cannabisnews.com: Court Rejects Medical Use of Marijuana 





Court Rejects Medical Use of Marijuana 
Posted by FoM on May 14, 2001 at 22:10:26 PT
By  Karen Masterson
Source: Houston Chronicle
The U.S. Supreme Court handed a major defeat to medical marijuana users Monday, ruling 8-0 that federal law prohibits organizations from growing and distributing the weed. The ruling, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, stated that medical organizations are barred from giving marijuana to seriously ill patients because federal law provides no exception for "medical necessity" and science fails to define marijuana as a medication. 
Jeff Jones, head of the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative in California, called the ruling "heavy handed and misguided." The court ruling is intended to shut down his cooperative, as well as other so-called medical marijuana buyers' clubs. In a news conference after the ruling, Jones did not specify that he would shut down his operation. But he accused the court of giving patients "no alternative as to where to get their medicine ... outside of the streets." Attorney General John Ashcroft described the ruling as a victory for U.S. drug enforcement laws and said it clearly "reaffirms the federal government's pre-eminent role in regulating controlled substances." Ashraf Mozayani, chief toxicologist and lab director for the Harris County medical examiner's office, said the ruling was "really great news." She called marijuana an unsafe drug that alters one's state of mind and behavior. Mozayani said she sees too many drug-related accidents or homicides and believes tougher drug laws are needed, not exceptions to those laws. Some doctors believe marijuana effectively helps treat glaucoma, cancer and AIDS and that it alleviates pain and nausea brought on by chemotherapy and other treatments. But the high court rejected the argument for medical necessity concessions because Congress placed the government's strictest controls on the growing and distribution of marijuana. Laws in nine states -- Arizona, Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, Oregon and Washington -- recognize, to varying degrees, certain protections for the medicinal use of marijuana. According to the American Civil Liberties Union, the Supreme Court leaves intact state laws that protect medical marijuana users from state and local prosecution, even if the ruling seeks to shut down the growers and distributors. However, it does mean that anyone distributing or using the drug for medical purposes in those states is open to prosecution under federal law. In 1998, the federal government sought to close the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative and five other organizations like it in California on charges that they violated federal drug laws. Jones, a Christian conservative, said he opened the cooperative after watching his father die of kidney cancer. He said he has been helping patients under doctors' care obtain safe supplies of what is popularly known as "pot." He refused to shut down in 1998, arguing that his organizations' activities were protected by California state law that was enacted in 1996 after voters approved Proposition 215. It allows the cultivation and use of marijuana for medical purposes. Jones said he will continue to fight the court's ruling by using, for example, a state's right to write its own commerce laws. But the Supreme Court's ruling was a substantial blow to states' rights in fashioning independent marijuana distribution laws. "Congress has made a determination that marijuana has no medical benefits worthy of an exception," Thomas wrote for the court. The law "provides only one ... exception to the prohibitions on manufacturing and distributing the drug: government-approved research projects." Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Chief Justice William Rehnquist concurred. The remaining three justices -- David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens -- also concurred but wrote a separate opinion because they said Thomas' was too broad. Stevens wrote "the court reaches beyond its holding, and beyond the facts of the case" by suggesting that "medical necessity" may never be used as an argument to get around the country's strict drug laws. Justice Stephen Breyer did not participate in the ruling. His brother, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco, initially presided over the dispute. Keith Vines, a former Air Force captain turned San Francisco prosecutor, called Monday "a sad day." AIDS symptoms that killed his appetite has been reversed by "a few puffs" of marijuana a day, he said, because it has allowed him to eat enough to maintain a healthy weight. Doctors initially put Vines on a pill approved by the Food and Drug Administration that contains many properties of marijuana. But Vines said he was unable to use it because "it was too strong." Meanwhile, opponents of medical marijuana believe such sentiments are cover for a broader political agenda, which includes the eventual legalization of marijuana, even for recreational use. "The science just isn't there to back up those claims," said David Evans, a New Jersey attorney who represented roughly 50 groups nationwide in a brief submitted to the Supreme Court that outlined the legal and medical problems associated with legalizing marijuana for medical use. "We're very pleased that the court saw through this scam," he said Monday. Note: Federal law trumps states.Source: Houston Chronicle (TX)Author: Karen MastersonPublished: May 14, 2001Copyright: 2001 Houston ChronicleContact: viewpoints chron.comWebsite: http://www.chron.com/Related Articles & Web Sites:IOM Reporthttp://www.nap.edu/html/marimed/Oakland Cannabis Buyer's Cooperativehttp://www.rxcbc.org/Supreme Court Rejects Medical Marijuana Usehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9717.shtmlCourt 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: