cannabisnews.com: The Role of Cannabis - Snuffing Out Marijuana





The Role of Cannabis - Snuffing Out Marijuana
Posted by FoM on May 20, 2001 at 07:23:19 PT
By Gerald F. Uelmen
Source: San Francisco Chronicle 
In a defining moment during oral arguments in the Oakland cannabis case before the U.S. Supreme Court in March, Justice David Souter leaned forward and addressed the first question to Acting Solicitor General Barbara Underwood. He asked the government's lawyer, "Do you think we should take the case on the assumption that there really are some people for whom this is a medical necessity, or should we assume there are no such people?" Underwood calmly replied: "On the assumption there are no such people." 
As co-counsel for the Oakland cannabis club, I felt annoyed. The government was arrogantly asserting that the patients whose agony was described in our briefs did not even exist: We should just ignore them. Still, I felt a sense of hope. After all the years of struggle against government intransigence, we were finally in a setting where rational argument and evidence could take one further than media spins and power plays. We were in the United States Supreme Court. Our strongest argument was that the federal Controlled Substances Act should be construed to allow a medical necessity exception, because that is precisely how the federal government itself construed it from 1978 to 1992. During that time, it supplied 78 patients with cannabis cigarettes for two reasons, as officials explained to Congress in 1980 hearings: because cannabis provided therapeutic relief from the suffering these patients were experiencing, and because government officials felt "compassion." They even called their program the Compassionate I.N.D. (Investigative New Drug) Program. There was no pretense that this was a research program. The results were never studied, and approval of cannabis as a new drug was never contemplated. Shutting down this program was one of the most cynical and callous moments in the history of America's drug war. After a flood of applications from AIDS sufferers, the first Bush administration announced the program was "sending the wrong message." The message the administration preferred was "Just Say No." Saying no to the sick and suffering shut off the safety valve, creating the pressure that in California ultimately produced Proposition 215 and the cannabis clubs. In their Supreme Court brief, government lawyers argued that only the government can run compassionate use programs. If the government chooses not to, the patients just have to go without. When the Supreme Court's opinion came down on Monday, I was disappointed, but I expected to see a reasoned rejection of our arguments. What I encountered instead was the same flaunting of federal authority. There was no acknowledgment that the government's Compassionate I.N.D. Program ever existed. There was no attempt to explain why the Controlled Substances Act allowed it but would not allow Oakland to do the same. Those 78 patients simply never existed. It was not enough for Justice Clarence Thomas to say "no" to the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative. He wanted to say "no" to every patient who might ever seek relief in the future and to all persons who might assert that any violation of any federal statute was a lesser evil than their own suffering. In a concurring opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens rejected a medical necessity exception for distributors such as our clients but he left the matter open for patients. Distributors, he said, thrust the choice of evils upon themselves by "electing" to assist suffering patients. Not that long ago, we were debating whether states should enact laws to compel citizens to act as Good Samaritans. Now we're saying the Good Samaritan cannot stand in the shoes of those whose suffering he alleviates. In other words, necessity is no defense if one's action is motivated by compassion. What is compassion but to feel the suffering of others and seek to alleviate it? The court's message seems to be: Let's stick our heads in the sand and pretend that the sick and suffering who surround us are not there. Gerald F. Uelmen, professor of law at Santa Clara University School of Law, is co-counsel for the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative. Note: High court ignores suffering. By ruling against doobies as legal pain relievers, the U.S. Supreme Court lit up debate over its no-exceptions interpretation of the federal Controlled Substance Act. Source: San Francisco Chronicle (CA)Author: Gerald F. UelmenPublished: Sunday, May 20, 2001 Copyright: 2001 San Francisco Chronicle Page C - 8 Contact: letters sfchronicle.comWebsite: http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/Related Articles & Web Site:O.C.B.C. Versus The U.S. Government News http://www.freedomtoexhale.com/mj.htmNerves Need Marijuana-Like Substance http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9799.shtmlExpanding Our Minds About Pot http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9698.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: