cannabisnews.com: The Supreme Court Rules on Medical Marijuana The Supreme Court Rules on Medical Marijuana Posted by FoM on May 19, 2001 at 11:00:10 PT Sentinel Editorial Source: Keene Sentinel Except in the matter of late-term abortions, most members of Congress don't often presume to practice medicine. But this week the Supreme Court ruled 8-0 that they may do so if they please. The court determined that a congressional decision, made back during the Nixon administration, prohibits anyone from possessing or distributing marijuana, even if the drug is intended to relieve the terrible pain and nausea associated with treatment for cancer and AIDS. It's not likely that Congress intended to make life miserable for seriously ill people when it voted to place marijuana on the list of federally controlled substances back in 1970. There was no evidence at that time that the drug was anything but hallucinogenic. In the intervening years, however, many doctors, researchers and medical associations have determined that something in marijuana provides palliative relief for certain agonizing therapies. That's why eight states have passed laws that exempt people from prosecution for obtaining marijuana for the seriously ill. Monday's ruling didn't invalidate those laws, but it will allow the federal government to prosecute anyone who gives marijuana to the sick and the dying. If the government feels particularly vicious, it might even prosecute the patients themselves. President Bush's nominee for drug czar has suggested taking prescription privileges away from doctors who recommend marijuana for their patients. Way to go. The decision, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, is a telling perversion of what conservatives like to call "strict constructionism," illustrating the high court's recent determination to twist reason and the Constitution so they conform to the justices' personal and political convictions. One might imagine that strict constructionists would defer to the conservative principle of state's rights in a case such as this, or find as it has in several recent cases that Congress had overstepped its constitutional authority. But this is about the devil's weed, so federal law had to prevail. Follow Thomas's reasoning. The fact that Congress prohibited marijuana use in 1970, he wrote, "reflects a determination that marijuana has no medical benefits. Indeed, for the purposes of the Controlled Substances Act, marijuana has no currently accepted medical use at all." To drive home his brutal point, Thomas added in a footnote: "The very point of our holding is that there is no medical necessity exception to the prohibitions at issue even when the patient is seriously ill and lacks alternative avenues for relief." In other words, anyone bent double with intractable pain should take two aspirin -- and don't call Justice Thomas in the morning. Thomas's reasoning was so extreme that only the court's conservative wing joined in it. Justice Stephen Breyer recused himself, because his brother had been involved in the case as a federal judge. Although Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg went along with the outcome with regard to the widespread distribution of the drug, they expressed uncertainty as to whether seriously ill patients should be prevented from using it on their own when "there is no alternative means of avoiding starvation or extraordinary suffering." No one is certain what effect this ruling will have, except that it will unnecessarily complicate the lives of people who are deathly ill. But even for those who believe the ruling is correct on legal grounds, a simple solution is possible. If, as the court says, Congress is to be the source of all wisdom about medical matters in this country, then Congress could amend its 1970 decision to allow the domestic cultivation and distribution of marijuana to seriously ill patients under strict medical control. In the weeks to come, we will see if anyone in Washington has the courage and compassion to propose that reasonable remedy. Source: Keene Sentinel (NH)Published: May 19, 2001Copyright: 2001 Keene Publishing CorporationContact: letters keenesentinel.comWebsite: http://www.keenesentinel.com/O.C.B.C. Versus The U.S. Government News http://www.freedomtoexhale.com/mj.htmCannabisNews Medical Marijuana Archiveshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/list/medical.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #1 posted by tim bauer on June 26, 2001 at 19:04:04 PT: knowing as i interact with cannabis i need no further evidence to know that this resource can aid me in quite likely everything that i need for a quality existance. i'd venture to say man has known this as long as there has been man. now some men may not know this because they have not interacted with cannabis before and some men may know this but they don't want others to know and even more men think they know that something is wrong with it because they were told what to think......don't take the word everything litely.......it's to bad all those supreme court justices want to go down in history as really bad decision makers to say the least...i suppose they'll just rewrite history too.tim [ Post Comment ] Post Comment Name: Optional Password: E-Mail: Subject: Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message] Link URL: Link Title: