cannabisnews.com: Justices Reject Govt. Medical Marijuana Appeal





Justices Reject Govt. Medical Marijuana Appeal
Posted by CN Staff on October 14, 2003 at 08:28:16 PT
By James Vicini
Source: Reuters
Washington -- The U.S. Supreme Court let stand on Tuesday a ruling that the government cannot revoke the federal prescription licenses of doctors who recommend medical marijuana to sick patients.Without any comment, the justices rejected a Bush administration appeal of the ruling that bars the government from punishing and from even investigating a doctor's conduct because of a recommendation that a patient use marijuana.
The federal government has classified marijuana as a controlled substance, an illegal drug, saying it has "a high potential for abuse," "no currently accepted medical use" and is unsafe even when used under medical supervision.A U.S. appeals court in San Francisco ruled the federal government's policy against doctors who recommend marijuana violated constitutional free-speech rights of physicians and patients.The case began after California voters in 1996 adopted Proposition 215, which makes it legal for seriously ill patients to grow and possess marijuana for medical use when a doctor recommends it.Since the case began, eight other states -- Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, Oregon and Washington -- have approved similar medical marijuana laws.The Clinton administration threatened to revoke the licenses of physicians who recommended marijuana as a medical treatment, a policy the Bush administration has continued and defended.In 1997, a number of physicians and patients sued in federal court in California.The appeals court upheld a federal judge's injunction that bars the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration from revoking a physician's registration to prescribe federally regulated narcotics. The agency also was barred from even beginning an investigation of any doctor who recommended marijuana.Solicitor General Theodore Olson of the Justice Department appealed to the Supreme Court and said the decision impaired the government's power "to enforce the law in an area vital to the public health and safety."He said the appeals court decision imposed "sweeping and unprecedented restrictions on the government's ability even to investigate possible violations of the law."Lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union, which helped represent those challenging the policy, opposed the appeal. They called the government policy censorship of speech covered by the physician-patient relationship."What's at issue is the ability of doctors to speak openly and honestly with their patients about marijuana as a viable therapy option," said Graham Boyd, director of the ACLU's Drug Policy Litigation Project."Patients deserve access to accurate information about (marijuana's) medicinal value in treating pain, nausea, wasting syndrome and other symptoms of life-threatening diseases," he said.The high court sided with the ACLU and declined to hear the government's appeal.The Supreme Court last addressed the issue of medical marijuana in 2001, when it ruled that California cannabis clubs may not distribute marijuana as a "medical necessity" for seriously ill patients.Source: ReutersAuthor: James ViciniPublished: October 14, 2003Copyright: 2003 Reuters Related Articles & Web Sites:ACLUhttp://www.aclu.org/Walters v. Conanthttp://freedomtoexhale.com//cw.htmSupreme Court Rejects Anti-Marijuana Casehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17557.shtmlJustices Consider Medical Marijuana Lawshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17540.shtmlBush Lawyer Blasts State Marijuana Lawshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17037.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #7 posted by Dankhank on October 14, 2003 at 13:13:06 PT:
ALERT!!!!!!!!!!!!
Cavuto on Foxnews, now till top of the hour, he will sometime in that window address the storm of email he got over his namby-pamby backup of his friend Rush he likes and still referring to the "Crime" of using prescription-drugs.Her is the text of what I sent him yesterday ...I could have predicted your defense of Rush. Rush apparently bought thousands of ILLEGAL pills. That is not a prescription- drug problem, it is an illegal drug problem. The Drug Czar says that illegal drug use supports terrorism, and has had Tommy Chong sent to prison for selling glass. Hundreds of thousands of Americans are in prison for doing similar ... or less than Rush. But then you are biased.-------
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by Jose Melendez on October 14, 2003 at 10:32:49 PT
disputed with a brand 
"These malicious bastards are sinking their own ship."Hear, hear:"There is a difference between feeling better and actually getting better," said Dr. Andrea Barthwell, deputy director at the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy. "There is no scientific evidence that qualifies smoked marijuana to be called medicine. Further, there is no support in the medical literature that marijuana, or indeed any medicine, should be smoked as the preferred form of administration. The harms to health are simply too great." One word:Marlboro.
source: CNN
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by Jose Melendez on October 14, 2003 at 10:28:12 PT
CNN!
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/10/14/scotus.medical.marijuana/index.html
CNN Covers Cannabis!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by FoM on October 14, 2003 at 09:40:08 PT
News Article from Snipped Source
Supreme Court Rejects White House Appeal Over Medical Marijuana Bill Mears, CNN Supreme Court Producer  
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Supreme Court justices on Tuesday rejected the Bush administration's request to consider whether the federal government can punish doctors for recommending or even discussing the use of marijuana for their patients. The decision by the High Court cleared the way for state laws allowing ill patients to smoke marijuana if a doctor recommends it. The dispute pits free speech rights against efforts to stamp out use of the popular, but illegal recreational drug. Some in the medical and legal community argue marijuana has true medical value to ease pain and stimulate appetite. Marijuana is recognized as a controlled substance by the federal government and its use for recreational purposes is banned in most jurisdictions. The federal Office of National Drug Control Policy labels marijuana, along with other addictive drugs, as having "a high potential for abuse," lacking "accepted safety for use," even "under medical supervision." But nine states, primarily in the West -- Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington -- have legalized various forms of medical marijuana for seriously ill patients, including those suffering from cancer and HIV/AIDS. California in particular has been at the legal forefront on the issue. A 1996 voter referendum, the Compassionate Use Act, allowed marijuana use by those who receive "the written or oral recommendation or approval of a physician." Federal law bans marijuana distribution and use under any circumstances. Tuesday's decision means state laws on the use of medical marijuana will stay in place, at least for the time being, and may encourage other states to pass similar referendums. Federal health officials had told doctors who prescribe the substance could risk losing their medical license. A federal appeals court ruled against the government, saying in its ruling, "physicians must be able to speak frankly and openly to patients." The Justice Department then appealed to the Supreme Court. In a legal brief to the justices, Solicitor General Theodore Olson said, "The government's efforts ... to warn physicians against conduct that is substantially likely to facilitate and promote the acquisition and use of an unsafe controlled substance having a high potential for abuse and no accepted medical use under federal law do not abridge any First Amendment rights." Snipped: Complete Article: http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/10/14/scotus.medical.marijuana/
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by Adam1 on October 14, 2003 at 09:35:28 PT:
E_Johnson's got a good point...
These malicious bastards are sinking their own ship. It won't be much longer before they're completely disbanded into a scattered group of vigilantes who will eventually face prosecution themselves. They are now fighting for their job security which in and of itself is in direct opposition with the American Caonstitution. 
We just have to keep the pressure on them by letting our officials know we are not going to continue to be jerked around any longer.
"Hey D.E.A., go to Hell!....back to where you came from." 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by E_Johnson on October 14, 2003 at 08:46:41 PT
The DEA gets more isolated every year
The Supreme Court tells them to go to hell, nurses and doctors associations are telling them to go to hell, even legislators are telling them to go to hell.It has come to the point where they are damaging their own reputation in the political system by pursuing their obsessive destructive and callous vendetta.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by E_Johnson on October 14, 2003 at 08:43:22 PT
Quite the brusque rejection
The Supreme Court rejected Bush without comment.HahahahahahahahahahahahaGo away kid, ya bother me!"He said the appeals court decision imposed "sweeping and unprecedented restrictions on the government's ability even to investigate possible violations of the law."
"Sweeping yes but the First Amendment is hardly without precedent. How nice to see our basic founding principles are still considered worthy of a defense by the highest court in the land.
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment