cannabisnews.com: Court Scrutinizes Medical Marijuana Court Scrutinizes Medical Marijuana Posted by FoM on March 29, 2001 at 12:28:24 PT By Bart Jansen, Portland Press Herald Writer Source: Press Herald U.S. Supreme Court justices questioned Wednesday whether marijuana is the last resort for seriously ill patients, as advocates have asserted in California, Maine and other states allowing for its medicinal use.Even if smoking marijuana is a medical necessity for AIDS and cancer patients to overcome nausea and weight loss, several justices suggested that Congress explicitly banned doctors from prescribing it in a 1970 law for lack of proof of medical benefit. The high court's decision in the case is significant because of the conflict between federal law, which bans the sale of the drug, and referendums in Maine and eight other states that allow for the medicinal use of marijuana."It doesn't sound limited at all," Justice Anthony Kennedy said of non-medical people distributing a federally regulated drug. "That's a huge change."The California case that the justices are specifically looking at involves the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative, which distributed marijuana to ill patients who received a doctor's recommendation.The case has nationwide implications because nine states, including Maine, have similar laws that allow seriously ill patients to use marijuana to remedy their symptoms from harsh AIDS medications, chemotherapy or spasticity of multiple sclerosis.In addition to California and Maine, the other states allowing for the medical use of marijuana are: Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, Nevada and Colorado.Cumberland County Sheriff Mark Dion and state Sen. Anne Rand, D-Portland, filed a joint legal brief in the California case before the Supreme Court, voicing their support for the medical use of marijuana.The legal hitch in the state laws has been how to distribute the drug to patients too sick or unable to grow their own plants. While the California law and the 1999 Maine referendum allow patients to possess marijuana for their own use, distribution remains federally prohibited.Maine officials are still grappling with how to allow distribution, forcing patients to buy the drug on the black market.In California, federal prosecutors asked a U.S. District Court to close the club under a civil order, but the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned that decision, saying the government had not effectively disputed the claim that the drug was the "the only effective treatment for a large group of seriously ill individuals."On Wednesday, Justice Stephen Breyer did not participate in the case because his brother, Charles Breyer, was the District Court judge in the case.The Supreme Court could act broadly in its decision, which is expected in June, and prohibit drug-distribution clubs. Or it could allow the 9th Circuit's decision to stand, setting rules for how clubs could operate.Several justices seemed to side with federal lawyers, who argued that the 1970 Controlled Substances Act prohibited marijuana sales even with a doctor's prescription."There is no medically necessary defense at all," said Acting Solicitor General Barbara Underwood.Chief Justice William Rehnquist asked Gerald Uelman, a California lawyer representing the marijuana club, what standards would cover the distribution of drugs that are otherwise illegal.Uelman said the illness must be life-threatening, such as AIDS, or involve imminent harm, such as starvation from nausea, from drugs."Stomachache?" asked Justice Antonin Scalia, saying that "harm" was a broad term."No," Uelman said. "I think we're talking about much more serious harm."Hundreds of years of common law allow criminal defendants to argue that a drug was needed for medical necessity, as a last resort for the seriously ill, Uelman said. He argued that his theory would apply in all states, not just ones where voters approved use of medicinal marijuana."By letting someone die, you are violating the law," Uelman said.But Rehnquist suggested that Congress overruled the common law by specifically outlawing marijuana. Several justices expressed reservations about allowing a patient to roll the dice with a doctor to try drugs that Congress prohibited or that the Food and Drug Administration hadn't confirmed as effective. Justices focused many of their questions on how the law would stop marijuana clubs. With a choice of pressing criminal charges or asking a judge for a civil injunction, prosecutors in California pursued a civil case that avoided a jury trial. Prison sentences are possible for contempt for violating an injunction, but prosecutors sought only to padlock the clubs, Underwood said."This is just a nuisance action in federal court," Justice Anthony Kennedy said.Justice Davis Souter voiced the concern that jurors in a state where a majority of voters approved the use of medicinal marijuana might be reluctant to convict a defendant accused of distributing marijuana to sympathetic characters such as the seriously ill.But Scalia ridiculed the notion that prosecutors would avoid jury trials. "California juries only enforce the laws they like, is that it?" he asked to laughter. "If a U.S. attorney is trying to avoid a jury, he ought to be replaced," he said later. Source: Portland Press Herald (ME)Author: Bart Jansen, Portland Press Herald WriterPublished: Thursday, March 29, 2001Copyright: 2001 Blethen Maine Newspapers Inc.Contact: letters pressherald.comWebsite: http://www.portland.com/Related Articles & Web Site:Mainers For Medical Rightshttp://www.mainers.org/Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperativehttp://www.rxcbc.org/Task Force: Distribute Marijuanahttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread7180.shtmlCannabisNews Medical Marijuana Archiveshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/list/medical.shtml END SNIP --> Snipped Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #12 posted by MDG on March 31, 2001 at 13:13:58 PT Rambler... I'm sure people are tired of hearing me say it, but Vote Libertarian!I always will!Mike... [ Post Comment ] Comment #11 posted by Rambler on March 31, 2001 at 02:06:32 PT The "Justices"...? I like Willys commentary,and I think he's right,in thatthe public outcry will be quite significant.These pompous and arrogant "justices",of the "Supreme Court" arestill somewhat of a mixed bag.(not for long probably?).It will be no suprize when they decide that an absurd and idiotic draconianlaw from 1970,should take precedence over the actual will of the people.I hate to bring it up,,,but does anyone out there feel like they are "represented"in any way in the government?It seems to me that alot of people are under represented,and I cant help but hear one of my favorite historical phrases echoing;"No Taxation without Representation"!Of course,if you try to say this nowdays, some republicanesque asshole,will giveyou the fone number of you local "represenative",and tell you to write them,so youcan change things. Yea..you bet. Some guy who represents a half million citizens,isgonna be concerned about representing your tiny letter concerning your right tobe free ..One of the main problems,is that people who are normal,and know that smoking weedis harmless,whether they smoke it or not,are too nice and good to make a wave in thepicture.Most of the people who are getting really pissed,are the fifty percent whoare too disgusted to vote,or they just trust everyone else to vote in a sane manner.Things are strange and spooky,and there are not too many positive indications on thehorizon,but somethings gotta give.The pols cant get away with this crap too much longerbefore we have some version of the Boston Tea Party.I'm sure glad I got the name "Rambler". It allows me to blindly keep on,keepin on... [ Post Comment ] Comment #10 posted by Willy on March 29, 2001 at 19:29:12 PT A little insight... to this Scalia person. A family member of my former wife (a federal judge for many years) told me at a somewhat alcoholic family gathering that his nibs is " just not very smart, in fact he's a dumbass." They were colleagues at one point in their respective careers.Reading his quote in these preceedings I'm inclined to agree. He's a dumbass. The scary part is that he's a justice of the Supreme Court along with another dumbass (Thomas) and a Chief Justice whose brain has been addled by painkillers for many years. This is the same Rhenquist who was Chief Yesman in the Meese justice department when this war on marijuana was kicked into high gear.I'm not hopeful of a favorable decision in this case, but I have a feeling public outcry will shake the establishment to it's foundation. In the long run the public will win out. In thre meantime, though, how many sick and dying people will suffer needlessly?Thanks [ Post Comment ] Comment #9 posted by FoM on March 29, 2001 at 16:31:14 PT Online NewsHour: Extra Forum Here is an interesting page.Ask An Expert: The War On Drugs -- March 29, 2001 Every day, the federal government is working to control the supply and demand of illegal drugs in the United States. Extra explained this controversial "war on drugs" and explored who -- if anyone -- is winning. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency and the White House's National Office of Drug Control Policy answered questions from NewsHour Extra readers about drug policy and enforcement.http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/forums/drug_war.html [ Post Comment ] Comment #8 posted by Ethan Russo, MD on March 29, 2001 at 16:22:18 PT: Watch your Back, Dubya The backlash is about to begin. CBS News tonight had a story about Dubya repudiating the Kyoto Global Warming Treaty. Nations around the world are condemning him and his policies. Maybe they'll choose to retaliate by denouncing the Single Convention Treaty and legalizing clinical cannabis, and decriminalizing its "recreational" usage.Everything we do is interconnected. Bad choices and injustice have their price. [ Post Comment ] Comment #7 posted by zion on March 29, 2001 at 16:21:11 PT Juries are instructed exactly opposite I sat on a jury a couple of years ago, and was explicitly instructed by the judge that I did NOT have the authority to judge the law. I was only allowed to judge the facts in the case, period.Be careful about voicing your reasons to acquit in drug cases, or your knowledge of Jury Nullification. I was familiar with FIJA at the time, and I believe that it needs to be a law, requiring judges to fully inform the jury. Anything short of that is inadequate. My questioning of the judge's instructions would have booted me out of the jury faster than telling the lawyers screening jurors "yeah, he looks like he's guilty".-z [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by FoM on March 29, 2001 at 16:09:23 PT Thank You Dr. Russo It's really hard to figure out what news to post. I must see nearly 200 articles a day and to pick just around ten, a little more or less, is really hard. I thought it was best at least for a day or two to stay on this terrible turn of events. Something must happen. This is insane! FreedomToExhale [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by Ethan Russo, MD on March 29, 2001 at 15:06:01 PT: Doing Fine, FoM! I have been scouring the WWW and getting E-mail from various fellow dissenters around the globe. Most of the articles have a similar spin: The Supremes don't get it, and don't buy the arguments. I expect the worst, and hope that it isn't so bad in the end. The fight will continue, irrespective. [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by FoM on March 29, 2001 at 14:59:11 PT Just a note Hi Everyone,I just want to mention that because of the depth of the news I might miss some worthy articles and I'm sorry if I do. Anyone that has emailed me within the last few days I have been having e mail problems and I deleted a number of emails to settle my email down and I think it's working. It would be best if you sent me something important that you try to send it again and I'll see if it works this time.Thanks, FoM! Medical Marijuana Information Links [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by craven on March 29, 2001 at 14:02:24 PT well yeah for one I believe we as citizens should refuse to conform to laws we feel is unjust. We the people are the ones that are supposed to govern ourselves. Taking that a step further, when you are a jurior it is your obligation not to enforce the laws and judge according to what the law says, but to use that as a chance to get your opinion out on these laws. Say I'm a jurior.. the defendant is up for possession. I say he's not guilty, because in my opinion it's a stupid law anyways. Thats what a jury is for... or should be for.. to get the message across what we the people say should or should not be law... I hope that made sence.. [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by observer on March 29, 2001 at 13:50:34 PT Juries Only Enforce the Laws They Like "California juries only enforce the laws they like, is that it?" he asked to laughter.Uh, yeah. That's called "jury nullification", a basic right of jurors. It is understandable that a Supreme Court Justice would be ignorant (or worse, intentionally misleading others) of this basic right.``When they believe justice requires it, jurors can refuse to apply the law. Jurors have the power to consider whether the law itself is wrong (including whether it is "unconstitutional"), or is being applied for political reasons. Is the defendant being singled out as "an example" in order to demonstrate government muscle? Were the defendant's constitutional rights violated during the arrest? Much of today's "crime wave" consists of victimless crimes--crimes against the state, or "political crimes", so if you feel that a verdict of guilty would give the government too much power, or help keep a bad law alive, just remember that you can refuse to apply any law that violates your conscience. . .''http://www.fija.org/abbrjury.htmvisit this site:Fully Informed Jury Associationhttp://www.fija.org/This applies to juries in the UK, the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. It is what juries do, Scalia: juries judge the law, as well as guilt or innocence. Fully Informed Jury Association [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by Ethan Russo, MD on March 29, 2001 at 12:58:37 PT: Hey, Tony! "California juries only enforce the laws they like, is that it?" he asked to laughter. "If a U.S. attorney is trying to avoid a jury, he ought to be replaced," he said later. What a quip! Ain't he the wit? He didn't thank me for his copy of the Journal of Cannabis Therapeutics. God forbid that Tony ever have a condition that requires cannabis. [ Post Comment ] Post Comment Name: Optional Password: E-Mail: Subject: Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message] Link URL: Link Title: