cannabisnews.com: High Court Tests Medical Pot Co-ops High Court Tests Medical Pot Co-ops Posted by FoM on March 29, 2001 at 07:43:36 PT By Carolyn Lochhead, Chronicle Staff Writer Source: San Francisco Chronicle The Supreme Court sharply questioned defenders of an Oakland marijuana buyers cooperative yesterday in a case that tests the scope of California's law allowing people with debilitating medical conditions to ease their symptoms by using marijuana. U.S. vs. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative marks the high court's first venture into the controversial thicket of "medical marijuana," but does not pose a direct challenge to California's Compassionate Use Act, which was passed as Proposition 215 in 1996 by 56 percent of state voters. The crux of the case is whether the buyers clubs that help patients obtain marijuana violate federal drug law. Several clients of the Oakland cooperative came to hear the case yesterday, arguing that marijuana provides relief from pain and dangerous levels of nausea in cancer and AIDS patients, can help lift energy levels in severely ill people, and helps treat anorexia, glaucoma and other illnesses. Yvonne Westbrook of Richmond, who has multiple sclerosis, told reporters that smoking pot "allows me to function somewhat as a human being." Creighton Frost, who has throat cancer and spoke angrily through a voice synthesizer, said, "All I want is to be left alone to die comfortably." But after hearing the justices' questions yesterday, medical marijuana supporters came away prepared for a loss. "We're gearing for a potential ruling that is coming down on a negative side," said Jeffrey Jones, who heads the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative and was named as the chief respondent in the lawsuit. The civil suit, brought by the Clinton administration in 1998, seeks to close buyers clubs that sprang up in the wake of California's initiative and similar laws subsequently passed in eight other states -- Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, Oregon and Washington. The Justice Department prevailed in the district court, which placed an injunction on the Oakland cooperative to stop distributing marijuana to its clients. But that ruling was reversed in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Justice Department appealed to the Supreme Court, which is expected to issue its ruling in June. The Oakland cooperative, backed by a host of supporters who filed legal papers, including the California Medical Association and California Attorney General Bill Lockyer, argued among other things that the buyers clubs are shielded from federal drug laws through a "medical necessity" exemption. They said despite federal drug statutes, traditional common law provides a necessity defense that allows a law to be disobeyed, if obeying it would bring greater harm than the law sought to prevent. The Justice Department argued the common law defense does not apply to marijuana, because Congress rejected its medical use in the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 and explicitly reaffirmed that position in 1998. The Justice Department also argued that the Food and Drug Administration has not found marijuana to be "safe and effective" and that allowing marijuana buyers clubs to flourish would invite proliferation of drug operations. Such action, it maintained, "opens the way for manufacturers, distributors or users of other Schedule 1 drugs such as heroin or LSD . . . to invoke 'medical necessity' as a defense to violation of the nation's drug laws." While Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsberg, both members of the court's liberal wing, appeared sympathetic to the medical use of marijuana, the other justices found flaws in the Oakland club's case. Justice Antonin Scalia drew a sharp distinction between individuals and buyers clubs, saying the Oakland cooperative was asking the court to extend the medical necessity exception to "somebody who opens up a business. That's a vast expansion beyond any necessity defense I've ever heard of before." Justice Anthony Kennedy said the idea that buyers clubs or individuals, as opposed to doctors, could be determining whether using marijuana is a medical necessity would constitute "a huge rewriting" of federal law. But Kennedy also seemed to invite a future challenge by an individual, saying, "You're asking us to hold that this defense exists . . . with no specific plaintiff before us, no specific case." Chief Justice William Rehnquist also shot down one of the cooperative's chief arguments -- that Congress never contemplated medical necessity in writing the drug statutes -- saying it "doesn't make much sense" given that Congress specifically ruled out medical use of marijuana. Jones said he remained hopeful because whatever the ruling, California's law will remain intact, so that individuals may still be free to buy or cultivate marijuana for their own use, even if distribution through a cooperative is ruled illegal. Keith Stroup, executive vice president of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, which submitted a friend-of-the-court brief, agreed that a loss "doesn't mean they will necessarily do away with the medical necessity defense, but it may limit it to the patient." Stroup added that the federal government has shown little interest in criminal prosecutions of individuals, because prosecutors "would have trouble getting convictions" against desperately sick people brought before a jury for drug law violations. E-mail Carolyn Lochhead at: clochhead sfchronicle.com Note: Oakland club, not Prop. 215, is at issue. Source: San Francisco Chronicle (CA)Author: Carolyn Lochhead, Chronicle Staff WriterPublished: Thursday, March 29, 2001 Copyright: 2001 San Francisco Chronicle Page A - 17 Address: 901 Mission St., San Francisco CA 94103Contact: letters sfchronicle.comWebsite: http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/Forum: http://www.sfgate.com/conferences/Feedback: http://www.sfgate.com/select.feedback.htmlRelated Articles & Web Sites:NORMLhttp://www.norml.org/Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperativehttp://www.rxcbc.org/USA V. OCBC & Jeffrey Jones: http://www.druglibrary.org/ocbc/Justices Signal Trumping of Medical Pot Law http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9194.shtmlUp In Smoke - Salon Magazinehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9192.shtml END SNIP --> Snipped Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #3 posted by Ethan Russo, MD on March 29, 2001 at 10:52:18 PT: Masters of Logic "Congress rejected its medical use in the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 and explicitly reaffirmed that position in 1998."Does it matter that the decisions of Congress in this matter were developed under false pretenses, are without foundation, have no correspondence to reality, are scientifically baseless and morally bankrupt? Sorry, guess not."Such action, it maintained, "opens the way for manufacturers, distributors or users of other Schedule I drugs such as heroin or LSD . . . to invoke 'medical necessity' as a defense to violation of the nation's drug laws." These laws are arbitrary. Heroin (diacetlymorphine) is medicine in England. LSD has had some very well documented medical uses. Really what we are dealing with here is a patriarchal mentality that maintains that the ever so benevolent government knows best what is medicine, and what the thought content and mentality of a true sheep--- I mean citizen should be. The problem is, that some of us are allergic to wool, and to unforgiveable legislative and judicial wielding of power. [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by Austin on March 29, 2001 at 08:56:04 PT WHY? Why is that almost every tome there is a debate on MMJ they say if we give you one drug your going to want all the drugs in schedual 1 . Kenedy also seemed toenvite a future chalange by an individual , saying ,"you're asking us to hold that this defence exists..... with no plantif , no specific case before us . " YEAH STUPID, we do . Just like we are suposed to swallow your descision without any proof to back your lousy F #kin reasoning . [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by greenfox on March 29, 2001 at 07:53:07 PT I have to... hey everyone. laugh. laugh hard. (I figured we needed some comic relief with all this Supreme Court nonsense...)http://www.poop.com/pics/voter.jpg [ Post Comment ] Post Comment Name: Optional Password: E-Mail: Subject: Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message] Link URL: Link Title: