cannabisnews.com: US Judges Rule Against Medical Use of Marijuana





US Judges Rule Against Medical Use of Marijuana
Posted by FoM on May 24, 2001 at 19:59:45 PT
By Deborah Josefson, San Francisco 
Source: British Medical Journal
The US Supreme Court has ruled unanimously against the medical use of marijuana, finding, by eight to nil, that because it is an illegal substance in federal law, no exceptions can be made, even for its medicinal use. The court rejected the arguments brought by the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative, which argued for compassionate exceptions in medical cases. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that "the Federal Controlled Substances Act, while authorising the medical use of some drugs that generally cannot be bought and sold, makes no exception whatever for marijuana." 
He added that marijuana had no currently accepted medical use according to the Controlled Substances Act. The Supreme Court's decision deals a serious blow to the medical marijuana movement and pits federal against state laws. It comes at a time when marijuana is gaining broad acceptance as a medicinal substance. The drive to legalise marijuana for medicinal purposes started in 1996, when Californian voters passed Proposition 215, allowing the possession, distribution, and consumption of small amounts of marijuana for medicinal purposes. Since then, seven other states—Arizona, Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, and Nevada—have passed similar initiatives and 30 additional states are considering passing acts relating to "compassionate use" for cannabis. Although the federal government finds no medicinal value in marijuana, patients with AIDS, cancer, multiple sclerosis, and glaucoma—along with recreational users—are among those said to benefit from the substance; its pharmaceutical properties act as an appetite stimulant, antiemetic, and mood enhancer. In the United States versus the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative, the justices ruled against the distribution of marijuana for medicinal purposes because it would violate the 1970 Controlled Substances Act, which defines marijuana as a schedule I drug. Schedule I drugs are considered to have addictive potential but no medicinal value. Their possession, sale, and consumption are illegal under federal statutes. Although the Supreme Court's decision was unanimous, at least three judges, Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and David Souter, expressed reservations and discomfort with the scope of the decision. They were worried both about depriving vulnerable patients of a "medical necessity" defence and of the ramifications that the decision would have with existing state laws. Justice Stevens wrote that the decision would create an "unfortunate collision" with states that have chosen to offer legal protection to patients and their care givers through the legalisation of medical marijuana. Justice Stephen Breyer abstained from the vote because his brother, Judge Charles Breyer, was involved in the Californian case and presided over the 1999 decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. That court ultimately decided that a medical necessity defence for marijuana was allowable in cases where the patient was in "imminent danger." Despite the Supreme Court's ruling, the medical marijuana battle is likely to continue. Lawyers for the Oakland Cannabis Club plan to challenge the Supreme Court’s decision on constitutional grounds, with arguments that denying medical marijuana to ill patients is unconstitutional. It is unclear what effect the ruling will have on states that have passed medical marijuana laws as the decision does not explicitly negate initiatives by voters. Bill Zimmerman, director of Americans for Medical Rights, a medical marijuana lobbying group based in Santa Monica, California, said that the decision would not undermine existing medical marijuana laws and would not prevent individuals from obtaining the drug as he believes it applies only to cannabis clubs. Nevada and Maine have pending laws that will set up state sanctioned medical marijuana distribution centres. The Supreme Court’s decision was unanimous because they were ruling on the narrow issue of distributing a banned substance, Mr Zimmerman claimed. Cannabis clubs in California meanwhile plan to continue to distribute the substance and have the support of law enforcement officials in that state. Reacting to the decision, California's attorney general, Bill Lockyer, called the ruling "unfortunate," finding it sad that the Supreme Court did not respect California’s role as a public policy laboratory and as a leader in spearheading compassionate use of marijuana. "I appreciate the fact that federal law trumps state enactments," he said, "but the responsibility for determining what is necessary to provide for public health and safety has traditionally been left to the states," he said. The fallout from the Supreme Court’s decision is yet to come. The popularity of the compassionate use initiatives may eventually lead to a congressional act that will change the law to allow the distribution of marijuana for medical purposes.  Source: British Medical Journal (UK) Author: Deborah Josefson, San Francisco Published: May 26, 2001Copyright: 2001 The British Medical JournalContact: bmj bmj.com Website: http://www.bmj.com/OCBC Versus The U.S. Government http://www.freedomtoexhale.com/mj.htmCannabisNews Search - OCBChttp://cannabisnews.com/thcgi/search.pl?K=ocbc
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #2 posted by Sudaca on May 25, 2001 at 10:06:38 PT
Lobbying efforts
The only loophole I see here is that the Supreme Court decision rests on the CSA Schedule that Pot has been put in. That is clearly weak; the Gettman petition was denied out of hand, but maybe the route is through the state representatives in Congress.The bureaucracies in charge of the CSA are just waltzing around the issue, never daring to make any decisions there. Lets get the CSA reformed or repealed altogether.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by Grog on May 25, 2001 at 03:43:20 PT:
MedNecessity
   I think we should enlist the formidable clout of the insurance and HMO industries in our efforts....I feel that, if presented with a graphic depiction of the monies to be saved by being able to prescribe and utilize cannabis in their clinics, their greed will compel them to lobby their pals to pass intelligent laws.....
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment


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