cannabisnews.com: Medicinal Pot Ruled Illegal 





Medicinal Pot Ruled Illegal 
Posted by FoM on May 15, 2001 at 08:29:00 PT
By Harriet Chiang, Chronicle Legal Affairs Writer
Source: San Francisco Chronicle 
The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a blow to the nation's medicinal marijuana movement yesterday, ruling that a federal anti-drug law makes no exception for seriously ill patients in California who use pot for health reasons. The 8-to-0 ruling means that federal authorities can shut down Oakland's Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative as well as 20 other centers around the state that have been distributing marijuana. The centers have been in operation since California became the first state in the nation to legalize the medicinal use of marijuana when voters passed Proposition 215 in 1996. 
Marijuana is recommended by doctors to relieve the often debilitating symptoms of AIDS, epilepsy, glaucoma and multiple sclerosis as well as the side effects from the treatment of cancer. Although the court did not rule directly on Proposition 215, it cast doubt on whether the statute, as well as similar laws in eight other states, can co- exist with the federal prohibition. The decision could influence the California Supreme Court, which is considering whether Proposition 215 protects patients who use marijuana from criminal prosecution. In balancing patients' medical needs versus the nation's war on drugs, the court said Congress classified marijuana strictly as an illegal substance when it passed the federal Controlled Substances Act in 1970. "Congress has made a determination that marijuana has no medical benefits worthy of an exception," wrote Justice Clarence Thomas in the majority opinion. "We hold that medical necessity is not a defense to manufacturing and distributing marijuana." Joining Thomas were Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy. In a strongly worded concurring opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens agreed that the Oakland distributor cannot rely on a "medical necessity" defense to escape prosecution under the federal law. But he said the majority went too far in suggesting the same reasoning applied to patients. States' Rights Cited:In a tack usually adopted by the conservative justices, Stevens said the federal government should respect states' rights. "By passing Proposition 215, California voters have decided that seriously ill patients and their primary caregivers should be exempt from prosecution under state laws," wrote Stevens, who battled cancer years ago. "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. Justices David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined in the decision. Justice Stephen Breyer did not take part in the decision because his brother, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, handled the case on the trial court level. Gerald Uelmen, a professor at the University of Santa Clara School of Law, who represented the Oakland cooperative, said the decision is so sweeping it could prevent patients from relying on medical necessity as a defense in using drugs other than marijuana. "Federal authorities now have the green light if they want to close down distributors," he said. "They are even free to arrest patients." He said that patients may still be able to rely on constitutional arguments, including the claim that their due process right to preservation of life is being violated. Uelmen said that those who support the medicinal use of marijuana should shift the battle from the courts to Congress. Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., introduced a bill last month that would create an exception in federal drug laws for states that, through statute or ballot initiative, approve the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes. But even the bill's sponsors admit it has little chance of passage in the Republican- controlled House. Misguided Ruling:Jeff Jones, executive director of the Oakland cooperative, called yesterday's court decision "heavy-handed and misguided." Robert Raich, an attorney for the cooperative, said that the club will continue to interview patients and issue identification cards to obtain marijuana. State Attorney General Bill Lockyer, who supported the Oakland cooperative's medical necessity defense, said the states, and not the federal government, have traditionally determined what is necessary for public health and safety. "It is unfortunate that the court was unable to respect California's historic role as a 'laboratory' for good public policy and a leader in the effort to help sick and dying residents who have no hope for relief other than through medical marijuana," Lockyer said. Gina Pesulima, a spokeswoman for Americans for Medical Rights, the Los Angeles group that sponsored the nine state laws permitting medicinal use of marijuana, said the decision is a blow to the cooperative distribution centers the states have relied on. "It's another move by the federal government to obstruct the ability of very seriously ill people to have relief," she said. The case arose after the Clinton administration filed suit in 1998 seeking to close the buyers clubs that cropped up after medicinal marijuana laws were passed in California and the other states -- Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, Oregon and Washington. What The Ruling Means: The decision is likely to spell the end of large cooperative centers that distribute pot, although the court did not rule directly on laws in California and eight other states allowing the medicinal use of marijuana. What's Next: Supporters say patients still will be able to grow and use small amounts of marijuana. States, including California, are reviewing how they can implement laws in light of the federal prohibition. The California Supreme Court is considering whether the state's Proposition 215 protects patients who use marijuana from criminal prosecution. Chronicle political writer Zachary Coile contributed to this report. The case is U.S. vs. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative, No. 00-151. E-mail Harriet Chiang at: hchiang sfchronicle.comNote: Supreme Court says federal law allows no exception for prescription marijuana. Source: San Francisco Chronicle (CA)Author: Harriet Chiang, Chronicle Legal Affairs WriterPublished: Tuesday, May 15, 2001 Copyright: 2001 San Francisco Chronicle Contact: letters sfchronicle.comWebsite: http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/Related Articles & Web Site:Oakland Cannabis Buyer's Cooperativehttp://www.rxcbc.org/Big Bench Backs Might Over Right http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9725.shtmlMajor Bummer For Pot Users http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9724.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: