cannabisnews.com: Justices Bar Distribution of Pot for Medicinal Use





Justices Bar Distribution of Pot for Medicinal Use
Posted by FoM on May 15, 2001 at 09:24:09 PT
By Howard Mintz, Mercury News
Source: San Jose Mercury News 
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday made it impossible to provide medicinal marijuana to seriously ill patients without running afoul of federal drug laws, issuing a broad ruling that jeopardizes the future of medicinal pot programs in California and other states. In an 8-0 opinion, the justices rejected a federal appeals court's earlier decision that carved out a ``medical necessity'' exception to the nation's drug laws. Although the legal battle over medicinal marijuana is far from over, the Supreme Court took a strict view of the 1970 Controlled Substances Act, the federal law forbidding the possession or sale of marijuana and a host of other drugs. 
But three of the justices warned that the ruling went too far because it would bar seriously ill patients from possessing marijuana and pose a threat to states that have legalized possession for the sick and dying.In the short term, the Supreme Court's decision leaves cannabis clubs across California and in other states vulnerable to immediate closing by federal law enforcement officials. In the long run, the justices' ruling suggests that the medicinal marijuana movement must persuade Congress, not the courts, to create a legal way for patients to obtain pot.``It is clear from the text of the Act that Congress has made a determination that marijuana has no medical benefits worthy of an exception,'' Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the court.The ruling did not invalidate California's Proposition 215, the nation's first voter-approved law permitting the use of medicinal pot, or directly affect similar laws now on the books in eight other states. But the opinion leaves states with no apparent option to supply pot legally, raising the possibility patients will be forced again to buy it on the street.``The Supreme Court hit them with a bludgeon instead of a scalpel,'' said Rory Little, a Hastings College of the Law professor and former Justice Department appellate lawyer. ``They are certainly saying the courts aren't going to rescue you -- it's up to the executive branch or the legislative branch to endorse this.''Genesis in Oakland Case:The Supreme Court's decision arises from the U.S. Justice Department's 3-year-old case against the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative and other similar Northern California operations. The federal government has attempted to close the clubs, arguing that they violate the law and pose a broader threat to federal drug enforcement.As the legal battle has unfolded, however, clubs have continued to operate in many spots around California, including San Francisco, Marin County, Ukiah, Berkeley, Santa Cruz and West Hollywood. The question now is whether federal prosecutors will use the Supreme Court ruling to quickly close their doors, or simply keep taking a selective approach to enforcement.Justice Department officials did not return phone calls seeking comment on Monday's ruling. Attorney General John Ashcroft issued a statement praising the ruling as ``a victory for enforcement of our nation's drug laws.''Jeff Jones, executive director of the Oakland club, vowed Monday to keep fighting, and said his operation would continue registering patients under a city-supported program. Oakland's club had ceased providing marijuana while the court case was pending.``I feel it's heavy-handed and misguided,'' Jones said of the ruling. It does not take into account what these patients are to do, with no alternative being offered from the federal government as to where their medicine is coming from.''Scott Imler, director of the West Hollywood cannabis club, and Lynnette Shaw, who runs a center in Fairfax, said they were hoping to remain open, but reviewing their legal status.California Attorney General Bill Lockyer, who filed a brief in support of the Oakland club, expressed disappointment in the Supreme Court's ruling, although he said his office must review it further to determine its scope. Most other states have been awaiting the Supreme Court's ruling before deciding how they will go about providing marijuana to patients.``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.Prop. 215 Unclear:The medicinal marijuana issue has been destined for the Supreme Court since voters approved Proposition 215, which permits the use of pot for the sick and dying, such as those with life-threatening illnesses including AIDS and cancer. The law never made it clear how patients would obtain a drug that is illegal, producing repeated skirmishes in the courts between law enforcement officials and doctors, patients and medicinal marijuana advocates.In 1999, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that ``medical necessity'' could trump federal drug laws and allow distribution of pot to patients facing ``imminent harm.'' But the Supreme Court repudiated that conclusion.While legal experts do not expect federal law enforcement officials to seek out patients who possess marijuana, Justice John Paul Stevens warned that the majority's ruling goes too far because it leaves patients vulnerable by taking away a medical-necessity defense for them.Another Concern:The result, Stevens wrote, was to create an ``unfortunate'' collision with states that have chosen to offer legal protection to patients and their caregivers. Stevens was joined by justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter. Justice Stephen Breyer did not participate in the case because his brother, San Francisco federal Judge Charles Breyer, has presided over the suit against the Oakland club.The Oakland club's lawyers plan to return to court to raise legal arguments not addressed in the Supreme Court's ruling, including whether denial of marijuana to critically ill patients under the Controlled Substances Act is unconstitutional.``These issues certainly won't go away,'' said Santa Clara University law Professor Gerald Uelmen, who represented the Oakland club in the Supreme Court.Pot Friendly States:At least 17 states have laws on the books, or are considering laws, to permit distribution of marijuana to those with a demonstrated medical need. Besides Calif., eight states and the District of Columbia have existing laws permitting use of medical pot. They are: Washington, Oregon, Arizona, Hawaii, Nevada, Colorado, Maine and Alaska.At least eight states have bills pending in their legislatures this spring to allow for use of medical marijuana. They are: Maryland, North Carolina, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New York and Minnesota.Last month: Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass. introduced a bill in Congress that would allow medicinal use of pot under federal law. -- Source: Mercury News Research Note: Unanimous ruling clouds future of Cannabis programs. Staff writer Sandra Gonzales contributed to this report.Contact Howard Mintz at: hmintz sjmercury.com Source: San Jose Mercury News (CA) Author: Howard Mintz, Mercury NewsPublished: Tuesday, May 15, 2001Copyright: 2001 San Jose Mercury News Contact: letters sjmercury.com Website: http://www.sjmercury.com/Related Articles & Web Site:Oakland Cannabis Buyer's Cooperativehttp://www.rxcbc.org/Up In Smoke http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9727.shtmlMedicinal Pot Ruled Illegal http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9726.shtmlBig Bench Backs Might Over Right http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9725.shtml 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #1 posted by FoM on May 15, 2001 at 09:27:50 PT
Should Pot Be Used for Medical Purposes? Poll
Yes. Let the suffering end.No. Potheads are potheads.Maybe in cases where there's no other option.http://www0.mercurycenter.com/premium/front/docs/potclubs15.htmShould pot be used for medical purposes? Current Results: Yes. Let the suffering end. 82%57 votes No. Potheads are potheads. 13%9 votes Maybe in cases where there's no other option. 4%3 votes Total Votes 69 
Medical Marijuana Information
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment


Name: Optional Password: 
E-Mail: 
Subject: 
Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]
Link URL: 
Link Title: