cannabisnews.com: Supreme Court Tackles Medical Pot Question





Supreme Court Tackles Medical Pot Question
Posted by FoM on March 29, 2001 at 09:29:24 PT
By Michael Doyle, Bee Washington Bureau
Source: Sacramento Bee
Skeptical-sounding Supreme Court justices on Wednesday confronted the sobering question of medical marijuana use.Watched closely by clients of the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative, some of whom already had taken a therapeutic morning toke, the nation's highest court raised serious doubts about whether medical necessity should trump federal drug laws.
"You're asking us to say this defense exists in broad, sweeping terms," Justice Anthony Kennedy told the cannabis club's attorney.The Oakland cannabis club wants to continue providing marijuana to its 4,500 registered members. Because the club's activities are protected under state law but still subject to federal law, the club also wants to be able to deploy the legal defense of "medical necessity" when facing federal prosecution."It's a classic illustration of a 'choice-of-evils' defense," cannabis club attorney Gerald Uelman said during the hourlong oral argument.In other words: Breaking marijuana laws is less harmful than the death or serious disability that medical marijuana proponents say they are avoiding by using the drug.The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals determined that such a defense could be raised by the cannabis club, whose activities were first blocked in a civil action by the Clinton administration. The Bush administration has followed through, claiming the Controlled Substances Act left no room for such a medical necessity defense."It undermines the ability of the act to protect the public," Acting Solicitor General Barbara Underwood told the court, adding that "the co-op and its members have alternatives to violating the law."The Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative members in the packed Supreme Court chambers quietly disagreed. Yvonne Westbrook, for one, lives in Richmond and smokes marijuana to alleviate distress from multiple sclerosis. Standard pharmaceutical drugs make her too wiped out to function, Westbrook explained before rolling her wheelchair into the court hearing.Creighton Frost, a weathered 47-year-old San Ramon resident and former pack animal wrangler, took his first marijuana puff Wednesday about 7 a.m. -- four hours before the court's arguments began. Throat cancer forced the removal of his voice box. He inhales the marijuana smoke, which he says enables him to eat and sleep, through a hole in his throat that he then covers with a finger to keep the smoke in. The doctors give him between two and four years to live; he gives himself longer."We have a right to die comfortably," Frost said before the oral arguments began. "We have a right not to fight with our medications."The court's interest, though, was not in such professed rights, but in what legal principles should apply. Kennedy termed the notion of a medical-necessity defense "a huge rewriting of the statute."His fellow swing vote on the court, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, likewise sounded doubtful when she referred to a "blanket exception" to the federal Controlled Substances Act and the "kind of a blanket medical-necessity defense" authorized by the 9th Circuit.Justice Antonin Scalia pressed even harder, pointing out that the necessity defense typically covers the endangered person who commits the act -- unlike the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative, which is citing necessity to protect transactions even though it is not itself the endangered party."That's a vast expansion beyond any necessity defense I've ever heard of," Scalia said. "You're saying that as a result of the necessity defense, you could set up a business to provide the necessity."One unusual possibility is a tie vote: Justice Stephen Breyer recused himself, because his younger brother, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, ruled on the case at a lower level. Judge Charles Breyer initially issued an injunction to stop the cannabis club. After the 9th Circuit ruled he had the discretion to consider medical necessity, he modified the injunction to allow continued use by those who could meet the strict necessity requirements.Justice Stephen Breyer's recusal leaves eight Supreme Court justices to decide. If they tie 4-4, that would mean the 9th Circuit's ruling remains intact and the Oakland club -- and others in the Western states served by the 9th Circuit -- could try the medical necessity defense.Even then, though -- and even if the Oakland club wins outright -- the medical-necessity defense could only help the small minority of patients facing the most extreme circumstances. A High Times writer explained Wednesday that he uses marijuana for migraine headaches; that probably wouldn't fit under the necessity umbrella."All the (9th Circuit) has done is create a very narrow exception, for a very narrow population," Uelman said.No matter how the court rules, California's 1996 Compassionate Use Act permitting medical marijuana use under state law is likely to remain intact. Seven other states have similar laws that likewise probably will be unaffected by the court's ruling.That's because the justices steered clear of constitutional arguments about state law Wednesday, focusing narrowly on whether or not the cannabis club can legally distribute marijuana.As signal-sending, though, the future ruling could ring loud and clear. California Attorney General Bill Lockyer filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting the Oakland cannabis club, on the grounds that the federal government shouldn't interfere with state business. Complete Title: Supreme Court Tackles Medical Pot Question: Doubts Raised on Trumping of Federal LawSource: Sacramento Bee (CA)Author: Michael Doyle, Bee Washington BureauPublished: March 29, 2001Copyright: 2001 The Sacramento BeeAddress: P.O.Box 15779, Sacramento, CA 95852Contact: opinion sacbee.comWebsite: http://www.sacbee.com/Forum: http://www.sacbee.com/voices/voices_forum.htmlFeedback: http://www.sacbee.com/about_us/sacbeemail.htmlRelated Articles & Web Sites:Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperativehttp://www.rxcbc.org/USA V. OCBC & Jeffrey Jones: http://www.druglibrary.org/ocbc/Parents Say Legal Reefer is Madness http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9198.shtmlJustices Narrowing Arguments in Marijuana Casehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9196.shtml
END SNIP -->
Snipped
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #2 posted by Dan B on March 29, 2001 at 11:06:26 PT:
No Alternatives
"It undermines the ability of the act to protect the public," Acting Solicitor General Barbara Underwood told the court, adding that "the co-op and its members have alternatives to violating the law."No, they don't. According to Barbara Underwood (interesting that "Underwood" is often associated with images of Satan), the only alternative for these people is not using the one medication that works for them. It is against the law for them to obtain marijuana by any means, according to federal law. Thus, they cannot cultivate (that "undermines federal law"), and they can't buy it on the black market (that "undermines federal law," too--and it can be dangerous for the unexperienced person). It appears that in June, The Supreme Court will side with Congress and the ONDCP against the will of between 80% and 90% of the people in this country. This is a direct violation of the will of the people. Add that to the unconstitutional nature of the Controlled Substances Act, and we have one major nightmare of a debacle supported by every branch of government. If that isn't direct evidence that our country has been lost to dogmatic hypocrites, I don't know what is.Dan B
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by MDG on March 29, 2001 at 10:12:53 PT
Hooray for Attorney General Bill Lockyer!
It's good to hear a state official actually stand up for the rights of the state! Not like the spineless Gray Davis. Mike...
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment


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