cannabisnews.com: Justices Narrowing Arguments in Marijuana Case





Justices Narrowing Arguments in Marijuana Case
Posted by FoM on March 29, 2001 at 08:07:32 PT
By Patty Reinert, HC Washington Bureau
Source: Houston Chronicle 
Marijuana advocates smoked the plant on the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday as the justices considered whether seriously ill patients should be allowed to use it as medicine. The court's ruling, expected by July, will settle whether marijuana users and their suppliers can claim "medical necessity" as a defense if they are caught breaking federal drug laws prohibiting the cultivation, possession or distribution of pot. 
It also could determine whether cannabis clubs, which are legal in California and several other states that have passed medical marijuana laws, can resume distribution of the drug without fear that the federal government will shut them down. Since the mid-1990s, California, Oregon, Alaska, Washington, Maine, Arizona, Nevada, Colorado, Arkansas, Hawaii and Washington, D.C., have legalized marijuana for medical use. Legislation also is pending in many other states, including Texas. But federal prosecutors in California challenged the law, filing suit against the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative and five other marijuana distributors in 1998. Gerald Uelman, a lawyer who argued the case for the cannabis clubs, said medical need should shield the patients and their suppliers from prosecution under the federal Controlled Substance Act. California Attorney General Bill Lockyer also is backing the clubs, arguing that the state has the right to enforce its "compassionate use" law, passed by referendum in 1996, which allows patients access to marijuana if they have a doctor's recommendation. But Acting Solicitor General Barbara Underwood told the justices that any exemption in the law for "marijuana pharmacies" undermines the nation's ability to fight drug trafficking and exposes patients to a drug that has no government-recognized medical use but a high potential for recreational abuse. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked Underwood about anecdotal evidence suggesting that some cancer and AIDS patients have successfully used marijuana to ease pain and alleviate the nausea that is often a side effect of chemotherapy and other treatments. She used the example of a man with cancer who was constantly vomiting and had tried other remedies unsuccessfully. With his doctor's blessing, he smoked marijuana and found it helped him control what Ginsburg called his "extreme suffering." "That is not an uncommon experience," she said. "Am I wrong in thinking there has been quite a bit of this going on?" Justice Antonin Scalia noted that federally sponsored studies on marijuana have not concluded that the drug is "never ever helpful," but only that, in view of the potential for abuse, it's better to prohibit it. But he questioned whether marijuana distributors could prove a medical need for the drug even if the high court were to rule in their favor and acknowledge that need is a legitimate excuse for breaking the law. The patients themselves, he said, could afford to take the risk of being prosecuted for possession, especially if they believe marijuana is their only hope for survival. "If he really thinks he's gonna die, that's an easy gamble -- facing a jury versus the grim reaper," Scalia said. "I'd take the jury any day." But protecting the distributors of the drug would be a "vast expansion beyond any necessity defense I've ever heard of," he said. Justice Anthony Kennedy appeared to agree. "You're asking us to hold that this defense exists," he told Uelman, "with no specific plaintiff before us, no specific case." And Chief Justice William Rehnquist asked Uelman to define how sick a patient would have to be to justify breaking the federal law by using marijuana, questioning whether the drug is really life-saving. "How serious does a case have to be ... a stomach ache?" he asked. Uelman said that under the current federal court ruling in the California case, marijuana can be provided only to patients who have a doctor's permission, have exhausted other remedies and who are facing "imminent harm" -- such as blindness, starvation or death -- if they are denied access to the drug. Medical marijuana advocates outside the courthouse said that in the example of the Oakland cannabis club, about 8,000 people have been qualified to receive medical marijuana under California's law, but under the narrow exemption carved out by the federal court, only 14 of those patients would be shielded from federal prosecution. Still, Kennedy questioned whether the narrow exemption is narrow enough. "It doesn't sound limited to me at all," he said. "That's a huge rewrite of the statute." The Justice Department under the Clinton administration brought the case to the Supreme Court after the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overruled a lower court's ruling in favor of the government. The 9th Circuit had sent the case back to U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer's brother, demanding that he write an exemption allowing seriously ill people access to the drug. Breyer did so, but the federal government appealed to the Supreme Court and got an injunction stopping that exemption from taking effect until the high court decides the case. Because of his brother's involvement, Justice Breyer has removed himself from participating in the decision. In the event of a 4-4 tie among the remaining eight justices, the 9th U.S. Circuit's ruling in favor of medical marijuana advocates would be the law for that circuit. On the courthouse steps Wednesday, several patients held up baggies of pot and pill bottles filled with marijuana cigarettes. Some smoked as they talked to reporters, using marijuana purchased legally through a federally sponsored program that currently provides medical marijuana to eight patients. That program stopped accepting new patients during the administration of former President Bush when a huge wave of AIDS patients seeking treatment overwhelmed it. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said the current president also opposes legalizing marijuana, including for medicinal purposes, though he also agrees that states like California have a right to pass "compassionate use" laws through referendum. "He strongly supports the current federal law," Fleischer said. Chronicle reporter Kristen Mack contributed to this report. Complete Title: Justices Narrowing Arguments in Medical Marijuana Use CaseSource: Houston Chronicle (TX)Author: Patty Reinert, Houston Chronicle Washington Bureau Published: March 29, 2001Fax: (713) 220-3575Copyright: 2000 Houston ChronicleAddress: Viewpoints Editor, P.O. Box 4260 Houston, Texas 77210-4260Contact: viewpoints chron.comWebsite: http://www.chron.com/Forum: http://www.chron.com/content/hcitalk/index.htmlRelated Articles & Web Sites:Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperativehttp://www.rxcbc.org/USA V. OCBC & Jeffrey Jones: http://www.druglibrary.org/ocbc/High Court Tests Medical Pot Co-ops http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9195.shtmlUp In Smoke - Salon Magazinehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9192.shtml
END SNIP -->
Snipped
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #1 posted by Ethan Russo, MD on March 29, 2001 at 10:57:46 PT:
Certain People Destined for Purgatory
These gentlemen and 2 ladies have at their disposal a wealth of supporting material on clinical cannabis should they choose to read it (including the premier issue of Journal of Cannabis Therapeutics). No doubt, they will not since it is far easier to claim that the state is always right, and civil liberties mean nothing. Certain justices should be aware that their words put them on the wrong end of the cosmic balance sheet.
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment


Name: Optional Password: 
E-Mail: 
Subject: 
Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]
Link URL: 
Link Title: