cannabisnews.com: Legal Marijuana in Doubt 





Legal Marijuana in Doubt 
Posted by FoM on May 15, 2001 at 11:56:05 PT
By Jason Hagey and Les Blumenthal
Source: Tacoma News Tribune
Linda Coughlin won't stop delivering marijuana to sick and bedridden Olympia residents just because the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled against the distribution of medical marijuana."To see people bedridden and in wheelchairs, it just breaks your heart," said Coughlin, a medical marijuana user herself and volunteer for Seattle-based Green Cross, a cooperative that puts people in need of medical marijuana in contact with those who grow it.
The court ruling Monday unanimously upheld the federal government's right to ban marijuana distribution. The ruling, which applied to buyers clubs in California, had no direct effect on Washington state law, which allows seriously ill people to have small amounts of marijuana but doesn't specify how they're supposed to get the drug.A Washington state spokesman warned that the ruling could signal the high court may not uphold state laws legalizing marijuana as medicine, should they be challenged.But JoAnna McKee, co-founder and director of Green Cross, said she sees no reason to change. "People don't stop dying just because the Supreme Court makes a decision," she said. "And they've been wrong before."Dr. Robert Killian of Seattle, the primary backer of the Washington's successful 1998 marijuana initiative, said that for now, Washington's law remains in effect. Federal agencies don't have enough personnel to bust patients for smoking marijuana, he said. Still, he was disappointed with the ruling."Again, federal leadership shows no sensitivity to patients' needs," Killian said.Washington is one of nine states that allows people to take marijuana for medicinal reasons. The others are Arizona, Alaska, California, Colorado, Maine, Nevada, Oregon and Hawaii.Many ill people say marijuana eases their pain. Many AIDS patients say it is the only drug that can help them maintain an appetite, while cancer patients say it relieves the side effects of chemotherapy.Their statements have not been proved scientifically, and the federal Controlled Substances Act says marijuana has no known medical benefits.Gary Larson, a spokesman for the Washington attorney general, said the ruling apparently would not have any direct effect on the patients who grow their own. But he said the ruling raises serious questions about whether the court would uphold state laws legalizing marijuana use."The federal government has always made it clear it intended to enforce federal law," Larson said. "The decision today would appear to affirm the federal government's authority to do that. ... Our initial reading is that it could have a broad impact on people who seek to use medical marijuana in this state."Killian said the ruling was a blow to marijuana distribution networks, which hoped to be able to provide the drug to patients who instead must grow their own or buy it illegally.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 it "has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States."In an opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas, the justices ruled 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 pharmacy-like cooperative. The cooperative distributes marijuana to patients whose doctors say they need the drug to alleviate the symptoms of cancer, AIDS and other illnesses.The question before the Supreme Court on Monday 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 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in San Francisco, ordered the trial judge, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, 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.U.S. Rep. Norm Dicks (D-Belfair) said he would not support a legislative effort to overturn the high court's decision or exempt medicinal marijuana use from federal drug laws."I don't think we should impose it on 42 other states that didn't have an initiative," Dicks said.High Court: Federal government can ban drug's distribution News Tribune staff writers Jason Hagey and Les Blumenthal, The Associated Press and The New York Times contributed to this report.Source: Tacoma News Tribune (WA)Author: Jason Hagey and Les BlumenthalPublished: May 15, 2001Copyright: 2001 Tacoma News Inc.Contact: letters tribnet.comWebsite: http://www.tribnet.com/Related Articles & Web Sites:Washington Hemp Education Networkhttp://www.olywa.net/when Green Cross Co-Ophttp://www.hemp.net/greencross/greencross.htmlJustices Bar Medical Defense for Distribution http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9721.shtmlState Commission Expands Medical Uses of Marijuana http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread6194.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: