cannabisnews.com: Supreme Court Rejects Medical Marijuana Use





Supreme Court Rejects Medical Marijuana Use
Posted by FoM on May 14, 2001 at 21:27:31 PT
By Mark Curriden, The Dallas Morning News
Source: Dallas Morning News 
People who use marijuana for medical purposes are not exempt from federal laws that prohibit its use, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday. The justices, in an 8-0 opinion, said that Congress specifically stated in federal drug laws that there is "no accepted medical use" for marijuana. The decision also effectively prohibits individuals arrested for marijuana possession from telling juries that they used it because they were sick and that the drug made them feel better. 
Legal experts said that the ruling undermines recently passed laws in nine states. Those states allow, with doctor approval, patients to use marijuana to deal with the side effects of some cancer treatments, for example, or to help reduce pain. Supporters of marijuana use for medical purposes decried the court's ruling as uncaring and unacceptable and promised to continue the fight. "We are very disappointed that the justices did not consider the desperate medical needs of some of the citizens of this country," said Jeffrey Jones, director of the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative, one of six California groups created after the state's voters approved legalizing medicinal use of marijuana in 1996. Lawyers for the cooperative argued that groups such as theirs should be allowed to distribute marijuana to people with a doctor's prescription. They also said that those patients arrested for possessing marijuana should be allowed to use "medical necessity" as a legal defense. But the justices rejected both claims. "It is clear from the Controlled Substance Act that Congress made a determination that marijuana has no medical benefits worthy of an exception," Justice Clarence 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." While the justices were uncharacteristically unanimous in declaring that federal law clearly prohibited the cannabis groups from distributing the drug, the court was split 5-3 over whether patients facing criminal possession charges could use a medical condition as a defense. Justice Thomas said that such a defense is not acceptable and should not be allowed. Siding with Justice Thomas were Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that he could see circumstances when such medical use should be allowed. Justices David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg agreed. Justice Stephen Breyer did not participate in the case because his brother was the federal judge in California who heard the original argument. Several legal experts said the court's decision on the cannabis distribution was not a surprise, They said that the court has given wide latitude to Congress and the president to establish and enforce public policy regarding drug use. However, some legal scholars were taken aback that the justices went on to prohibit criminal defendants in marijuana cases from telling juries why they were using the drug. "This ruling is actually a direct assault on people's constitutional right to tell the jury their side of the case and have a jury of their peers decide the case," said Ronald Smith, chairman of the American Bar Association's Criminal Justice Section. Mr. Smith, a law professor at John Marshall Law School in Chicago, said the result of the decision is that very few trial judges will allow sick defendants to tell jurors about their illnesses and how marijuana helps them. Monday's decision does not literally overturn state laws and voter's initiatives approved in Arizona, Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, Oregon and Washington. Those states have effectively granted immunity to seriously ill people from prosecution of state drug laws. Several states are considering medical marijuana laws, and Congress may address the issue later this year. A measure to counter laws such as California's died in the House last year. Even though federal prosecutors and investigators seldom use their resources to target individual marijuana users, legal experts say the true influence of the court's decision will be seen in the possible elimination of the cannabis groups. "Without the cannabis as my true lifesaver, I will literally die," said Angel McClary, a 34-year-old Oakland mother who uses marijuana regularly to ease side effects from a brain tumor and from seizures. "This is about real people who are really sick and really dying, and I find it outrageous that the Supreme Court is telling me that me and my doctor do not know what's best for my medical condition." Note: Critics call ruling uncaring.The Associated Press contributed to this report. Source: Dallas Morning News (TX)Author: Mark Curriden, The Dallas Morning NewsPublished: May 15, 2001Copyright: 2001 The Dallas Morning NewsWebsite: http://www.dallasnews.com/Contact: letterstoeditor dallasnews.comRelated Articles & Web Sites:IOM Reporthttp://www.nap.edu/html/marimed/Oakland Cannabis Buyer's Cooperativehttp://www.rxcbc.org/Court Rules Against Medical Marijuana http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9716.shtmlA Nauseating Ruling - Salon.comhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9715.shtml
END SNIP -->
Snipped
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: