cannabisnews.com: Supreme Court Rejects Anti-Marijuana Case Supreme Court Rejects Anti-Marijuana Case Posted by CN Staff on October 14, 2003 at 07:30:23 PT By Gina Holland, Associated Press Source: Associated Press Washington -- The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected an appeal that jeopardized state medical marijuana laws that allow ill patients to smoke pot if they get a doctor's recommendation.Justices turned down the Bush administration's request to consider whether the federal government can punish doctors for recommending or perhaps even talking about the benefits of the drug to sick patients. An appeals court said they cannot. Nine states have laws legalizing marijuana for patients with physician recommendations or prescriptions: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, Oregon and Washington, and 35 states have passed legislation recognizing marijuana's medicinal value. But federal law bans the use of pot under any circumstances.The case gave the court an opportunity to review its second medical marijuana case in two years. The last one involved cannabis clubs.This one presented a more difficult issue, pitting free-speech rights of doctors against government power to keep physicians from encouraging illegal drug use. A ruling for the administration would have made the state medical marijuana laws unusable.Some California doctors and patients, in filings at the Supreme Court, compared doctor information on pot to physicians' advice on "red wine to reduce the risk of heart disease, Vitamin C, acupuncture, or chicken soup."The administration, which has taken a hard stand against the state laws, argued that public heath - not the First Amendment free-speech rights of doctors or patients - was at stake."The provision of medical advice - whether it be that the patient take aspirin or vitamin C, lose or gain weight, exercise or rest, smoke or refrain from smoking marijuana - is not pure speech. It is the conduct of the practice of medicine. As such, it is subject to reasonable regulation," Solicitor General Theodore Olson said in court papers.Some people had expected the Supreme Court to step into the case, which comes from California, the battleground over the subject.Keith Vines, a prosecutor in San Francisco who used marijuana to overcome HIV-related illnesses, was among those who challenged a policy, put in place during the Clinton administration. That policy requires the revocation of federal prescription licenses of doctors who recommend marijuana."If the government is zipping them up, and we're not being told about options, that's negligence," Vines said.Policy supporters contend that the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration must be allowed to protect the public.The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that physicians should be able to speak candidly with patients without fear of government sanctions, but they can be punished if they actually help patients obtain the drug.Doctors fear losing their prescription-writing powers, which would put them out of business."It's taking the culture war issue of the moment and using it in a way that could undermine the First Amendment, medical profession, and patients' well-being," said Graham Boyd, an American Civil Liberties Union attorney representing patients, doctors, and other groups.The case is Walters v. Conant, 03-40.ON THE NET:Marijuana Policy Project: http://www.mpp.org/Supreme Court case file: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/03-40.htmSource: Associated Press Author: Gina Holland, Associated PressPublished: October 14, 2003Copyright: 2003 Associated Press Related Articles & Web Site:Walters v. Conanthttp://freedomtoexhale.com//cw.htmJustices Consider Medical Marijuana Lawshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17540.shtmlBush Lawyer Blasts State Marijuana Lawshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17037.shtmlMedical Marijuana and The Fedshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread14719.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #23 posted by Ethan Russo MD on October 16, 2003 at 05:33:56 PT: See It Here Kap' http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/july-dec03/scotus_10-14.html#Just push the button to observe. [ Post Comment ] Comment #22 posted by ekim on October 15, 2003 at 19:41:13 PT hemp industry event http://www.thehia.org/news_reports/events.htm CHFA Expo East, October 16 - 19 - Toronto, ON Canada http://www.chfa.ca [ Post Comment ] Comment #21 posted by ekim on October 15, 2003 at 19:18:46 PT question please today while passing out this story -- that did not even get a word in our local fish rap --I was asked was this the same Mr. Olson that had lost his wife on 911. and if so why would his boss be directing his understandable anger toward Doctors and their patients. would not the Country be better served pointing him at real threats. [ Post Comment ] Comment #20 posted by kaptinemo on October 15, 2003 at 13:50:41 PT: Dan, I have to say, I could be wrong The US Government has had a long and bloody history of trampling on the Constitution...going all the way back to the Civil War, with the wholly illegal suspension of *habeas corpus* and other rights guaranteed to citizens...and has never been made to pay the full price for that.When a momentary lapse of judgement, historically speaking, becomes habit, then custom, then law, the precedent is set. The precedent of the US government abrogating it's own laws and claiming it may because it, in the final analysis, has most of the guns, is quite old.Antis may not be aware of that much of this country's extraordinarily rich history (it's a lot more interesting than many think; read Howard Zinn for proof) but they are aware of the dynamics of habit. Their sentences are calculated to re-inforce the unthinking acceptance of their statements. Herr Doktor Goebbels would be proud. But every now and then, the truth peeps out from behind the curtain of myths and lies and announces itself...and the debate regarding the origin of those habits-become-laws is once again thrust into the spotlight. A spotlight which is turned upon the benfactors of that law as well as the law, itself.And some of the beneficiaries, like cockroaches, scurry for cover.Witness one simple fact: Johnny Pee could have faced Rob Kampia...and instead chivvied a no-doubt reluctant "Dr." Barthwell into appearing instead. I, unfortunately, learned of the all-too-short debate only an hour after it took place, so I was not able to watch it. Being a keen observer of body language, having been trained in interrogation techniques courtesy of my bad old days with the Green Beanies, the lack of that input was frustrating. But the timbre of her voice made it abundantly clear that beneath the brave tones was someone very worried, indeed. Worried...and possibly resentful at receiving the 'honor' of being first duck in the verbal shooting gallery.They are in a real pickle, now. They HAVE to debate us, or face further legal challenges, one of which could lay bare the Constitutionally illegal foundation of using the Commerce Clause to carry out their own little civil war. In a debate, they might be able to sway public opinion...but the likelihood of that is becoming increasingly small. And the smarter of them know it. They will be relegated to screaming fewer lies more often, and Johnny Pee's blatherings about 'BC Bud' being the 'crack of marijuana' (oh, puh-LEAZE! I've had MUCH better here, and besides, we should Buy American, anyways; good for the economy, don't you know?) is being met with derision throughout the majority of the middle class audience it's aimed at.The house of cards lost a few last night. But that won't stop the antis from trying to shore up what's left with even cruder means. [ Post Comment ] Comment #19 posted by Patrick on October 15, 2003 at 07:23:10 PT Nothing in mainstream media While this ruling is great news it would be even better news if the rest of the country knew about it. None of mainstream media sites have this story as a headline. Instead we get great stories like "Patrick Stewart files for seperation" and "A lot less lip from J Lo" along with the usual mid east bombing reports and Kobe Bryant updates. Are the networks getting kickbacks from the Bush administration or what??? Maybe this will change as the day wears on? [ Post Comment ] Comment #18 posted by Dan B on October 15, 2003 at 04:45:04 PT Thanks, kaptinemo Once again, your commentary is both insightful and educational. I appreciate the enthusiasm and long-suffering dedication that you have displayed here over the past several years. Your comments provide a rich supplement to the paltry information that is often provided by articles such as these (paltry, I might add, on purpose, lest the masses become aware of the import of such actions taken by their governmental bodies; and this is not a judgment against FoM, who faithfully fulfills her objective of daily providing the best cannabis news the media have to offer, but against the media who far too often cast aside their duty to inform the public, come what may to their advertising dollars).Thanks for the commentary that you provide here and elsewhere on Cannabis News. This site truly would not be the same without you here.Dan B [ Post Comment ] Comment #17 posted by kaptinemo on October 14, 2003 at 17:04:48 PT: Note something else, too Notice how thet judges keep referring to the States as just that: upper case "S". And the use of the term 'sovereign States'.This is why I have always referred to the States as 'States' and not as 'states'. They were originally meant to be sovereign nations unto themselves, who agree to coooperate for common defense and mutual support, and little else. Creeping centralization has robbed the States of much of their ability to check tyrannical actions on the part of the Feds; a reminder of the original intent has just been swatted across the nose of the opposition.The judges are acknowledging something the Feds have been denying for years; the States STILL maintain a degree of sovereignty, as delineated in the 10th Amendment. In short, it is a tacit demand made upon the the Feds to abide by the 10th Amendment...which, arguably, means that the Feds have overstepped their power through the twisting of the Commerce Clause, which they point to as the foundation of their 'right' to 'regulate' (by destruction) your access to any substance you may deem necessary for your well being. What has been so obvious to drug law researchers for decades has finally been brought out into the open.We still have along way to go, but now? Now, the Feds have been put on notice. The free ride is over. The days of easy wins in court have started to fade. This will be cited, again and again, in coming months. And new court challenges, based upon the information concerning the *other cases* as foundations, will begin. This ruling is a legal cornucopeia. Dig in. [ Post Comment ] Comment #16 posted by kaptinemo on October 14, 2003 at 16:37:39 PT: Yes, most interesting...they've admitted something From the dcument:*"...Linder vs. The United States, 268 U.S.5, 18 (1925)...we must show respect for the sovereign States that comprise our Federal Union. That respect imposes a duty upon federeal courts, whenever possible to avoid or minimize conflict between federal and State law, particularly in situations where the citizens of a particular State, have chosen to serve as a laboratory in the trial of novel social or economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country." Read it again. The Feds have, in essence been told to BACK OFF in general. They have been told they have the duty to respect, NOT ONLY CALIFORNIA'S LAWS, BUT ALL OTHER STATES THAT HAVE FORWARDED MMJ REFERENDA.What does this mean? It means that the Fed efforts to overturn MMJ referenda that are either ongoing or have been passed into law, are ILLEGAL. What Barry did back then and what Crisco Johnny and Johnny Pee and their minions have done and are doing now is just as illegal...and they can be prosecuted for it. THERE IS LEGAL PRECEDENT FOR GOING AFTER THEIR A**ES.It gets better: *They directly make mention of the IoM report as to the medical efficacy of cannabis.* This is very important, folks; for the first time ever Uncle has had to admit the totality of the report and it's conclusions; that the results of the study mean what they say, and not what Barry or Johnny Pee *said* it said. I'm in shock. The cat is out of the bag. Plus, they mention the House of Lords recommendation, the Canadian studies and Senate hearings and the US Compassionate Use studies, and obliquely refer to our own Doc Russo's studies of the remaining members of that program, and state categorically that there appears to be no harm associated with long term use!I don't have the time or inclination to type out the more germane points, suffice to say, about all of it IS germane. Go to the link so graciously provided. It'll knock your socks off. Finally, we've been heard where we most needed to be...and the judges *agreed* with not only our argument, but listed the many sources we use to make it. Unimpeachable sources.The 'flying fickle finger of fate' (showing my age here, but right now, I don't give as-) has just slammed with outstretched middle finger, straight in the eyes of antis everywhere. The lies have, after so long, been exposed for what they are. In public. In court. In a permanent injunction. It's also opened the very real possibility of successful legal action to render the antis toothless and clawless. All in one set of opinions.If I didn't look as ridiculous as a dancing bear, I'd do a fine Irish jig. Rejoice, brothers and sisters! We won one where it really counts! [ Post Comment ] Comment #15 posted by global_warming on October 14, 2003 at 16:21:51 PT The Time Is Coming... Hi AllFreedom is a truly an abstarct concept, with a pregnacy that has been painfully delayed, Truth, long suffering, has been denied to all the souls that are clouded by fears and superstitions, ..We strike out at the unknown, we tremble in the Night, like little lost children, the lightening frightens us, we tremble and look for signs and portents, "let our leaders offer an answer" to the Gods, for the Gods are angry, and they will consume us, ..When our leaders have secretly made treaties with the "rich and powerful" they have ceased to function as a leader, ceased to respect the "Laws of Nature", they have abandoned us, the little people, the frightened children,..As this Universe slowly awakens in all of our hearts, we are realizing, that our nieghbors may not be our friends, and their agenda may not have our communities best interest at heart..The "War on Drug's-Users" has been such a catastrophic butchery, it has been responsible for the wholsale destruction of so many souls,..The Gulags and penetentiarirs are testaments to this worlds advances, from the nails hammered into the limbs of that jew named Jesus, to the continued crucifixions..to this moment, when many are swept up in this madness,..The moralism that celebrates some little loss this day, is undaundted, for these same moralists, who were driven out of Europe, when they darkened that land, are like an affliction, a disease that found ferile ground in the New World,.They assume that being Christ like and accepting Jesus is the answer and salvation to the problems of this world,.. Their illnes is what blinds them, for they cannot see that Jessus did not come to "Punish" , Jesus died and was punished by these same bitter and confused souls, souls that are blind to justice, unable to understand, workers of Satan, for they only want to punish and hurt, they do not come with balm, but with guile,..I yearn for the day, when I can grow Cannabis beside my Sweet Basil and other Herbs..My prayers to heaven for the little children who have been bombed and mamed, for the innocent people that have oppresed fot too long, let the Light of Freedom and Justice prevail, ..We, as a people have prevailed, and have, in the Western Worlds, achieved the freedom to vote in democrocies, let us be wise, let us remember, the blood that sustains our civilizations, should be remembered, it is sacred,..VOTEgw [ Post Comment ] Comment #14 posted by FoM on October 14, 2003 at 13:15:57 PT Thanks Dark Star I went ahead and put the pdf file on my medical page. I haven't read it but I will. http://www.freedomtoexhale.com/medical.htm [ Post Comment ] Comment #13 posted by Dark Star on October 14, 2003 at 12:35:31 PT Don't Miss This Fact Please take the time to read the 9th Circuit Decision:http://www.mpp.org/pdf/conantXvXwalters.pdfLook carefully, and you will see that they also criticized the Feds' efforts to hijack the issue as impacting on Interstate Commerce.By challenging this ruling, the Feds may well have sealed their fate on cannabis prohibition. A succesful challenge is now possible. [ Post Comment ] Comment #12 posted by FoM on October 14, 2003 at 11:59:44 PT Here's a Quote from a CBSNews Article "This is a clear defeat for the administration," says CBS News Legal Analyst Andrew Cohen. "Now, the real question is whether other states which might have been on the fence on this issue now will move forward with these types of laws." http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/14/supremecourt/main577951.shtml [ Post Comment ] Comment #11 posted by kaptinemo on October 14, 2003 at 11:51:44 PT: Johnny Pee must be fuming right now Though why the Busch Administration officials thought they could steamroller this very obvious attack on the First Amendment through the Supreme Court is enough to seriously question their sanity. They may have bull-headed their way to the Presidency that way, but such a kind of move AGAIN would be so raw it would spark serious challenges...and did.Just like Catherine Austin Fitts said a few years back about the Busch cabal: "The winners in a rigged game get stupid."This was stupid. Very stupid... [ Post Comment ] Comment #10 posted by FoM on October 14, 2003 at 09:26:50 PT Related Article With More Detail http://www.katv.com/news/stories/1003/106427.html [ Post Comment ] Comment #9 posted by E_Johnson on October 14, 2003 at 09:09:14 PT The Mothership has landed Put a glide in your strideand a dip in your hipand come on over to the MothershipIf you hear any noiseit's just me and the boyzHit me! [ Post Comment ] Comment #8 posted by E_Johnson on October 14, 2003 at 09:01:35 PT THis is great Gosh darn, the thrill of victory is tingling my toes!Time to put on some Dr. FunkensteinWelcome to Station WE-FUNKThe MothershipHOme of your extraterrestrial brothers.Make my funk a P-FunkI want my funk uncut [ Post Comment ] Comment #7 posted by goneposthole on October 14, 2003 at 08:32:58 PT Prescribe medical cannabis "That policy requires the revocation of federal prescription licenses of doctors who recommend marijuana."All doctors should prescribe medical cannabis in all cases. All federal prescription licenses would be revoked, and bring the pharmaceutical industry to its knees. [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by phil_debowl on October 14, 2003 at 08:05:08 PT Thanks dan Thanks Dan for the clarification. This is definatly great news! [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by Virgil on October 14, 2003 at 07:57:19 PT Richard Cowan addresses Canadian crackdown RC tells it like it is about the Canadian situation which is more than any media outlet in the US did. He does say- First, the Canadian Supreme Court is expected to rule before the end of the year, give or take a few months. (I am going out on a limb, but I predict that they will legalize possession, but defer to Parliament on sales.) RC has an important say on Cannabis in Canada [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by Dan B on October 14, 2003 at 07:56:14 PT No Second Chance The only way they can get a second chance is if they can find some new argument in their favor and start over from scratch. In other words, their arguments have now been rejected at every level, and there is nowhere else for them to turn. The Supreme Court deciding to not review the case is basically the same thing as them deciding against Bush et al.This is cause to celebrate.Dan B [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by phil_debowl on October 14, 2003 at 07:52:37 PT Woohoo Bushies lost again. Do they get another appeal? Isn't this the 2nd time in a year they've tried? [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by Dan B on October 14, 2003 at 07:38:59 PT Great News This decision not to visit this case is welcome and positive news for the movement. What it means is that the government has not built a sufficient case against the rights of doctors to discuss the medical use of cannabis with their patients. Frankly, I am pleasantly surprised at this turn of events. The Supremes actually made the correct decision this time.Now, about what that Solicitor General said: "The provision of medical advice - whether it be that the patient take aspirin or vitamin C, lose or gain weight, exercise or rest, smoke or refrain from smoking marijuana -is not pure speech. It is the conduct of the practice of medicine. As such, it is subject to reasonable regulation," Solicitor General Theodore Olson said in court papers.Evidently, the Supremes disagree. Perhaps they understand that such regulation is not the job of the government, though it may be imposed by medical organizations on their members. Of course, members of medical organizations also have the right to leave those organizations when such regulations are (I believe unfairly) imposed on them. This is how a true democracy is supposed to work.By the way, what exactly is "pure speech"?Anyway, this is great news, and I for one am greatly pleased.Dan B [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by Treeanna on October 14, 2003 at 07:35:28 PT WOOT! :) Wow, this is going on being a great week for us :) [ Post Comment ] Post Comment