cannabisnews.com: High Court Grapples With Medical Marijuana Issue 





High Court Grapples With Medical Marijuana Issue 
Posted by FoM on April 12, 2001 at 15:50:13 PT
By Bob Roehr 
Source: Bay Area Reporter 
The issue before the U.S. Supreme Court on March 28 ostensibly was medical marijuana, but things are seldom so simple with the Court. U.S. v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative also grappled with underlying principles concerning the roles of the national and state governments in the federated structure of governance, as well as with questions of popular will and the appropriate route for prosecution. 
A majority of the justices pursued lines of questioning that left most observers believing that they were not favorably disposed to pot. Yet most also believe that the court will end up issuing a narrow ruling, as is their preference, that will not completely resolve all questions surrounding medical marijuana. In 1996, California voters overwhelmingly passed Proposition 215 that allowed seriously ill patients to use marijuana for medical purposes without fear of legal prosecution under the law. The Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative was among those created to provide a safe and affordable supply of marijuana for sick people, and was so recognized by the city government. Federal prosecutors moved to close all such organizations in the state as being in violation of the Federal Controlled Substances Act (1970), which declares marijuana to be of no medical value and prohibits its use. The feds decided not to criminally prosecute sick people using marijuana, but rather chose to file civil suits against organizations such as the cooperative that supplied them the marijuana. The approach seemed to be crafted to avoid a direct legal challenge of Proposition 215 and to avoid putting the matter before a jury, most of whom likely voted for the proposition. The matter went back and forth between U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The narrow issue that ended up before the Supreme Court was whether organizations and individuals can raise a medical necessity defense in justifying violation of the federal law. Medical necessity argues that an individual's right to save their own life trumps the law. Cooperative attorney Gerald Uelmen said that lower courts had recognized "a limited exception" to the law under the medical necessity argument. Justice Anthony Kennedy responded that the scope of the case before them "doesn't sound limited at all," while Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said the argument "appeared to create a blanket exception to the Controlled Substances Act." Justice Antonin Scalia seemed to differentiate between use of a medical necessity defense for an individual and for those prescribing and dispensing marijuana. He called the latter "a vast expansion beyond any necessity defense I've ever heard." Uelmen admitted to Chief Justice William Rehnquist that while lower courts had recognized the medical necessity defense, the Supreme Court had not. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who underwent treatment for colon cancer a year ago, pressed questions on the extent of use of marijuana by patients. Kennedy noted that there were no patients as plaintiffs in the case before them. Further clouding the matter was the procedural question raised by Justice David Souter. He suggested that federal officials pursued civil rather than traditional criminal prosecution as a tactic by which they could avoid a jury, where it would be difficult to obtain a conviction in light of the public vote for Proposition 215. He suggested that this may be a misuse of prosecutorial authority. An added wrinkle is that only eight justices will decide the issues. Justice Stephen Breyer withdrew from the case because of a possible conflict of interest. His younger brother, Charles, was the district judge who heard the original case. It is always difficult to predict how the Supreme Court will rule on a matter before them. It is perhaps even more difficult in this instance given that so little case law exists in this area and there are many competing questions. Most observers anticipate a fairly narrow ruling that will not take on the legitimacy of medical marijuana initiatives passed by voters in nine states. Language on the medical necessity defense likely will be limited to organizations, leaving the question of its use by individuals for another day. Source: Bay Area Reporter (CA) Author: Bob RoehrPublished: April 6, 2001Copyright: 2001 The Bay Area Reporter / B.A.R. Contact: ebar logx.com Website: http://www.ebar.com/ CannabisNews Medical Marijuana Archiveshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/list/medical.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Post Comment


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