cannabisnews.com: Supreme Court a Bump in Medical Marijuana's Path 





Supreme Court a Bump in Medical Marijuana's Path 
Posted by FoM on May 20, 2001 at 08:47:49 PT
By Alan W. Bock
Source: San Francisco Chronicle 
From a legal standpoint, the U.S. Supreme Court's decision last week denying the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative a "medical necessity" defense for certain patients against federal laws prohibiting the manufacture and distribution of cannabis didn't change anything. Before the ruling, federal authorities treated the federal law as enforcing strict prohibition with no exceptions. California authorities, meanwhile, were sworn to uphold California law, which specifies that laws against possession, use and cultivation of cannabis or marijuana shall not apply to patients with a recommendation from a licensed physician. 
After the ruling, the legal situation at both the federal and state levels remains substantially the same. The U.S. Supreme Court did not invalidate California's medical marijuana law or rule that federal law "trumps" state law (as some news organizations reported), for the simple reason that it did not have a case involving state law before it. In fact, neither the California law nor the medical marijuana laws in eight other states have been challenged in court for being in conflict with federal law. Considering how many initiatives are routinely taken to court, that's rather remarkable. The Oakland case arose from a civil injunction (not a criminal filing) under federal law. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the U.S. District Court should have considered medical necessity as "legally cognizable defense" under federal law. The U.S. Supreme Court said the appellate court was mistaken, that the Controlled Substances Act as written permitted no such defense or exception. Psychologically and politically, the ruling could make quite a difference. But it is still unclear what direction the changes might take. Jeff Jones, OCBC's director, told me he expects some federal crackdown against other clubs sometime in the near future (his is still obeying the injunction, which means it is not dispensing cannabis, and considering its next legal moves). But federal authorities who want to close cannabis dispensaries might face a dilemma. Do they use a civil injunction as in the OCBC case instead of a criminal filing? That decision brought serious questions from several justices during oral arguments and the outright assertion from OCBC attorney and Santa Clara University Law School Professor Gerald Uelmen that the federal government was afraid to face a California jury in a medical marijuana case. But with the top drug policy posts in the Bush administration filled with punishment-oriented drug war hawks, we can expect a certain amount of pressure to get tough with the egregious California lawbreakers. The response from most cannabis cooperatives I contacted is likely to be a de-emphasis on or an end to distribution, and renewed emphasis on teaching patients to grow their own cannabis. That is clearly authorized under California law, and while any prediction is risky, it seems unlikely that the federal government, which up to now has concentrated on large-scale cultivation and distribution cases, will start arresting individual patients. The saddest aspect of the Supreme Court's decision is the extent to which it reinforces Congress's proclivity to try to repeal reality. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that "for purposes of the Controlled Substances Act, marijuana 'has no currently accepted medical use' at all," and backed the statement with a description of the five schedules the act sets up, with Schedule I being the most restrictive. In a footnote he emphasizes that "because federal courts interpret, rather than author, the federal criminal code, we are not at liberty to rewrite it." In many circumstances such restraint might be admirable. But the continued placement of marijuana on Schedule I is clearly at odds with the extant scientific and medical knowledge, as the Institute of Medicine report commissioned by then "drug-czar" Barry McCaffrey in the wake of the passage of Prop. 215 explained in admirable detail. The refusal by the politically appointed head of the Drug Enforcement Administration to consider several petitions to "reschedule" marijuana has each time ignored the scientific evidence developed during the proceedings. There's a strong case, then, that keeping marijuana on Schedule I not only violates common sense and the scientific evidence, but federal law. Where is the judicial remedy for that bit of lawbreaking? Perhaps it is appropriate that this issue will be played out in the political arena rather than decided by judicial decree. But it is exasperating when federal officials charged with enforcing laws violate them instead. Alan Bock, senior editorial writer for the Orange County Register, is author of the just-released "Waiting to Inhale: The Politics of Medical Marijuana"' (Seven Locks Press). Complete Title: Medical Marijuana - Supreme Court a Bump in Medical Marijuana's Path Source: San Francisco Chronicle (CA)Author: Alan BockPublished: Sunday, May 20, 2001 Copyright: 2001 San Francisco Chronicle Page C - 7 Contact: letters sfchronicle.comWebsite: http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/Related Articles:Mainstream Science Leery of Medicinal Pot: http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9803.shtmlThe Role of Cannabis - Politics Ahead of Science: http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9802.shtmlThe Role of Cannabis - Real Agenda Nipped in Bud: http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9801.shtmlThe Role of Cannabis - Snuffing Out Medical Marijuana: http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9800.shtmlMedical Marijuana - Nerves Need Marijuana-Like Substance: http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9799.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: