cannabisnews.com: Justices Bar Medical Defense for Distribution Justices Bar Medical Defense for Distribution Posted by FoM on May 15, 2001 at 00:12:59 PT By Linda Greenhouse Source: New York Times The Supreme Court ruled today that federal law does not allow a "medical necessity" exception to the prohibition on the distribution of marijuana. The 8-to-0 decision dealt a setback, but not a definitive blow, to a movement that has passed medical marijuana ballot initiatives in eight states.The ruling did not overturn the state initiatives or address any question of state law. Rather, the court ruled that marijuana's listing by Congress as a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act meant that it "has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States." The court said in an opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas that the federal appeals court in San Francisco misread federal law when it ruled last year that an Oakland marijuana cooperative could raise a medical-necessity defense against the federal government's effort to shut down the pharmacylike cooperative.The cooperative distributes marijuana to patients whose doctors say they need it to ease the symptoms of cancer, AIDS and other illnesses.The Justice Department brought the case as a request for an injunction rather than as a criminal prosecution, which would have required a jury trial. Since nearly three-quarters of Oakland's voters supported California's Proposition 215, the 1996 initiative that enacted the Compassionate Use Act to permit the medical use of marijuana, the government would have faced — and, indeed, still faces — a daunting challenge in finding a jury willing to convict someone for making marijuana available for that purpose. The Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative was set up with the blessing of the city government and the police department.The question before the Supreme Court today was a relatively narrow one: not the validity of the California initiative itself but of the federal courts' response to the government's request for an injunction. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ordered the trial judge, Charles Breyer of Federal District Court, to tailor an injunction that would permit those with a serious medical condition that could be alleviated only by marijuana to have continued access to the drug.The Clinton administration, asserting that the Ninth Circuit had committed a serious error that threatened to undermine federal drug laws, persuaded the Supreme Court to grant a stay of Judge Breyer's ruling last August. Justice Stephen G. Breyer did not participate in any phase of the case because Judge Breyer, who sits in San Francisco, is his younger brother.Given the narrowness of the question before the court, the decision today left a number of questions unanswered. Among these were the availability of a medical necessity defense to individual patients who grow or possess marijuana for their own use, as opposed to a mass distributor like the Oakland cooperative, as well as whether state governments could carry out their medical marijuana initiatives by going directly into the distribution business. Two states, Nevada and Maine, are considering such a system.Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Oregon and Washington, in addition to California, Nevada and Maine, have also passed medical marijuana initiatives in the last few years. Advocates for medical marijuana said today that this campaign would continue, with many noting that nearly all marijuana prosecutions are handled at the state rather than federal level. Last month, a jury in state court in Sonoma County, Calif., acquitted a man who offered a medical-necessity defense to a charge of cultivating 850 marijuana plants.Advocates of the medical use of marijuana say the drug is effective in combatting the nausea of chemotherapy and the wasting syndrome of AIDS. The California Medical Association, which supports the therapeutic use of marijuana under a doctor's direction, said today it was "very disappointed" in the ruling because of the organization's "core belief that patients should not suffer unnecessarily when other options fail."There is a debate over whether a legal drug called Marinol, a synthetic version of the active ingredient in marijuana, offers the relief that some patients find in marijuana.Kevin Zeese, president of Common Sense for Drug Policy, an advocacy group here, predicted that the decision would "heighten the conflict in both legal and political terms" and could make it difficult for prosecutors to win a conviction in any marijuana case. Mr. Zeese said the distribution clubs were working on such new strategies as maintaining a "grow room" where patients would own their own marijuana plants, thus avoiding the potential legal pitfall of distribution.Justice Thomas's opinion, United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative, No. 00-151, contained some broad language suggesting that its analysis meant there could be no acceptable medical use of marijuana in any setting, not only in the context of distribution by large organizations. For that reason, Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg refused to sign his opinion, writing in a separate concurring opinion that large-scale distribution was the only issue the case presented and on which the court would validly rule."Most notably, 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," Justice Stevens wrote in an opinion that the other two justices joined.California filed a brief in support of the Oakland cooperative, asserting that the federal law "unduly intrudes into California's traditional right to regulate for the health and welfare of their citizens."Justice Stevens said Justice Thomas's opinion showed inadequate "respect for the sovereign states that comprise our federal union." This provoked a response from Justice Thomas, who said: "Because federal courts interpret, rather than author, the federal criminal code, we are not at liberty to rewrite it."When he was governor of Texas, President Bush said that he was personally opposed to legalizing marijuana for medical use but that states should have the right to decide for themselves. "I believe each state can choose that decision as they so choose," he said in October 1999, according to an article in The Dallas Morning News that Justice Stevens cited in his opinion today.Complete Title: Justices Bar Medical Defense for Distribution of MarijuanaSource: New York Times (NY)Author: Linda GreenhousePublished: May 15, 2001Copyright: 2001 The New York Times CompanyContact: letters nytimes.comWebsite: http://www.nytimes.com/Forum: http://forums.nytimes.com/comment/Related Articles & Web Sites:Common Sense for Drug Policyhttp://www.csdp.org/Oakland Cannabis Buyer's Cooperativehttp://www.rxcbc.org/Pot Proponents Dismayedhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9720.shtmlKeep Off The Grass http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9719.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #7 posted by schmeff on May 15, 2001 at 08:44:20 PT To the Supreme Court: "You are the weakest link.Good-bye." [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by dddd on May 15, 2001 at 07:06:45 PT Revolution I like your hearings/hangings thing Cuzn.....I always likeimagining the scene from a Frankenstien movie of the mob ofangry villagers,with torches and pitchforks marching on thecapitol,going after these scoundrels...............................dddd [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by Cuzn Buzz on May 15, 2001 at 06:57:24 PT: Right Again Kaptinemo It is very clear that the will of the people is being subverted, and that the perverts who subvert are pork politicians.I believe these boys have crapped in their hats this time though.RESISTANCE is an idea whose time has come.I certainly wouldn't advocate violence in answer to government oppression.....but it's always worked before.I've said many times before that We The People don't need hearings. we need hangings. [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by kaptinemo on May 15, 2001 at 06:30:46 PT: Tobacco, alcohol...and pork barrels You can bet every Fed LEO and his State brethren riding the DrugWar gravy train used their well-funded lobbyist mouthpieces to pour their venom in the ears of the Supremes. Not that those constipated geriatrics needed it - most are neo-conservatives owing their positions to Reagan and Bush Prime.Yes, Officer Jack Boot no doubt was frightened at the prospect of finding himself in the pork barrel instead of eating out of it. [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by rbded on May 15, 2001 at 04:28:35 PT: Supreme Court Decision So M.J. stays underground.We haven't really lost anything.But thats hard to explain to the group of people who need it for their illness.I smell tobacco for some reason. [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by Lehder on May 15, 2001 at 03:42:03 PT or else what? Or else I'm going to needlessly burn a 60 watt light bulb for a full hour. [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by Lehder on May 15, 2001 at 03:37:11 PT Dismissed! With this decision I consider that the federal government has no currently acceptable use in the United States. I disrespectfully request that all federal employees, including the nine members of the Supreme Court, George Ashbowl Bush and his league of complotting malefactors, resign their positions no later than June 14, 2001. [ Post Comment ] Post Comment Name: Optional Password: E-Mail: Subject: Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message] Link URL: Link Title: