescription pot.The court's watershed ruling, expected by June, likely would settle whether patients may get marijuana as a ''medical necessity'' even though it is an illegal drug under federal law.A ruling for the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative would allow special marijuana clubs to resume distributing the drug in California, which passed one of the nation's first medical marijuana laws in 1996.A ruling for the federal government would not negate the California voter initiative, but would effectively prevent clubs like Oakland's from distributing the drug.Several justices seemed skeptical of the marijuana-as-medicine argument in general, and of the notion that marijuana distributors have what the club's lawyers call a medical-necessity defense in court.That defense would essentially have a judge or jury agree that someone's need for the drug overrides the law. If that is so, the someone should be an actual patient, rather than a business organized to dispense or sell drugs, Justice Antonin Scalia suggested.''That's a vast expansion beyond any necessity defense I've ever heard of,'' Scalia said.Justice Anthony M. Kennedy seemed to agree.''You're asking us to hold that this defense exists ... with no specific plaintiff before us, no specific case,'' Kennedy told the club's lawyer, Gerald Uelman.At the White House, spokesman Ari Fleischer said Bush supports federal prohibitions on marijuana, but also respects states' rights to pass referendums like California's. ''The president is opposed to the legalization of marijuana, including for medicinal purposes,'' he said.A vocal assortment of interest groups and activists supporting the use of marijuana as medical treatment mounted an energetic public relations campaign ahead of Wednesday's oral arguments, and activists on both sides gathered outside the court.One woman carried a picket depicting a red ''Stop'' sign. It read: ''Stop arresting patients for medical marijuana.''On the other side, Scott Rich of the conservative Family Research Council said endorsing marijuana as therapy sends the wrong message to young people.''Marijuana is not good medicine, to put it simply,'' he said.A ruling against the club would mean the government could prosecute distributors aggressively in federal court, regardless of whether states have approved medical marijuana use. That would force providers underground or out of business altogether, advocates of medical marijuana say.California Attorney General Bill Lockyer is backing the Oakland club, arguing that the state has the right to enforce its law allowing seriously ill patients to use marijuana.Some patients and doctors say the drug relieves nausea, improves energy levels and helps combat the symptoms of ailments ranging from cancer to AIDS to glaucoma and multiple sclerosis.The Clinton administration sued the Oakland group and five other California distribution clubs in 1998, arguing that the clubs broke federal drug law by distributing, and in some cases growing, marijuana for medical use.U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, brother of Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, sided with the government. All the clubs except the Oakland group eventually closed down, and the Oakland club turned to registering potential marijuana recipients while it awaited a final ruling.Last year, an appeals court revived the case by ruling that ''medical necessity'' is a legal defense, and Judge Breyer followed up by issuing strict guidelines for making that claim.Before leaving office, the Clinton administration appealed to the Supreme Court.The government said the Oakland club flouted the law and continued to distribute marijuana after an order to stop. Then-Solicitor General Seth Waxman also rejected the notion that marijuana could be a medical necessity, and said Congress had spoken clearly on the issue in the broad 1970 law that regulated drug distribution.A lower court ''may not override those determinations by reweighing the scientific and medical data and social policies considered by Congress, the attorney general and the secretary of health and human services, and concluding that the public interest supports the illegal distribution of marijuana,'' Waxman wrote in legal papers.Justice Breyer will not participate as the other eight justices consider their ruling. Should the court divide 4-4, the appeals court ruling would stand and the marijuana club would be back in business.Voters in Alaska, Colorado, Maine, Nevada, Oregon and Washington also have approved ballot initiatives allowing the use of medical marijuana. In Hawaii, a similar law was passed by the legislature and signed by the governor in June 2000.- - -The case is United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative, 00-151 [ Post Comment ] Comment #7 posted by Dan B on March 28, 2001 at 11:17:25 PT: FoM, Best to You and Your Husband Take care, and have a safe trip.Dan B [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by Dan B on March 28, 2001 at 11:15:59 PT: The words "I hate" I am writing this in response to Tjaden De`Periculo, in particular. When you say "I hate Christians," you place yourself on par with Hitler and his ilk. You may as well be John Ashcroft saying "I hate drug users." You will get nowhere in this war using hate as your motivation. That is the tack of the prohibitionists and, frankly, you should be ashamed of yourself for stooping to their level.One major reason why you should refrain from saying "I hate Christians" in this forum is that many of us are Christians. Yes, many Christians--real Christians who recognize that the religion is based on love, not hate--are adamantly opposed to the war on drug users. You do not want to alienate these people. Watch what you say.Dan B [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by Tjaden De`Periculo on March 28, 2001 at 10:28:29 PT: Damn Christians Yea i hate christians too :P Them and their freaky ass jesus lol. [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by Tjaden De`Periculo on March 28, 2001 at 10:25:46 PT: Good Luck Have a fun round trip and good luck :)Tjaden [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by craven on March 28, 2001 at 10:24:43 PT Fox News Fox News Live just did a small piece on the supreme court. They did a call-in portion, and though they only took 3 calls, all 3 were for medical merijuana. One from NC, one from FL... dont remember where the other one was from.. the dairy state i think they said.. whatever that one is.. heheWho knows how it'll go. Cant be too optimistic though, this country is too hung up on christian perception/family values. When the anti's say it's un-christian or anti-family values, the political figures start to squirm. [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by kaptinemo on March 28, 2001 at 08:40:04 PT: Good luck to you and your husband Our hopes go with you. [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by FoM on March 28, 2001 at 07:38:47 PT Just a Note To Readers Hello Everyone,It looks like an exciting day for our cause. I am sorry but today I must be away from here until late tonight so I got up early to get articles posted. I know I will miss some but will catch up when we get home. My husband has a biopsy scheduled and it is around 300 miles round trip. I hope to come home and find comments with good news. I love breaking stories but today if any break I won't be able too get them but maybe some of you could keep the people informed by posting information. That would really help.PS: I'm keeping my fingers crossed that common sense will rule in the end. FreedomToExhale [ Post Comment ] Post Comment Name: Optional Password: E-Mail: Subject: Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message] Link URL: Link Title: