cannabisnews.com: Court Rules Against Medical Marijuana 





Court Rules Against Medical Marijuana 
Posted by FoM on May 14, 2001 at 21:12:48 PT
By Charles Lane, Washington Post Staff Writer
Source: Washington Post
The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that federal law bars the distribution of marijuana even to people who say they must have it to alleviate symptoms of serious illness, dealing a setback to the movement for "medical marijuana" laws and limiting the impact of the state laws already on the books.Ruling 8-0 in a case involving a California "cannabis cooperative" that supplied the drug to patients suffering from cancer, AIDs and other illnesses, the court said that federal anti-drug law allows no "medical necessity" exception to the general prohibition on selling or growing marijuana.
Federal law "reflects a determination that marijuana has no medical benefits worthy of an exception," the court said in an opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas. The court upheld federal authorities' ability to obtain a court order shutting down the cooperative.The ruling does not directly invalidate "medical marijuana" laws on the books in nine states, mostly in the West. Those states remain free to choose not to prosecute people who use marijuana for medical purposes, and the federal government rarely prosecutes individuals for marijuana use.However, in those states, the ruling is likely to doom large, public distribution centers – confining the use of "medical marijuana" to private, small-scale settings outside the usual scope of federal enforcement efforts.In addition, the court may have deterred other states from joining the "medical marijuana" movement, which appeared to be gaining popular acceptance in recent years."The Supreme Court's 8-0 decision is a strong endorsement of congressional legislation banning marijuana production and distribution under federal law," said Barry McCaffrey, who served as federal drug control policy director during the Clinton administration.California Attorney General Bill Lockyer said the ruling was "unfortunate." He added that "the responsibility for determining what is necessary to provide for public health and safety has traditionally been left to the states."Chuck Thomas, communications director of the Marijuana Policy Project, which lobbies for medical marijuana laws, said: "My two biggest fears are that it will be somewhat more inconvenient for medical marijuana users . . . and that next year state legislators will say 'Oh, no, now we can't pass a new state law.'‚"Supporters of medical marijuana say the drug is often the only source of relief for cancer patients experiencing excruciating pain or AIDS patients feeling crippling nausea. Some anorexics have used marijuana to maintain their appetites.Opponents say that there are abundant legal alternatives, including a synthetic form of the active ingredient in marijuana, and that the medical marijuana movement's real goal is de facto legalization of the drug for recreational use.The issue forces national politicians to balance their reluctance to appear soft on drugs against the fact that state voters have recently expressed sympathy for what medical marijuana advocates call "compassionate use" of the drug.As a candidate last year, President Bush expressed sympathy for states' rights to devise their own marijuana policies at variance with the federal approach. When the case was argued before the Supreme Court in March, Bush issued a statement expressing his personal opposition to medical marijuana laws, and expressing support for the Justice Department's position in the case, which was initiated under President Bill Clinton.The case centered on the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative, one of several "cannabis clubs" that sprang up after California voters approved a referendum in 1996 permitting people with notes from their doctors to use marijuana.Choosing not to prosecute the club in a state in which a criminal trial jury would be drawn from the same population that had voted in favor of medical marijuana, the Clinton Justice Department asked a federal judge to issue an injunction closing the cooperative – which he did in 1998.That judge, Charles Breyer, is the brother of Justice Stephen G. Breyer, who recused himself from the matter when it came to the Supreme Court.The cooperative appealed to the West Coast-based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. It ordered Charles Breyer to rewrite his order to permit the cooperative to continue distributing marijuana to those who could prove that it was a "medical necessity."Arguing that this could create a massive loophole in federal drug laws, the Clinton administration appealed to the Supreme Court, which issued its own order last August keeping the cooperative shut until it could decide the case.In a concurring opinion yesterday, Justice John Paul Stevens, joined by Justices David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, agreed with Thomas's opinion but expressed concern that it may have been too far-reaching."Most notably, whether the [medical necessity] defense might be available to a seriously ill patient for whom there is no other means of avoiding starvation or extraordinary suffering is a difficult issue that is not presented here," Stevens wrote.In addition, Stevens said: "The overbroad language of the Court's opinion is especially unfortunate given the importance of showing respect for the sovereign states that comprise our Federal Union.""We share Justice Stevens's concern," Thomas replied. "However . . . because federal courts interpret, rather than author, the federal criminal code, we are not at liberty to rewrite it."The case is U.S. v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative, No. 00-151.Source: Washington Post (DC) Author: Charles Lane, Washington Post Staff WriterPublished: Tuesday, May 15, 2001; Page A01 Copyright: 2001 The Washington Post Company Contact: letterstoed washpost.comWebsite: http://www.washingtonpost.comRelated Articles & Web Sites:IOM Reporthttp://www.nap.edu/html/marimed/Oakland Cannabis Buyer's Cooperativehttp://www.rxcbc.org/A Nauseating Ruling - Salon.comhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9715.shtmlSupporters of Oakland Club Will Keep Fightinghttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9713.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #7 posted by Dan B on May 15, 2001 at 22:04:34 PT:
Thanks, Kaptinemo
She's mainly an indoor dog (only goes outside for "potty time"), so she should remain relatively cool. But thanks for the "heads up." As you know, I live in Texas, and it gets quite hot out here in the summer.Thanks again.Dan BP.S. Per a request by someone who saw my long comment on this thread, I sent a revised copy of that message to nearly 70 pot activists (including Steve and Michelle Kubby, George Soros, and others). I hope to hear back from at least some of them. With their legal contacts, they should be able to tell me whether my idea is workable. I'll keep everyone posted.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by kaptinemo on May 15, 2001 at 05:14:00 PT:
Dan, watch for overheating
Pugs are a lot like bulldogs; they can't take much hot weather. Their noses are too short, not enough cooling potential from those pushed-in sinus cavities. That's why they make such rude noises, sometimes. But for such little dogs, they have big hearts  :)
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by Dan B on May 15, 2001 at 00:48:28 PT:
Puppy's Name
Because we believe in the cause of Liberty, and because we are technically living in the South (Texas), we have named her Liberty Belle. She really is cute. Difficult at times, but cute. And the cats are now getting used to her, too (we've had her for about two weeks, now).G'Night, folks!Dan B
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by FoM on May 14, 2001 at 23:55:49 PT
I'm tired
So I'm silly. I just wondered how it would sound to have to call a dog? Imagine hey you get back here d-d-d-d LOL!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by dddd on May 14, 2001 at 23:44:03 PT
Dan B
These are some excellent ideas.Perhaps Gerald Uhlman would take iton,,pro bono.I was encouraged this evening as I surfed thru the local news here in L.A.Most of the coverage of the story had a sympatetic,some even hintingat the insulting nature of the ruling as it pertains to Californias voters,and states rights.What are you gonna name the new pup?dddd 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by FoM on May 14, 2001 at 23:32:00 PT
Thanks Dan!
Reading you post makes me smile. I'm tired and I think I'm done for the day. We will win because the truth will prevail. Cannabis helps people and they know it and we know it. Off the subject but I think Pugs are so cute! I know how house breaking goes. My male Rott is about 100 pounds now and 7 months old and near 30 inches at the back. I weigh around 105 pounds. I'm glad he is a gentle giant or he could cause me great harm but he's just a big doll. We named him Kaptin. He likes his name too. Take care and have fun with your pup.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by Dan B on May 14, 2001 at 23:20:41 PT:
Fabulous Job, FoM
Let me just say, FoM, that you are doing a great job of sifting through the wide array of articles out there on this issue. Thanks for keeping us up-to-date.When I heard the decision, I had been awake for almost 2 full days (insomnia) and was getting frustrated with my new puppy (a sweet little pug, but you know how demanding they can be when they are being potty-trained). Then, CNN announced the news that the SC decided distribution of medical marijuana cannot be federally permitted due to the CSA.I hit the roof. I mean, I was fuming. Murderously angry. And then I began to lose hope. All of the work so many had done for so long seemed to have been dashed to pieces by these eight sanctimonious fools, in conjunction with the 75 years of congressionally-induced hatred and corruption that is the war on some drugs. I wanted to cry, and I wanted to just give up trying.I got some sleep, and then I started reading the articles written here and the intelligent responses everyone was making. I had to agree with some that the Supreme Court was simply upholding the law as set forth by the Congress. It's true, although they could have simply widened the scope of their decision and ruled that the CSA itself is unconstitutional. And that was when the hope began to return.The SC has really left the door wide open, and all we have to do is walk some good lawyer through the process. We need some state (I hereby elect California, although any medical marijuana state would do) to stand up and argue that the federal Controlled Substances Act is unconstitutional. A wealth of information exists to that effect, from the fact that a constitutional amendment was required for the prohibition of alcohol (that amendment was, of course, repealed), to states' rights issues, to the correct assertion that the CSA is basically a misapplication of the Interstate Commerce clause in the Constitution. So, here is what I propose (if anyone out there is a lawyer, I encourage you to write this up in legal lingo): (1) Propose a bill that would mandate a state government to challenge the CSA on the basis that it is unconstitutional. The basis for such a mandate is clearly represented by the fact that California has passed Prop 215, and the feds have negated that state's right to enforce that proposition in any manner it sees fit. (2) Once said bill passes, force the state government to carry it out using qualified, high-powered experts in constitutional law, commerce law, criminal law, and medical law. Some experts on the history of prohibition laws would also be useful.(3) The rest is relatively easy because the feds will gladly appeal such a case until its is decided in the Supreme Court. Make sure this happens.(4) Cover all of the bases in written documentation before the case is argued before the SC, then hit the essential arguments pertaining directly to the unconstitutional nature of the CSA during the argumentation process.I believe that the above should coincide with a massive public awareness campaign a la Change the Climate--only better funded and larger in scope (I love those folks at Change the Climate, but I think even they recognize that a nationwide campaign would be even more effective). The public already believes that medical marijuana should be available to legitimate patients. We have already won that front. Now, it's time to take the additional step of showing them that the current approach to even recreational marijuana is barbaric at best.Potential Survey Questions:1. Most Americans agree that medical marijuana should be available to patients with severe illnesses who benefit from use of it. Do you believe it would be permissable, for the sake of those patients, to legally regulate the distribution of marijuana, even if it meant that recreational users may also be allowed to purchase it?2. Alcohol and tobacco are currently regulated and legally available to adults. Informational campaigns have significantly reduced the use of tobacco products in this country even though such products are easily available to adults. Do you believe that marijuana use, if similarly regulated, could be kept to a minimum in comparison to today's current zero-tolerance policies?3. Do you believe that society benefits from the incarceration of marijuana users? From the seizure of their property and revocation of their student loans? From the termination of their drivers licenses? From their evictions from rented residences? From the termination of their employment?These kinds of questions should be accompanied by literature or discussion about the inefficient, ineffective, damaging and disastrous calamity of today's war on some drugs. I believe that if we get out there and actively work to persuade the American public, we can win this war once and for all. This is an opportunity for us to shift focus from medical marijuana rights in some states to outright legal regulation of marijuana throughout the country.There you have it. Let's make it work (or some other plan--I harbor no illusions that my ideas are necessarily the best).Fight the WarPigs, 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: