cannabisnews.com: Up In Smoke Up In Smoke Posted by FoM on March 28, 2001 at 19:57:34 PT By Daryl Lindsey Source: Salon.com Listening to the Supreme Court talk about doobies is like talking to your parents about sex -- it's so strangely out of place in the confines of the hallowed and conservative institution that it makes you cringe. But that's exactly what the Supreme Court did Wednesday as oral arguments began in the case of U.S. vs. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative, the first medical marijuana case to reach the high court. The case is a test of California's Proposition 215, which was passed by California voters in 1996. Seven other states have also passed measures OK'ing the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes. But the case presents a philosophical conundrum for the court, which has in the past favored states' rights, but now seems poised to overturn the will of California voters. At issue is a 1999 federal appeals court ruling that holds, in the case of the California medical marijuana initiative, that a person could flout federal drug laws if there was a legitimate medical necessity for doing so. An injunction against the decision was issued when the Supreme Court took up the case last August. If the justices rule against the medical-necessity exemption, it will surely result in the closure of California's remaining cannabis buyers' clubs, and push marijuana distribution back underground. The arguments before the justices were fairly straightforward. Barbara Underwood, the U.S. Justice Department attorney arguing on behalf of the federal government, stated that any ruling in support of medical marijuana would be tantamount to permitting the "operation of marijuana pharmacies," run, in her words, by "charlatans." In other words: Doobies are dubious. In her arguments, Underwood stated that no federal agency has established the medical effectiveness of marijuana; instead, they have established that it's a substance ripe for abuse. She also pointed to synthetic alternatives to pot that can be used to treat the same conditions -- like chronic pain and wasting in AIDS patients -- that advocates say can be effectively treated with cannabis. She cited the example of Marinol, a synthetic version of marijuana's active ingredient that is available by prescription. The availability of these alternatives, she argued, undermine the defense's case that there is no alternative for some patients other than marijuana. Considerable energy was also expended by the justices on the question of why the Justice Department had not sought criminal prosecution of buyers' clubs instead of pursuing a civil injunction against them. The answer is obvious. As Justice Souter pointed out during the arguments, the popularity of Proposition 215 would make it very difficult for the government to get a conviction in any jury trial. In that respect, it made strong sense for the feds to pursue the current legal track. The case is already challenging enough for the federal government, since it encroaches on states' rights territory, and any outcome other than upholding the federal appeals court decision will be unwelcome in the nation's most populous state. And as a palpable backlash to the drug war grows, a prosecutorial strategy under U.S. drug laws would be politically unpopular. That is particularly true in California, where the Clinton administration's threats to strip the prescription-writing authority of any doctor caught prescribing medical marijuana were not well received. Santa Clara University law professor Gerald Uelmen, appearing on behalf of the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative, argued that denying seriously ill AIDS patients access to medical marijuana, which has been proven anecdotally effective in restoring the appetites in AIDS patients suffering from severe wasting, and also in helping combat chronic pain, would be the equivalent of killing them. Denying that access, Uelmen argued, would violate the due-process clause of the Constitution. In his criticism of the defense's case, Justice Antonin Scalia tried to separate what he suggested were two separate issues: Whether a patient should be able to determine medical necessity and whether or not buyers' clubs should be exempted from federal drug laws in order to distribute cannabis. The justices seemed very critical of the idea of businesses distributing marijuana -- with Justice Scalia arguing that a patient rather than a business would more likely have that right. "That's a vast expansion beyond any necessity defense I've ever heard of," Scalia told the court. Uelmen attempted to frame the issue more tightly, suggesting that that medical necessity would apply in life and death situations or in cases where the patient faced "imminent harm" like going blind (from symptoms of glaucoma, for example), starving or death. But the justices didn't seem to buy that argument. "It doesn't seem that limited to me at all," said Justice Anthony Kennedy. "That's a huge rewrite of the statute," he said, referring to the federal Controlled Substances Act. In fact, much of the debate in the oral arguments swirled around why the justices should overturn a decision by Congress, which deliberated and concluded that there is no medical value associated with marijuana before classifying pot in its category of the worst illicit drugs. Chief Justice Rehnquist was even more brutal when he stated that Congress had already ruled out the medical-necessity defense, which has never previously been used before the Supreme Court. Since its passage in 1996, Proposition 215 has spurred a rift between federal and state officials. State officials, wary of upsetting voters, have avoided prosecutions of both cannabis clubs and medical marijuana buyers, even as the feds have ratcheted up the pressure. Instead of pursuing criminal prosecutions, which would almost certainly be struck down by any civilian jury, the federal government has pursued the case on legal grounds in civil court. The case that reached the Supreme Court Wednesday was originally launched by the Clinton administration in 1998 against six California buyers' clubs. Of those six, only Oakland's is still in business today. A U.S. District Court initially ruled in favor of the government's position. That decision was issued by Charles Breyer, brother of Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, who recused himself from the current case. However, Breyer's decision was partially overturned by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which proffered the medical necessity exemption. A decision affirming the medical-necessity exemption is highly unlikely, given the composition of the current court. Besides, the case is premature. Regardless what you believe about medical marijuana, there's little conclusive scientific evidence yet that marijuana offers medicinal qualities unavailable in synthetic versions or other painkillers. It's hard, if not outright impossible, to imagine the Supreme Court overruling Congress, which classified marijuana as a Schedule 1 drug after careful deliberation. Were the defense able to present substantial scientific evidence of the medical benefit of pot, then a different outcome would surely be conceivable. But the current arguments appeared to be too big of a stretch even for the court's staunchest liberals. And that's bad news for the medical marijuana movement. If the court issues a broad ruling in the case affirming the Schedule 1 status of the drug, it could make it impossible for states to permit use of medical marijuana for years to come. Note: The U.S. Supreme Court seems poised to close down California's pot buyer's clubs.About the Writer:Daryl Lindsey is associate editor of Salon News. Source: Salon.com (US Web)Author: Daryl LindseyPublished: March 29, 2001Fax: (415) 645-9204Copyright: 2001 Salon.comAddress: 22 4th Street 16th Floor San Francisco, CA 94103Website: http://www.salon.com/Contact: salon salonmagazine.comForum: http://tabletalk.salon.com/Feedback: http://www.salon.com/contact/letters/Related Articles & Web Sites:Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Co-op: http://www.rxcbc.org/USA V. OCBC & Jeffrey Jones: http://www.druglibrary.org/ocbc/CannabisNews Medical Marijuana Archives: http://cannabisnews.com/news/list/medical.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #15 posted by Delta 9 on March 30, 2001 at 11:29:26 PT: From the Holy Spirit The studies have already been done. Tobacco has been found to be more 'addictive' than Marijuana! 4 million people each year die due to Smoking! (Yet It's LEGAL) Not 1 death can be directly attributed to using (eating or smoking) marijuana? "It's a natural herb" just like Thyme or Oregano! Only its 100% better! :) So why is Tobacco Legal? Big $$$ Money! If Marijuana is legalized, Big Money Corporations, such as Alcohol & Tobacco companies will lose valuable dollars. So, Keep the 'natural' stimulants illegal and legalize the 'crap' that corporations are selling for profit even though they are killing millions of people each year! "Nuff said" Its time we 'educate our government' and pass laws that make sense! TDS Schaffer Library on Drug Research [ Post Comment ] Comment #14 posted by jAHn on March 29, 2001 at 20:10:41 PT As long as... ..we know who we're Protesting against. We're not going to get anywhere by doing this One at a time Organization, you know that, right? I wish that someone would seriously make an effort, with their many millions (you know you're out there, why AREN't you helping??) to construct a simple website that mentions the slightest bit of Prohibition and the People that Jyhad it through this country, making everyone agree to what they say... [ Post Comment ] Comment #13 posted by FoM on March 29, 2001 at 16:45:41 PT Transcripts Supreme Court Hearing On Medical Marijuana Newshawk: DrugSense http://www.drugsense.org/Pubdate: Wed, 28 Mar 2001Source: CNN (US)Show: Street Sweep, 15:00:00 PM ETHost: Allan ChernoffGuests: Robert Barr, Chuck ThomasCopyright: 2001 Cable News Network, Inc.Contact: cnnfn.interact turner.comForum: http://community.cnn.com/Feedback: http://cnnfn.cnn.com/services/speakup/Website: http://www.cnn.com/ http://cnnfn.cnn.com/Note: Transcript # 01032815FN-l06http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n552/a04.html [ Post Comment ] Comment #12 posted by Jeaneous on March 29, 2001 at 12:33:53 PT: does anyone know? Where can I read the transcripts of the hearings? I'm curious about what was said.I believe that this court will not give this decision lightly. I believe they will run around it as much as they can without stirring "us" up too much. But, I think it's time for stirring, no matter what their position. It's time for our movement to be a "movement". We all tend to be non combative for fear of eventual prosecution. GOSH!!!!!!! I WANT TO PROTEST TO THE ENDS OF THE EARTH!!!Anyone interested??? [ Post Comment ] Comment #11 posted by observer on March 29, 2001 at 09:08:52 PT Only 'Harmful Effect' Studies Funded Superstoner asks: if people claim ... and i mean people not medical doctors that marijuana works as a medicine than how come there is no effort to research it and find out if there are medical properties Good question!``Dr. Igor Grant, a UC-San Diego psychiatrist who directs the research center, said scientists have encountered daunting barriers to doing research on the therapeutic benefits of marijuana, rather than on its deleterious effects. . . .''UC Center To Fund Four Medicinal Pot Studieshttp://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n327/a07.html ``For decades, federal policies have discouraged and even prohibited such studies. By contrast, the federal government has generously funded studies examining the harmful effects of marijuana."It is the first money earmarked for looking at cannabis as a therapeutic rather than looking at its ill effects," said Donald Abrams, a University of California San Francisco researcher who will receive one of the grants.State Backs UCSD Look Into Pot As Medicine . . . ''http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n335/a11.html [ Post Comment ] Comment #10 posted by Superstoner on March 29, 2001 at 08:55:25 PT wtf ... agian "It doesn't seem that limited to me at all," said Justice Anthony Kennedy. "That's a huge rewrite of the statute," he said, referring to the federal Controlled Substances Act. In fact, much of the debate in the oral arguments swirled around why the justices should overturn a decision by Congress, which deliberated and concluded that there is no medical value associated with marijuana before classifying pot in its category of the worst illicit drugs. Ok but if people claim ... and i mean people not medical doctors that marijuana works as a medican than how come there is no effort to research it and find out if there are medical properties. But this is still related to money and how people tend to protect their cash crops such as alcohol and tobacco. If pot was legal we would all be better off. Living in fear is not mentioned in the consitution and sure not some thing that is attacted to freedom. [ Post Comment ] Comment #9 posted by Neutrino on March 29, 2001 at 07:42:41 PT Why does my heart feel so bad..... Why does my soul feel so sad....feel something wrong...for all the millions that needlessly suffer from the blindness and ignorance of the few. Change my friends happens in direct proportion to the amount of sacrifice we are willing to endure for the truth. When we stand up as individuals and as a group to say enough is enough only then will this end. What are you willing to do? [ Post Comment ] Comment #8 posted by The GCW on March 29, 2001 at 06:41:54 PT: From the Holy Spirit of Truth In plant form, Cannabis is God. [ Post Comment ] Comment #7 posted by The GCW on March 29, 2001 at 05:50:33 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 #6 posted by kaptinemo on March 29, 2001 at 04:32:44 PT: It's 'expert witness' time. God, I'd give half a month's pay to be a fly on the wall, there.Granted, things don't look too good for us...right now, that is. Some of the supposedly learned Justices are demonstrating the length, breadth and depth of their ignorance for all the world to see. If they shoved their heads any further in the sand, one might be tempted to think that what sticks out of the ground is really all that they are...*ssholes. Despite the robes, the ceremonies, the decorum, some of them are proving to be little more than that.This is truly embarrassing. The world is watching as some of those who have been vouchsafed enormous power to shape our society are behaving like a bunch of black-robed trogledytes. I must admit, I had expected some degree of resistance to the idea of MMJ; after all, this is a court largely populated by ReaganBush appointees. But the sneering, gutter level of discourse that people like Scalia are providing is downright shocking.I'd expect better behavior from a public servant. But then, Scalia and his ilk are DrugWarriors. Arrogance is one of their hallmarks.So, what's needed right now is to have every author, scientists, doctor, whatever, who has published research on this issue to come forth and regale these supposedly educated people with the facts that heretofore have been oh so carefully dodged by them. We might have caught one on the ear, people, but the fight's not over yet.But remember, friends, this is only the opening round. Or as they used to say, "The Fat Lady hasn't sung yet." [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by ekim on March 29, 2001 at 04:25:50 PT: Why no mention of Judge Young's findings In fact, much of the debate in the oral arguments swirled around why the justices should overturn a decision by Congress, which deliberated and concluded that there is no medical value associated with marijuana before classifying pot in its category of the worst illicit drugs. IN 1988 Law Judge Young concluded after 5000 pages of public input that Marijuana is one of the safest substances known to man. [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by dddd on March 28, 2001 at 23:27:33 PT McCarthy I think the perfect thing to say to these smug "justices" of the Supremisist Court,,would be; "Have you no decency?" [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by observer on March 28, 2001 at 22:01:01 PT Chief Justice Rehnquist: Dope Fiend and Hypocrite Chief Justice Rehnquist was even more brutal when he stated that Congress had already ruled out the medical-necessity defense, which has never previously been used before the Supreme Court.Masterfully weasel-worded! Have to give Old 'Pladidyl' Rehnquist credit for that. Naturally, one wouldn't expect Rehnquist to know of the (medical) necessity defense in English Common Law (upon which US law is based), either.1981 -- Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist -- who has, for several months, been taking substantial doses of Placidyl to relieve intense back pain -- checks into George Washington Hospital for teatment of side effects, including speech so severly slurred that he was frequently incoherent in court & according to a hospital spokesman, he is "hearing things & seeing things that other people did not hear & see."http://www.eskimo.com/~recall/bleed/1227.htm "... Chief Justice of the Supreme Court William Rehnquist has admitted that he was "addicted" to the sleeping pill Placidyl for nine years."http://www.princeton.edu/~progrev/99-00/n3_jw.html Yes, we can understand why Rehnquist would want to throw those dopers in jail. Everyone knows that dopers -- people strung out on drugs -- are inhuman creatures worthy only of our hate. Such people deserve jail (with a 'friendly' cellmate too, wink wink), why, isn't that right Rehnquist? Stop Prisoner Rape [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by MDG on March 28, 2001 at 21:22:03 PT Dr. Russo... I sure wish you could have been there for the only side that makes sense...ours!M... [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by Ethan Russo, MD on March 28, 2001 at 20:54:00 PT: Sounds Good, but it's not True "Regardless what you believe about medical marijuana, there's little conclusive scientific evidence yet that marijuana offers medicinal qualities unavailable in synthetic versions or other painkillers."Wrong. Unsubstantiated. You haven't studied it enough to make such an authoritative statement. Cannabis is more than just THC. No other analgesic works the way it does and through so many mechanisms without constipation, without nausea, without gastric ulcers, without dependency. For certain disorders, it is the best and only reasonable treatment for some patients. [ Post Comment ] Post Comment Name: Optional Password: E-Mail: Subject: Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message] Link URL: Link Title: