cannabisnews.com: Keep Off The Grass Keep Off The Grass Posted by FoM on May 14, 2001 at 23:07:21 PT By Gaylord Shaw, Washington Bureau Source: Newsday In a severe setback for the movement to legalize medical marijuana, the Supreme Court yesterday declared that despite a voter-approved California initiative, distribution of marijuana remains a violation of federal law. Eight other states and the District of Columbia had followed California's 1996 move to allow distribution of marijuana to seriously ill patients who obtained a doctor's recommendation to use the substance to ease pain or other ailments. Despite the ruling, it is still legal in California to possess and grow marijuana for personal medical use. While yesterday's 8-0 decision focused narrowly on a civil case from Oakland, it had the effect of calling into question medical marijuana laws in the nation's capital and in Arizona, Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, Oregon and Washington State. Advocates of medical marijuana say the drug can ease side effects from chemotherapy, save nauseated AIDS patients from wasting away or even allow multiple sclerosis sufferers to rise from a wheelchair and walk. In the closely watched case, the justices were unanimous in refusing to grant a blanket "medical necessity” exception to the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Club to allow it to distribute marijuana to sick people who get a doctor's recommendation. The nonprofit cooperative sought to operate without regard to the federal law placing marijuana in the same forbidden class as cocaine, heroin and other illicit drugs. The opinion was a victory for the Justice Department, which brought the civil action seeking to shut down the cooperative's widely publicized operations. "We were braced for a negative decision, but we didn't expect it to be this negative,” said the Oakland group's executive director, Jeff Jones. "It has the feeling of the Dred Scott decision in 1857, when they ruled that slavery was legal, but overturned it a few decades later.” Taking a more upbeat view was Paul Armentano, spokesman for the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, which advocates legalizing the drug. He called the ruling "a narrow decision... applying only to manufacture and distribution of marijuana under federal law.” The court's ruling "is certainly not a death blow to medical marijuana,” he said. "It doesn't challenge the legality of the tens of thousands of patients using medical marijuana in states across the country.” On the other side of the issue, a vice president of the Family Research Council, a conservative organization, was delighted with the outcome, calling "the medical marijuana lobby... nothing more than a front for the drug legalization movement.” Robert Maginnis added: "Smoking pot is never sound medicine.” Much the same point, though couched in legal terms, was made by Justice Clarence Thomas in his 15-page opinion: "It is clear from the text of the federal anti-drug act that Congress made a determination that marijuana has no medical benefits worthy of an exception” to the prohibition against growing, processing and distributing the substance. Thomas was supported by his four conservative colleagues -- Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy and Antonin Scalia. A concurring opinion was written by Justice John Paul Stevens, joined by Justices David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and took some swipes at the conservatives' reasoning. "Most notably,” Stevens wrote, "whether the medical necessity 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.” He said California voters had decided that seriously ill patients and their primary caregivers should be exempt from prosecution under state laws for cultivating and possessing marijuana if the patient's doctor recommends it for treatment. "This case does not call upon the court to deprive all such patients of the benefit of the necessity defense to federal prosecution,” he said. The ninth member of the court, Justice Stephen Breyer, didn't participate because his brother Charles, a U.S. district judge in San Francisco, was involved in the early stages of the case. The high court's opinion overturned a ruling of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which had supported the Oakland club's activities. High Court: Distribution of medicinal pot illegal Staff writer Ben Romano contributed to this story. Source: Newsday (NY)Author: Gaylord Shaw, Washington BureauPublished: May 15, 2001Copyright: 2001 Newsday Inc.Contact: letters newsday.comWebsite: http://www.newsday.com/Related Articles & Web Site:NORMLhttp://www.norml.org/Family Research Councilhttp://www.frc.org/Oakland Cannabis Buyer's Cooperativehttp://www.rxcbc.org/Court Rejects Medical Use of Marijuana http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9718.shtmlSupreme Court Rejects Medical Marijuana Usehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9717.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #1 posted by nani punani on May 14, 2001 at 23:54:20 PT: wuf the cuf -or- what the duck I don't understand why as Americans who pay taxes and vote why are we still being refused the miracles of what pot has to offer. We know it helps in reducing pain and easing the frustrastions of watching your friends and relatives suffer from cancer and aids. The government needs to grow the duck up and start helping the PEOPLE!! [ Post Comment ] Post Comment Name: Optional Password: E-Mail: Subject: Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message] Link URL: Link Title: