cannabisnews.com: Medical Pot Illegal Medical Pot Illegal Posted by FoM on May 14, 2001 at 17:55:42 PT By Larry D. Hatfield, Chronicle Staff Writer Source: San Francisco Chronicle The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a major blow today to the medical marijuana movement in the Bay Area and elsewhere by unanimously declaring federal anti-pot laws make no exceptions for ill people using the weed to ease the symptoms of catastrophic illnesses. Its immediate effect is to bar the Oakland Cannabis Buying Cooperative from resuming distribution, but the 8-0 ruling also could influence a pending California Supreme Court ruling on whether Proposition 215 provides immunity from criminal penalties for medicinal pot use. It could derail similar medical marijuana laws in several other states. It also is likely to drive victims of AIDS, cancer, glaucoma, multiple sclerosis and other illnesses back to illegal sources to get the marijuana they say lessens their suffering. Jeff Jones, head of the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative, called today's ruling wrong-headed. "This ruling strikes a blow at the medical patients in California and (elsewhere) . . . (and) sends them back out to the street to try to receive this medicine in a way that's unsafe and not easy for them," he said. He compared today's action to the Dred Scott decision, which upheld slavery in new territories in the 1850s. Like that decision made against the will of the majority of the public, Jones said, today's Supreme Court ruling will fall to changing times and changing laws within 10 or 20 years. Gerald Uelmen, the Santa Clara University law professor who argued the case before the high court, said the ruling only affects the Oakland club and not the dozen or more similar clubs operating in California. But he said he expects the federal government to seek injunctions against other clubs to avoid the question being put before juries. The high court's ruling upheld the government's contention that marijuana has no proven medicinal attributes and that distributing or possessing it for purported medical reasons remains a federal crime. It rejected the Oakland club's argument that the federal anti-drugs law could be read to permit medical use of marijuana. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the court, "We decline to parse the statute in this manner . . . In the case of the (federal) Controlled Substances Act, the statute reflects a determination that marijuana has no medical benefits worthy of an exception. . . ." He noted that the act states specifically that marijuana has "no currently accepted medical use," adding, "Congress has made a determination that marijuana has no medical benefits worthy of an exception." That means its production or distribution for medical or any other purposes remains illegal, the court held. Uelmen said that opinion was "a ringing endorsement for a congressional finding made 30 years ago. . . . It was obsolete then and it is more obsolete today." Calling on members of Congress "to remove their heads from the sand and get caught up on scientific realities" by passing legislation permitting use of cannabis for medical purposes, Uelmen said, "The sad thing, of course, is that patients may get trapped in the meantime and be denied access to something that obviously gives relief to very sick people." Because the ruling held there is no legal defense for manufacturing cannabis for medical purposes, Uelmen said it was conceivable the government could prosecute patients who are growing their own. He added, however, "I would be very surprised to see federal resources put into that kind of effort. Juries would be outraged." At a press conference this morning, OCBC attorney Robert Raich said the battle isn't over. "This decision is not the end of the line by any means," he said. "It just marks the end of the first round." Other issues can be taken up in the lower courts, he said, including the question of a state's right to enforce its own laws and a person's right to be free of pain. Although concurring with the decision, Justice John Paul Stevens, joined by two other justices, said the high court should have limited its ruling to prosecutions for manufacturing or distributing marijuana, rather than simple possession. "Whether the defense might be available to a seriously ill patient for whom there is no alternative means of avoiding starvation or extraordinary suffering is a difficult issue that is not presented here," Stevens wrote. Backers of the medicinal use of marijuana say it improves energy levels and relieves pain associated with such diseases as AIDS, glaucoma, multiple sclerosis and cancer. It also can stimulate appetite and ease nausea caused by chemotherapy. Today's decision is the latest in a three-year legal standoff between backers of Prop. 215, passed by voters in 1996, and the federal government, which filed for an injunction in 1998 seeking to close the Oakland club and several others in the state. Justice Stephen Breyer did not participate in the decision because his brother, a federal judge, initially presided over the case in which the Northern California U.S. District Court reached the same conclusions as today's ruling. The other clubs eventually closed and the Oakland club, with the city of Oakland's official participation, continued to register potential marijuana recipients while it waited for a ruling on whether it could distribute the drug. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal overturned the lower court's ruling, holding that medical necessity was a legal defense. The 9th Circuit said the government offered no evidence to rebut OCBC's evidence that cannabis is the only effective treatment for a large group of seriously ill individuals. Charles Breyer then followed up with a set of strict guidelines for making such a claim and the case went back up the appellate chain. The current case did not decide the legality of Prop. 215, but rather the 9th Circuit's contention in its 1999 ruling that there is a medical necessity exception to federal drug laws that make it a crime to possess or distribute marijuana. The government responded that the appellate ruling interfered with Congress' right to battle illegal drugs and would allow clubs like Oakland's to "function in an unregulated and unsupervised marijuana pharmacy." Government lawyers suggested the medical marijuana cause was just a stalking horse for the wider legalization of pot and other drugs. A wide range of medical, political and other groups backed the Oakland club's attempt to let it and similar clubs operate. California Attorney General Bill Lockyer supported OCBC, saying the state has the right to enforce its own law. The Oakland club argued that while cannabis may not yet have achieved general medical acceptance, it still has been shown to have medical benefits to a particular patient or class of patients. The case is United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative, 00-151. Chronicle Staff Writers Ray Delgado and Pia Sarkar, as well as Chronicle wire services, contributed to this report. Note: U.S. high court rules, 8-0, that clubs violate federal drug lawsE-mail Larry D. Hatfield at: lhatfield sfchronicle.comSource: San Francisco Chronicle (CA)Author: Larry D. Hatfield, Chronicle Staff WriterPublished: Monday, May 14, 2001 Copyright: 2001 San Francisco Chronicle Page A - 1 Contact: letters sfchronicle.comWebsite: http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/Related Articles & Web Site:Oakland Cannabis Buyer's Cooperativehttp://www.rxcbc.org/ACLU: State Marijuana Laws Still Intact http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9710.shtmlExpect Fight, Marijuana Supporter Sayshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9708.shtmlCalif Medical Marijuana Proponents Vow To Fight Onhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9707.shtmlMedical Marijuana Ruling Decried http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9706.shtml END SNIP --> Snipped Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #4 posted by Jeaneous on May 14, 2001 at 19:35:45 PT: Interesting I find this very interesting how these polls are turning out. I'm thinking maybe some of the anti's might see how cruel this court ruling really is. The government unveiling itself and shocking some.At least we now know what we are up against. It is now our job to demand that our representatives do as we direct them in our votes. Elections are coming. We need to be as active as we can prior to elections to find out just how each candidate stands on this issue and vote accordingly.It appears we are in the majority on this issue. Majority is what rules. Looks to be 2/3 to me.... So who do we start with???? Senators first.....I'm off...... any ideas.... please share them. [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by Robbie on May 14, 2001 at 19:14:55 PT This <i>should</i> be a strong sign Every poll on this subject seems to be nearly 4 out of 5 in favor of medical marijuana. What the F*** is wrong with our so-called leaders? [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by Jeaneous on May 14, 2001 at 19:00:27 PT: CNN Poll Do you think people should be allowed to use marijuana for medical purposes? Yes 78% 57547 votes No 22% 15938 votes Total: 73485 votes [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by MikeEEEEE on May 14, 2001 at 18:22:18 PT Current poll on AOL Do you agree with Supreme Court that medical marijuana is illegal even for ill patients? Yes 6429 15.6% No 33607 81.7% Not sure 1086 2.6% Total votes: 41122 [ Post Comment ] Post Comment Name: Optional Password: E-Mail: Subject: Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message] Link URL: Link Title: