cannabisnews.com: FindLaw's Ed Lazarus on Medical Marijuana 





FindLaw's Ed Lazarus on Medical Marijuana 
Posted by FoM on March 30, 2001 at 15:26:53 PT
Transcripts: Law Chat with FindLaw 
Source: CNN
Edward Lazarus, a former U.S. Supreme Court clerk and the author of "Closed Chambers: The Rise, Fall, and Future of the Modern Supreme Court," joined Law Chat via telephone from Los Angeles, California, to discuss the medical marijuana case now before the Supreme Court. Law Chat is produced with FindLaw. CNN.com provided a typist for Lazarus. The following is an edited transcript of the chat. CNN Host: Welcome to CNN.com FindLaw Chat, Edward Lazarus. 
Edward Lazarus: Thanks so much for having me to chat with you again. CNN Host: What question is being put before the Court in U.S. v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative? Edward Lazarus: The parties to the case do not completely agree on what questions the court should be deciding. The United States, which lost in the lower court, wants the Supreme Court to address the question of whether a district court may consider a "medical necessity" defense in an injunction stopping the implementation of California's Medical Marijuana Initiative. The Cannabis clubs on the other side of the case also want the court to consider broader constitutional questions such as whether there is a constitutional right to use marijuana for medicinal purposes and whether the federal government even has the constitutional power to regulate purely local uses of marijuana for medicinal purposes. Question from Chat Room: Mr. Lazarus, why couldn't marijuana be regulated in the same way as we do other prescription drugs. We use morphine, Dilaudid (and) Demerol everyday in hospital every day and out by prescription. There is a very evident positive effect of this for the terminally ill. Edward Lazarus: Certainly, marijuana could be regulated that way, but Congress has specifically decided at least at this stage that marijuana does not have a proven medical use. And so Congress, whether for political reasons or medical ones, (you must decide) has chosen not to accept the medical arguments in favor of marijuana use, which might lead Congress to treat marijuana like it does other addictive prescription drugs. Question from Chat Room: The government already has patients they allow medicinal cannabis, how can the court now say that, in fact, a medical necessity is not valid?. It seems to be a contradiction. Edward Lazarus: My understanding is the question is right, that there are limited federal programs allowing medical use of marijuana. Although I thought those programs were designed to test whether marijuana has medical benefits and do not reflect a federal decision that marijuana, in fact, has such benefits. I apologize if my understanding of this is wrong. It is a little bit outside my realm of expertise. Question from Chat Room: People use over-the-counter herbal medicines every day by their own choosing; why is marijuana any different? Edward Lazarus: Again, the answer goes back to Congress. Which has specifically listed marijuana as a drug so dangerous, in its judgment, that it should not only be regulated, but also criminalized. Neither Congress nor the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) has made such evaluations of the freely available herbal remedies. And if nothing else, this case at the court will be an important spark for a debate about whether Congress' judgment about marijuana makes any medical sense. Question from Chat Room: Does Congress have the right to define what's a medicine? Edward Lazarus: The short answer to that question is yes. Congress has set up the Food and Drug Administration, which has very elaborate protocols for testing the safety and effectiveness of purported medicinal compounds. As a matter of fact, the government in today's case uses another purported medicine, Laetrile, which some people believe has anti-cancer qualities as an analogy for marijuana. Courts have already upheld congressional power to prohibit the distribution of Laetrile, despite claims of its effectiveness. CNN Host: Why did the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit say the lower court erred in its decision? Edward Lazarus: Initially, the lower court had basically ruled that it did not think it could consider a generalized medical necessity defense as a way of limiting its injunction of California's Medical Marijuana Initiative. In other words, the lower court did not think it could carve out a medical use exception in stopping the implementation of California's law. The 9th Circuit disagreed. It said that such a medical necessity defense was something the District Court could consider. And in light of the 9th Circuit ruling the District Court did carve out a medical use exception that, in turn, led the government to appeal to the Supreme Court. Question from Chat Room: Shouldn't states have the right to say what drugs they want to be legal and which not to have. Edward Lazarus: Some people believe they should have that power, but at the risk of over-generalization, the (U.S.) Constitution says otherwise. The Constitution contains a supremacy clause that provides that when federal and state laws conflict federal law is king. CNN Host: Justice Stephen G. Breyer has recused himself from this case, which means only eight justices will make the ruling. What does a tied decision mean? Edward Lazarus: Justice Breyer recused himself because the district court judge in California is his brother. When the Supreme Court divides equally they publish a one-line opinion stating that the ruling of the lower court is affirmed by an equally divided vote. In short, if the Supreme Court vote ends in a tie, the government loses this case. Question from Chat Room: Will this be judged only on a medical necessity defense, i.e., glaucoma and anti-nausea for cancer victims? Edward Lazarus: I think it is likely that will be the only issue the justices address. But they could speak more broadly. My hunch is, and it is purely a hunch, that the court will not rule broadly in this case, but rather will limit itself to the question of whether a district court in fashioning an injunction may consider medical necessity. The government's argument is that in the case of marijuana the answer is no because Congress has specifically rejected the idea that marijuana has a legitimate medicinal use. The other side, of course, argues the opposite. Question from Chat Room: Cannot individual states decide how to treat those who violate federal law, in other words, one state could make it a felony offense, another state could treat it as a misdemeanor or even ignore it? Edward Lazarus: No, violations of federal law are governed by federal law. In other words, the penalty is a federal penalty and does not vary by state. It is important to remember that the United States has two completely separate systems of criminal and civil law: one (is) the federal system, and the other the systems of the 50 states. And states do not have the power to alter the federal law. Question from Chat Room: Why are they so opposed to something that is less harmful than tobacco or alcohol? Edward Lazarus: This question is more a political question than a legal one. The legal answer is pretty straightforward. Marijuana is illegal because Congress says so. As to the issue of why Congress has made that judgment, well, that is a matter of politics. And (it) can be changed if public sentiment, as seems to be happening, turns around. Question from Chat Room: What about a person's right to privacy? How do these laws affect that? Edward Lazarus: Supporters of the California initiative have suggested that the Constitution embodies a right to be free from pain and to use marijuana privately to free themselves from pain. In an analysis drawing upon the right-to-privacy cases, I am doubtful that the court will address this issue, and supporters of medical marijuana, in my view, should not hope for the court to reach this issue. Because for better or for worse, I doubt these justices would give such a claim a sympathetic reception. CNN Host: Do you have any final thoughts for us today? Edward Lazarus: My final thought is only that the case before the court is likely to turn on a fairly narrow and technical issue of law. But that decision, whatever it may be, will not stop the renewed and vigorous debate over how this country should approach marijuana. CNN Host: From: Thank you for joining us today, Edward Lazarus. Edward Lazarus: Thank you very much for having me. I enjoyed chatting with you. Note: Produced with FindLaw's Ed Lazarus on the medical marijuana arguments. Chat time: 12:30 p.m. EDT, Wednesday, March 28, 2001 FindLawhttp://www.findlaw.com/Newshawk: Ethan Russo M.D.Source: CNN (US Web)Published: March 28, 2001Copyright: 2001 Cable News Network, Inc. Contact: cnn.feedback cnn.com Forum: http://community.cnn.com/ Website http://www.cnn.com/ Feedback: http://cnn.com/feedback/ CannabisNews Medical Marijuana Archiveshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/list/medical.shtml
END SNIP -->
Snipped
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #2 posted by MDG on March 30, 2001 at 20:33:35 PT
Dan B...
...are you going to be on TV kicking somebody's ass anytime soon? 'Cause, I'd love to see it! Mike...Does it seem, to anyone else, like things are really starting to snowball all of a sudden? Is it just me?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by Dan B on March 30, 2001 at 16:31:50 PT:
Ed Lazarus Lies to the American Public
Edward Lazarus: Some people believe they should have that power, but at the risk of over-generalization, the (U.S.) Constitution says otherwise. The Constitution contains a supremacy clause that provides that when federal and state laws conflict federal law is king. Wrong. As I've said here before, the so-called "right" of the federal government to forbid certain substances to the individuals or to force such restrictions upon the states is a direct violation of the ninth and tenth amendments to the Constitution. Part VI of Article I of the Constitution simply states that the federal Constitution is "the supreme law of the land," but because federal drug laws are a direct violation of the Constitution, this article does not apply to them.Stop lying to the American people!Dan B
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment


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