cannabisnews.com: Court Nixes Medical Marijuana Court Nixes Medical Marijuana Posted by FoM on May 14, 2001 at 07:47:36 PT Breaking News Source: Associated Press The Supreme Court handed medical marijuana users a major defeat Monday, ruling that a federal law classifying the drug as illegal has no exception for ill patients. The 8-0 decision was a major disappointment to many sufferers of AIDS, cancer, multiple sclerosis and other illnesses. They have said the drug helped enormously in combatting the devastating effects of their diseases. Justice Stephen Breyer did not participate because his brother, a federal judge, initially presided over the case. ``In the case of the Controlled Substances Act, the statute reflects a determination that marijuana has no medical benefits worthy of an exception (outside the confines of a government-approved research project),'' Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the unanimous court. Thomas noted the act states marijuana has ``no currently accepted medical use.'' The federal government triggered the case in 1998, seeking an injunction against the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative and five other marijuana distributors. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, brother of the justice, sided with the government. All the clubs except the Oakland group eventually closed down, and the Oakland club turned to registering potential marijuana recipients while it awaited a final ruling. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the lower court, ruling that medical necessity is a legal defense. Charles Breyer followed up by issuing strict guidelines for making that claim. Voters in Arizona, Alaska, California, Colorado, Maine, Nevada, Oregon and Washington also have approved ballot initiatives allowing the use of medical marijuana. In Hawaii, the legislature passed a similar law and the governor signed it last year. The cooperative argued that a drug may not yet have achieved general acceptance as a medical treatment, but may still have medical benefits to a particular patient or class of patients. Thomas said the argument cannot overcome the intent of Congress in approving the statute. ``It is clear from the text of the act that Congress has made a determination that marijuana has no medical benefits worthy of an exception,'' Thomas wrote. ``Unwilling to view this omission as an accident, and unable in any event to override a legislative determination manifest in a statute, we reject the cooperative's argument.'' Source: Associated PressPublished: Monday, May 14, 2001 Copyright: 2001 Associated PressRelated Articles & Web Sites:Oakland Cannabis Buyer's Cooperativehttp://www.rxcbc.org/Read The Amicus Curiae Brief (in PDF) http://www.maps.org/mmj/maps-mppbrief.pdfOakland Cannabis Club Defending Pot Therapy http://cannabisnews.com/news/9/thread9085.shtmlMAPS - MPP US Supreme Court Amicus Curiae Briefhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/8/thread8765.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #12 posted by Jeaneous on May 14, 2001 at 16:02:06 PT: Just as expected This is all the doom that I have been seeing come to the forefront. We are being taken over by the religious coalition if everyone hasn't figured that out yet. They are putting their "New World Order" into place. This is much heavier than it appears. I see this coming to life and death matters. I am afraid and it's not of jail. [ Post Comment ] Comment #11 posted by kaptinemo on May 14, 2001 at 10:42:11 PT: America/Amerika Which will it be?Land of the Free and Home of the Brave...or Land of the Jackboot and Home of the Piss Test? Where the words spoken once by highway robberscenturies ago will take on a new meaning: "Stand and Deliver!"Only you, readers, can make the ultimate decision. [ Post Comment ] Comment #10 posted by FoM on May 14, 2001 at 10:23:08 PT Time To Reschedule It is time to reschedule marijuana. It is not a harmful substance. I think that's the way we will have to go. I can't think of any other way. I'm very angry.Thank You, Richard! [ Post Comment ] Comment #9 posted by dddd on May 14, 2001 at 09:37:14 PT questions first..Is there such a thing as appealing a SC decision/ruling?second;I thought that the reason this thing was reversed in the first place,was something to the effect that the government could not prove that these MMJ users were not helped by using MJ.(perhaps this was a different case).It may be true that this was a narrow aspect of legal interpretation in this ruling,,and it is clear that they are hiding behind this as an excuse for their ruling,,,but I have a feeling that this is not going to sit well with an already irratated public.Ashcroft,Quebec,Walters,Hutchinson,now this,,,the are going to have to go in to high gear with spin control to muffle the voice of outrage.This is the kind of shit that start revolutions.....dddd [ Post Comment ] Comment #8 posted by schmeff on May 14, 2001 at 09:23:01 PT Semantic Chicanery Open question to those wise heads of the Supreme Court:What is the "currently accepted medical use" for nicotine? [ Post Comment ] Comment #7 posted by Richard Lake on May 14, 2001 at 09:04:34 PT: The ruling appears to be about as expected From what I am reading, this ruling is limited to the issue at hand; i.e., that the federal appeals court could not carve out a medical exception.Thus, the opinions of the experts that I am seeing is that it has no impact on the laws of the states. States are not under any obligation to enforce federal law, and can in fact have laws that appear to conflict with federal law.OTOH, this will not help. Law enforcement folks who see fit to violate the laws of their state will see this as an additional justification. In California, for example, for them to do so without a State Court ruling against 215 is a violation of both the state law and the state constitution. But that has not prevented them from illegal actions in the past.Thanks, Martha, for getting this out. It appears that once again you were the first to help broadcast this breaking news.We are so proud to have cannabisnews as a member of the MAP/DrugSense family of websites!!!Richard MAP's link to Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative news items [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by wades on May 14, 2001 at 09:01:58 PT: re: What Now? The text of the decision is available at the LII Supreme Court Collection. The decision is short and to the point: read it.IANAL, but the key point seems to be1. There is no medical necessity exception to the Controlled Substances Act’s prohibitions on manufacturing and distributing marijuana. Pp. 5—11.What this says to me is that the Feds have a free hand in prosecuting anyone they care to go after. Probably the guy who buys 0.25 oz on the street is OK, because the Feds don't bust people like that (as a rule), but anybody who grows for himself or others can look for the local cops to tip off the DEA for a Federal bust. He won't be able to use Prop. 215 in his defense, because of this decision.This is the end of the cannabis clubs. UNITED STATES v. OAKLAND CANNABIS BUYERS’ COOPERATIVE et al. [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by Robert Schwartz on May 14, 2001 at 08:38:48 PT: Court Decision The U.S. Supreme Court today opens up a new chapter in the WoSD. The spector now of our prisons and jails being overwhelmed with patients with very real, and very expensive medical needs is startling. Couple this with the recent California Supreme Court decision on jury nullification. Will we start to prosecute jurors for refusing to convict on marijuana cases? Where will this end?The time has come for all users of cannabis, medical and recreational, to insist on the right to be left in peace.Jury trials are expensive propositions. Will we see an increase in medical patients brought to trial? Perhaps the "juries of our peers" will restore Justice to our Criminal System. But, somehow, we must insure that "our peers" are not excluded from the jury pools.The United States, alone in the western world, seems to be moving backwards. We also need to publicize our isolation in this regard. Only 4 of 15 European Union nations still prosecute for marijuana. Canada would follow suit, except for US influence. Still, no one should be surprised about this ruling today. The truth is that Congress has placed Cannabis under schedule one, and, if the Court feels that the Interstate Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution allows Congress the the power of jurisdiction in this regard, this ruling follows in suit.It was not always thus. Alcohol prohibition required a Constitutional Amendment, and the first drug laws were Tax Acts, Congress having jurisdiction in that area. The U.S. Constitution; no longer worth the Hemp it's written on. [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by dddd on May 14, 2001 at 08:18:22 PT Notice Notice how they let Clarence do the talkin'.The token black dude.they probably figured that having him deliver the absurd decisionwould somehow buffer the outrage.....# #^&5&*^&%3 [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by dddd on May 14, 2001 at 08:13:18 PT Just as I expected Nonetheless....I'm having some trouble handling thiswhole thing.....This means WAR!,,,,not violence,but it'stime for me to go into high gear,and get down to a seriousdefensive-counter offensive!....This is unacceptable....Enough is enough!After a couple of decades of picking awayat our basic freedom and rights,I think the camels back hasfinally broken!.........No more Mr Nice Guy.........dddd [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by fivepounder on May 14, 2001 at 08:12:05 PT So now what? A bunch of old men with ice cold hearts.Does this invalidate 215? Will they now use this as their excuse to invalidate state initiatives? [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by Ethan Russo, MD on May 14, 2001 at 07:59:04 PT: What Now? This is bad news, of course, but insufficient detail is available to understand the ramifications of the Court's illogic.Congress is not infallible. The argument advanced is, "We say it has no medical use, so it has no medical use." Fact is, my friends, the government used to think that women were unworthy of the vote, and that African Americans were equal to 60% of whitey, and just for census purposes.The Feds are still incapable of enforcing the law totally in jurisdictions with more liberal viewpoints. Now is definitely the time to become more active politically. The initiative process must be utilized wherever possible. We must challenge every office holder at every level on the issue and attempt to ensure that legislation reflects scientific reality and not bankrupt moralism without foundation. [ Post Comment ] Post Comment Name: Optional Password: E-Mail: Subject: Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message] Link URL: Link Title: