cannabisnews.com: In California, Ruling on Drug Spurs Bitterness 





In California, Ruling on Drug Spurs Bitterness 
Posted by FoM on May 15, 2001 at 14:18:32 PT
By Evelyn Nieves
Source: New York Times
For supporters of medical marijuana, today's unanimous United States Supreme Court ruling upholding a federal law banning the distribution of marijuana for any reason was a major blow, especially coming at a time when national polls show a growing acceptance of the drug for the sick and dying. But the ruling also made clear, advocates of marijuana for seriously ill patients said, that Congress could change the laws that ban the drug. "This decision does not render medical marijuana laws moot," said Bill Zimmerman, the director of Americans for Medical Rights, an organization in Santa Monica, Calif., that has sponsored eight successful state medical marijuana initiatives.
Nor, he said, does it prevent individuals from obtaining medical marijuana. "It only goes to clubs — those who distribute the drug in large quantities," Mr. Zimmerman said. The justices' decision, he added, "was unanimous because they were ruling on this narrow issue of distributing a banned substance."Because the decision did not explicitly prevent states from distributing the drug, medical marijuana advocates said they would encourage states to set up distribution systems for the drug. Nevada and Maine have bills pending that would do so."That's one way around this ruling," Mr. Zimmerman said. He also said the Supreme Court left the door open for Congress to change the law and allow for medical exemptions.The Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative, No. 00-151, upheld an injunction against the cooperative issued by the United States attorney for the Northern District, based in San Francisco. The United States attorney's office has been battling the Oakland club since California in 1996 passed the first state law legalizing medical marijuana. The office had issued the injunction on the grounds that the cooperative was violating a 1970 federal law that classified marijuana as a Schedule I drug, dangerous and with no possible medicinal value. In this case, federal law superseded the California voter initiative known as Proposition 215.The Supreme Court decision means that the half-dozen medical marijuana clubs that have operated in Northern California, representing thousands of members suffering from illnesses like cancer and AIDS, are illegal. The ruling, medical marijuana advocates said, could serve as a precedent that United States attorneys in other districts could use. In essence, it affects all eight other states with medical marijuana laws — Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Maine, Nevada, Oregon, Washington and Hawaii (which has the only such law passed by a legislature).California's attorney general, Bill Lockyer, calling the ruling unfortunate, said he needed to review it further before reaching any recommendation or conclusions about California's law. "I appreciate the fact that federal law trumps state enactments," Mr. Lockyer said. But, he added, "the responsibility for determining what is necessary to provide for public health and safety has traditionally been left to the states."A lawyer for the buyers' cooperative, Robert Raich, said the decision did not address constitutional issues raised by the group that it would argue in further proceedings in federal court in San Francisco. "The case isn't over," Mr. Raich said. "This is just the end of round one." Despite the avowals to fight, reaction to the court's decision was bitter in San Francisco and Oakland, which spearheaded California's groundbreaking medical marijuana law.Members of the cooperative had won a round in court when the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed a ruling by Judge Charles Breyer of Federal District Court, the brother of Justice Stephen G. Breyer of the Supreme Court (who abstained from the case) and ruled that medical necessity was a legal defense for the club.Jeff Jones, executive director of the cooperative, said today that the Supreme Court's decision had set the fight back a few years."We view this as echoing decisions past of the high court, such as the Dred Scott decision of the mid-1850's that said slavery was legal," said Mr. Jones, whose cooperative was shut down by federal marshals in 1998 but later reopened. Medical marijuana users said they would not stop using the drug."I'm not going to let my children watch me die," said Angel McClary, a 35-year-old mother of two who uses marijuana to alleviate the symptoms associated with an inoperable brain tumor and a seizure disorder. "If that is wrong," she said, "so be it."Terence Hallinan, the San Francisco district attorney, who has been an advocate for medical marijuana since before it became legal in California, said he would do nothing to shut down the clubs that have been quietly operating in the city. "I'm absolutely convinced it helps people with serious illnesses, especially AIDS," Mr. Hallinan said.But he acknowledged he could do nothing to stop the federal authorities. The United States attorney's office in San Francisco referred all calls to the Department of Justice in Washington. A spokeswoman there, Susan Dryden, said, "I can't comment on any ongoing investigations. But we will enforce federal law."Complete Title: In California, Ruling on Drug Spurs Bitterness and ResolveSource: New York Times (NY)Author: Evelyn NievesPublished: 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:Oakland Cannabis Buyer's Cooperativehttp://www.rxcbc.org/Justices Bar Medical Defense for Distribution http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9721.shtmlPot Proponents Dismayedhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9720.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #1 posted by observer on May 15, 2001 at 15:06:31 PT
Government-Approved Research Projects
 Terence Hallinan, the San Francisco district attorney, who has been an advocate for medical marijuana since before it became legal in California, said he would do nothing to shut down the clubs that have been quietly operating in the city. "I'm absolutely convinced it helps people with serious illnesses, especially AIDS," Mr. Hallinan said.This is (the?) one good D.A. He has seen the good that these clubs do for those in pain, those with little hope. * * *Yesterday, in Justice Clarence 'Uncle Tom' Thomas' statement, it was said:``In the case of the Controlled Substances Act, the statute reflects a determination that marijuana has no medical benefits worthy of an exception (outside the confines of a government-approved research project),''Court Nixes Medical Marijuana (5/14/2001)http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread9701.shtmlI wonder, why can't the medical marijuana laws be written (or interpreted), such that medical marijuana patients become state government-approved research subjects, participating in state government-approved research projects? 
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment


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