cannabisnews.com: Supreme Court Rules Out Medical Marijuana










  Supreme Court Rules Out Medical Marijuana

Posted by FoM on May 14, 2001 at 08:53:41 PT
From Reuters 
Source: Reuters 

In a defeat for the medical marijuana movement, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court ruled today that marijuana may not be given to seriously ill patients as a "medical necessity" because cannabis has been classified as an illegal drug under federal law.   The nation's highest court gave the federal government a key victory in its battle over whether a California cannabis club may resume distributing marijuana to patients.
 The case had marked a watershed for the U.S. medical marijuana movement, which has been mired in legal battles since California in 1996 approved the nation's first initiative legalizing medicinal use of the drug.   Saying the case raised "significant questions" about the government's ability to enforce the nation's drug laws, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the court that federal law prohibits the manufacture and distribution of various drugs, including marijuana.   "In this case, we must decide whether there is a medical necessity exception to these prohibitions. We hold that there is not," he declared.   Thomas said a U.S. appeals court had been wrong in ruling that marijuana clubs in California may distribute the drug to those who prove cannabis was medically necessary.   The California initiative allowed seriously ill patients to use marijuana for pain relief as long as they have a doctor's recommendation. Similar measures have been adopted in a number of other states.   Joining Thomas in the opinion were Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy. The five make up the court's conservative majority.   Justice John Paul Stevens, joined by the Justices David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, issued a separate opinion concurring in the judgment. The are part of the court's more moderate-liberal members.   Stevens emphasized that the court's ruling was narrow, only holding that medical necessity was not a defense for manufacturing and distributing marijuana.   Justice Stephen Breyer did not participate in the ruling. His brother, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco, has been hearing the dispute.Source: ReutersPublished: Monday, May 14, 2001Copyright: 2001 Reuters UnlimitedRelated Article & Web Site:Oakland Cannabis Buyer's Cooperativehttp://www.rxcbc.org/Court Nixes Medical Marijuanahttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9701.shtmlCannabisNews Articles - OCBChttp://cannabisnews.com/thcgi/search.pl?K=OCBC

Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help





Comment #23 posted by Willy on May 15, 2001 at 19:52:56 PT
Zion's comments are .......
the right stuff. Clarence Thomas is a dumbass, I've said that before, but in this case his opinion is asking someone to bring this matter back to the court in the proper form for the constitutionality to be questioned.I don't think anyone expected this case to be decided any other way. The narrowness of the decision was a forgone conclusion. It only considered the medical neccessity as a defense. I wouldn't be surprised to see another case from California soon that does go to constitutionality based on the 10th and the broader questions of states rights.In the meantime we should all write to our reps and sens to get behind, or introduce, their own version of Barney Frank's proposed legislation to re-classify cannabis out of schedule I.Thanks
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #22 posted by dddd on May 15, 2001 at 05:48:23 PT
local news
Perhaps it's because it was about California,,,I was kind ofsurprised in surfing the local news here,that even though thecoverage was shallow as expected,the reports had a sympatheticovertone,and some even had a borderline indignant flavor....I think alot of Californians are kinda pissed off with the feds.Whenyou add this to getting burned with the questionable power"crisis",which the feds have basically ignored,,we are not happy campers......dddd
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #21 posted by kaptinemo on May 15, 2001 at 05:04:24 PT:
Zion is bang-on-target
The news media is, as predicted, making the 'shallow analysis' which is all too common in the news media. We should help such benighted - or just plain lazy - journalists with the facts.But something else has been shown by the Supreme's leeriness of even touching this issue; now that the 'hot potato' has indeed been handed back to the States, they have left the door wide open for continued States efforts. Despite what all the antis might be crowing right now, when more referenda show up, and the antis start making noises about the SC's ruling, it can now be proved that the SC did not rule out State initiatives.In short, the SC pulled a 'Dred Scott'. They have stepped back from the edge of legality. They have said in essence that they will not change a law created by Congress. A Congress composed of the States. Represented by your Congresscritters and Sin-a-tors. Hint, hint, hint.As I said before - the time for fence-sitting is at an end. Don't expect someone else to free you; the only person who can do that is looking back at you from the bathroom mirror every morning.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #20 posted by zion on May 14, 2001 at 17:26:54 PT
Narrow definitions and media spins
I agree with Pontifex, the judicial decision is not all that surprising. The problem is the medical necessity exemption, when it really should have been challenged on purely 10th amendment (read: Constitutional) issues. Because the case was basically an interpretation of the CSA law as Congress wrote it, and because Congress explicitly wrote into law that MJ had no current medical use, the Supreme Court ruled as it did.Read the other relevant information that your mainstream media will neglect to inform the public regarding this high court opinion:"Finally, the Cooperative contends that we should construe the Controlled Substances Act to include a medical necessity defense in order to avoid what it considers to be difficult constitutional questions. In particular, the Cooperative asserts that, shorn of a medical necessity defense, the statute exceeds Congress Commerce Clause powers, violates the substantive due process rights of patients, and offends the fundamental liberties of the people under the Fifth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments. As the Cooperative acknowledges, however, the canon of constitutional avoidance has no application in the absence of statutory ambiguity. Because we have no doubt that the Controlled Substances Act cannot bear a medical necessity defense to distributions of marijuana, we do not find guidance in this avoidance principle. Nor do we consider the underlying constitutional issues today. Because the Court of Appeals did not address these claims, we decline to do so in the first instance."and"Finally, we share Justice Stevens concern for showing respect for the sovereign States that comprise our Federal Union. Post, at 3 (opinion concurring in judgment). However, we are construing an Act of Congress, not drafting it. United States v. Bailey, 444 U.S. 394, 415, n.11 (1980).Because federal courts interpret, rather than author, the federal criminal code, we are not at liberty to rewrite it. Nor are we passing today on a constitutional question, such as whether the Controlled Substances Act exceeds Congress power under the Commerce Clause."http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=00-151Observations: the court is well aware of the shaky Constitutional basis for cannabis prohibition, and "Because the Court of Appeals did not address these claims, we decline to do so in the first instance".So, a direct challenge is the only approach, not this narrow "special exemptions for medical necessity". Either through Congress or through direct challenge from the state level. Is the attorney general of California suing the Federal Government (DEA, Justice Dept, etc.) in Federal Court on 10th amendment grounds for interfering with state law (prop 215)? If not, why not?The other thing to note is that mainstream media will not put any focus on the narrow ruling that the Supreme Court rendered. They will focus on the "spin" of a "major setback for the medical MJ movement". In world of politics, shallow analysis and perception is everything. So it is the duty of all who care about this issue to educate John Q. Mindless Consumer on the facts regarding this ruling.-z 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #19 posted by freedom fighter on May 14, 2001 at 17:16:45 PT
New Mexcian,
Love your astrology!We invite you to register so your nick can be so reddd...http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/register.shtmlIt could be true..Today, my dumb caseworker, Vince, could not get me an interpreter so we can communicate since I happen not to hear and he thought that using the computer to communicate between us would be great way to get things done. So I went along with it because I knew it would take an average 50 year old man to type approx. 40 words per min.. Oh boy, I sure do love this method of communication! My biggest "problem" with their questions was this question;"Have you used any drugs without prescription?"I wrote, "No."My sweetcaseworker, Vince, pointed out that I used marijuana and I wrote back, " Oh, I have "problem", I think cannabis is not a drug. I usually call it herb." My sweetdummycaseworker flashed a thumb sign. He understood!Jah be with us....  aiiiiieeeeee!!!!\/ffPS) I know most of us are not suprise at the ruling today.. Time will tell a tale of reality..
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #18 posted by Pontifex on May 14, 2001 at 16:57:26 PT:
The question antis can't answer
AOCP, you nailed it. The average joe has a very limited attention span when listening to legalizers like us. That's why we have to get maximum effort for minimum words.Here's an idea. Next time you're confronted with someone who thinks dangerous drugs should be illegal, ask him:Say there's a drug that kills hundreds of thousands of people every year, severely impairs its users, is known to be addictive and is strongly associated with violent crime. Should the federal government prohibit such a drug as a controlled substance?If yes, does this mean you think the nation should return to alcohol Prohibition?No one who would ban cannabis can give consistent answers to these questions. I bet even John Walters wouldn't suggest a return to Prohibition (yet).Like AOCP said, go for the balls. This bullshit is so 20th century.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #17 posted by New Mexican on May 14, 2001 at 13:48:26 PT
Look to the stars!
As an astrologer, the only solace I can find in the currentnazi-(supreme) court rulings of late, is the dark always comes before the dawn. If the readers and posters here don't mind, i'd like to shed some 'light' on the phase we are going through under the shrubya coup. Planetarily, the stage IS being set for a world revolution and in order for it to involve the masses, the masses will have to feel equally oppressed by the powers-that-be, in order for it to succeed on a world-wide level. We are at the beginning of a new reality and at the end of an old, worn out paradigm. With the selection of our resident by the supremist court, the curtain has been pulled back on the wizard of oz, so it's only a matter of time before American citizens catch up with the current world-view that our leader and corporate co-horts are illegitemate. The SCOTUS has acheived what we could not: shooting themselves in both feet and now the have no legs to stand on. (Thanks Kap!)Starting on July 12th, the peoples will is going to be energized as it never has, since the revolution of 1776, so watch local and world events swing towards hamanitarianism and civil liberties and against tyranny and dictatorship! Just thought i'd put in my 2 cents for anyone who feels there's no hope. The War on some drugs and most people will end!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #16 posted by aocp on May 14, 2001 at 13:07:10 PT
The long and the short of it
My take on all this garbage:(1) this was totally expected(2) go for the balls in any argument regarding drug policy. That is, don't focus on the positives of regulation of illicits. We all know what they are, but the antis don't want to listen, so you're just preaching to the choir. Instead, attack the blatant hypocrisy of legal booze and smokes. Hey, man, if prohibition is "The Way of the Walk," let's go the full nine, yea? Make the bastards explain THAT. The burden of proof is then on THEM. Make 'em squirm and make it damn uncomfortable. Oh, and don't accept anything short of total prohibition like MJ suffers under, either. Prohibition is NOT about compromise. The antis educated us on that point for the last 30 some years.You bring Sch. I booze and smokes around for a few months and you'll start seeing some swelling of the 'Rah-Rah Regulation' crowd with a quickness.(3) As Kap said, the challenges will continue to come. As Richard Cowan has stated on numerous occasions over at www.pot-tv.net (check it OUT, y'all!) there have been NO challenges to the state initiatives yet. NONE. The sc jokes have merely ruled on using the medical defense, not on the validity of the initiatives themselves, as i understand it. Don't let 'em fool you. We're winning. They're simply failing at damage control, nothing more. F***heads.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #15 posted by dddd on May 14, 2001 at 12:38:00 PT
Pontifex
I know what you are saying,and you are right.I had not read yourprevious comment by the time I got done posting mine,(so you knowit was not said in response to #12).I still say that there is a fair amount of slack,,,an "iffy" area,wherethe interpretation of the law can be manipulated in significant ways.I do not believe it is an exact science.JAH be with you my friend...............dddd
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #14 posted by Pontifex on May 14, 2001 at 12:28:45 PT:
No revolution has ever been led by the judiciary
dddd,I totally understand your frustration. If I was a SC justice, I'd find a legal way to support the Cannabis coop. But I'd be accused, rightly, of prejudice and special pleading.Congress wrote the law and the Supremes must follow. The only way they'll ever do anything to contradict the will of Congress is if they have an ironclad legal justification, a real slam-dunk. "Medical necessity" doesn't even come close.The courts may some day rule against Congress on drugs, some day when the weather in Hell is unseasonably cool. But don't expect a judicial reprieve in our lifetimes.Remember, Supreme Court justices are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Just because they can't be fired doesn't mean they can abandon the law and enforce their conscience -- presuming that they have consciences, of course.If we ever get a law passed in Congress to repeal the CSA, or if the State of California takes its case to the SC on 10th Amendment grounds, then there might be a victory.But I'm betting on the court to follow, rather than lead, in the endless insane War on Drugs.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #13 posted by dddd on May 14, 2001 at 11:49:50 PT
Dont Forget
To suggest that the court had no choice but to rulethe way they did,is a bunch of shit.....Remember a coupleof weeks ago,when the very same court made a twistedruling about jailing people for no seat belts...This group ofarrogant a#*holes will bend the law in whichever way theirpoli-corporate superiors prefer....That is what really outragesme.They can squirm around mthe Fourth ammendment,and acouple of weeks later,they decide it would be improper togo against the SH*THEADS in the senate and house...!ddddisgusted!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by Pontifex on May 14, 2001 at 11:36:08 PT:
Congress writes the laws
L, the Supremes can't just interpret the law any way they want. Their job is to interpret the wording of Congress' laws and resolve any contradictions between laws.Like Robbie said, it's all about the CSA. Today's CSA leaves no room for interpretation. Chew on Thomas' opinion of the court:"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. 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."In other words, Congress foreclosed on the medical necessity defense when they wrote the CSA. The justices may or may not be sympathetic to medical marijuana, but this dog won't hunt.This isn't a setback, just a blind alley.Write your congresscritter.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by Duzt on May 14, 2001 at 10:25:24 PT
not much has changed
Remember, it was the Supreme Court that ruled that black slaves were the property of their white owners. These people have the government's and the wealthy's interests in mind. This ruling has no effect on state laws, they just are trying to use their power to oppress us. The new head of the DEA, the new czar, John Ashcroft, we all know what's coming from these people. This government is going to cause another civil war in this country, hopefully we can get things changed peacefully before it comes to that.
http://www.wonderbuds.com
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by kaptinemo on May 14, 2001 at 10:24:56 PT:
It is not the end, folks.
The Supremes have just shot themselves in both feet; they've lost what tiny shred of moral standing they ever had. They have, by their overweening concern for the Federal laws (wholly based upon racial bigotry; you'd think Clarence Thomas would know better) condemned millions to suffer and/or die horribly. They have shown their true colors. Like the Taney Court which allowed the gross injustice of slavery to stand in the 1856 Dredd Scott Decision, this Court has written it's name in bloody ink in the annals of human shame and perfidy for future historians to note.But keep something in mind; this has to do with the OCBC's case, not the entire MMJ movement. The challenges will continue. The fight goes on. As more States pass MMJ, the Supremes will do a double-take, and then realize how wrong they are. As I said before, short of martial law, we cannot be stopped.Because Rambler's right; Uncle has a very long arm, indeed. It extends clear around the planet. Just look at Canada; they are trying to move Heaven and Earth to get Renee Boje behind bars, and for what? Watering someone's plants? No place is safe from his madness.Now, more than ever, those who have been fence-sitters will have to make a choice. Stand and fight...or continue to live - and perhaps, die - in fear. Those are the only choices we have left.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by Pontifex on May 14, 2001 at 10:20:18 PT:
Calm down, it's only business as usual
Hello folks,I was expecting this. Weren't you?After all, the Supremes are there to interpret the law as Congress wrote it. And Congress is pretty darn clear -- marijuana, devil's herb, is a Schedule I substance with no medical uses and high potential for addiction. It's worse than morphine, heroine and cocaine!It's not like the justices could have rewritten the law. They were asked to consider the validity of a "medical necessity" defense -- whether someone could flout the strongest federal law because their health depended on it.As attractive as "medical necessity" may be, there is almost no precedent for it in American jurisprudence. Therefore it was always a very long shot that the Supremes would buy the argument.Come on; the justices had no choice in this one. Give them a case based on the 10th Amendment -- that it's the state's prerogative to write drug laws, not the feds' -- and the unanimity of opinion will break down.Dry your eyes, and blame Congress, because they got us into this mess and hold almost all the keys for getting us out.Keep that bowl cherry,Pontifex
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by Romy Neri on May 14, 2001 at 10:13:27 PT
SC - Ruling
I seriously hope that these upppity narrow minded morally anal retentive "justices" never find the need to necccessitate the use of the very drug that might well alleviate their pain, discomfort and suffering. It is all too obvious that these people have no understanding of the nature of illness and disesase that can be relieved through medicinal marijuana. They have offered us no other recourse but to return tho the "underground" and buy our medicine from the strangers on the street. Where quality controll is not practiced (i.e. inspected for mold etc.). Not to mention the fact that most of these "dealers" are living in what might be considered "dangerous" ares to be in. Thanks Supreme Court!!! I agree... is there a facist free, goon squad free, peace loving, FREE and DEMOCRATIC, REPUBLICAN free, country that we can move to... SOMEWHERE we can treat our medical needs without fear of persecution. It is truly ashame that the courts have jurisprudence over how we choose to treat our ilnessnes... The courts have the power to override what doctors recommend as treatment. Do any of these people sitting on the bench have any kind of medical license? Does it now mean that when a doctor precribes a medicine for treatment for a serious illness that some some stupid, arrogant,judge has the power to overrule the doctors recommendation? SInce when did I become a patient of the United States Supreme Court? May they all burn in hell!!!Glenn & RomySonoma County
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by FoM on May 14, 2001 at 10:08:09 PT
They Might Change Talk Back Lives Chat
They often change the schedule with breaking news so here is the link. The program airs at 3 pm et to 4 pm et.http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/TalkBack/
Medical Marijuana Information
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by FoM on May 14, 2001 at 10:03:12 PT
Medical Marijuana Press Conference, 2 p.m. EDT  
LIVECNN's Burden of Proof: Chat now CNN International's Q&A: Watch now Watch: State Department briefing, 1 p.m. EDT  Watch: Medical marijuana press conference, 2 p.m. EDT  http://www.cnn.com/
Medical Marijuana Information Links
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by JOHNNY BLAZE on May 14, 2001 at 10:02:50 PT:
What the F**k?
 What kind of country do we live in? It really makes my sick to my stomach when i see a goverment like ours, are we really free??? Our are we really prisnors in a nationwide jail being run by the biggots and republicans?? Think about it ... a 50 year old cancer patient.... who is he or she goin to hurt?? Better yet take anyone who smokes marijuana... who are they hurting?? I think the ruling today was a completely unfair and unreal... it is the 21st century .. a time where alcohol is leagal and available everywhere! Great! Have a few drinks ..get violent,beat your wife, kill an innocent driver...destroy yourself! That is what the goverment is telling us! It is time to step up as a nation and speak for ourselves, if all the smokers of the world would voice there opinion .. maybe we could make a change .. probably not. I wonder if the Lord Jesus Christ is on the fbi 10 most wanted list? Becuase he made it..Men use it..and the goverment put people in cages for it.. It just doesnt make sense.. FTW
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by Rambler on May 14, 2001 at 09:47:35 PT
nauseated cyclist 
Now is not the time to run,now is the time to unite and fight!No matter how far you ride the Schwinn,you will never get away from what is going on here.If we let this crap continue,we dont deserve freedom.We must stand and fight.To submit to this shit would be totally unAmerican.I have a feeling that this may be a good thing,in that it will be a turning point where people can unite as true patriots!!!!!!LIVE FREE,,OR DIE!!!!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by Winner on Drugs on May 14, 2001 at 09:33:16 PT
Give me a break
I have one question America. If you were naked in a corn field would you choose to take a step backwards instead of forward as well? Logic has no role in our society.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by nauseated cyclist on May 14, 2001 at 09:32:43 PT
SC-BS
i knew after G.Bushes goon squad rolled thru mendo-humboldt and busted all those indoor people a few weeks back that it was going to get worse.right now im so disgusted with it all im seriously considering a way to "get out" of this fascist christian right controlled for the children society of braindead over bloated double standard fork tounged indian murdering corporate global narco pigs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! anyone know any good countrys to defect to?? 
[ Post Comment ]

 


Comment #1 posted by Robbie on May 14, 2001 at 09:14:32 PT

Supreme Court?
I guess they think marijuana just pops up like magic. Thanks for nothing SC...now you can go back to deciding elections. The CSA...we have to take the fight to the CSA. Without abolishing that...we'll never get anywhere... medical or otherwise.
[ Post Comment ]





  Post Comment





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

Link URL: 
Link Title: