cannabisnews.com: Supreme Court Clears Way for Medical Pot 





Supreme Court Clears Way for Medical Pot 
Posted by CN Staff on October 14, 2003 at 15:18:00 PT
By David Kravets, Associated Press Writer 
Source: Associated Press 
San Francisco -- The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to let the Justice Department punish doctors in California and other states for recommending marijuana to their ill patients. The justices, in declining without comment to review a lower-court decision favoring the doctors, handed a major victory to medical-marijuana advocates in the nine states that allow patients to smoke pot with a doctor's recommendation.
``My goodness, this is so incredible,'' said California cancer patient Angel Raich, who smokes medical marijuana with a doctor's recommendation every two hours that she is awake. ``Hopefully, there'll be more doctors now that will feel safer in recommending cannabis to patients that need it.'' The ruling was a setback for the Bush administration, which had sought to punish doctors who recommend marijuana - or who simply discuss the drug's benefits - by revoking the all-important federal licenses they need to write prescriptions. A ruling in favor of the federal government would have gutted the state marijuana laws, which generally depend on a patient's ability to get a doctor's recommendation. The nine states are Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, Oregon and Washington. Nevertheless, it is still illegal under federal law to grow, sell or possess marijuana, and federal prosecutors can still go after cultivators, dealers and users, just as they have done in raids on ``cannabis clubs'' and other locations in California over the past few years. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against medical marijuana clubs in 2001, declaring there is no medical exception to the federal law against marijuana. Still, Dr. Frank Lucido of Berkeley, Raich's physician, said the justices' move Tuesday ``takes some of the fear and intimidation factor out of doctors performing their practice.'' Even some supporters of these laws had expected the Supreme Court to step into the case. They said the court's refusal to intervene could encourage other states to consider passing medical marijuana laws. ``It finally definitively puts to rest these federal threats against doctors and patients,'' said Graham Boyd, an American Civil Liberties Union attorney representing patients, doctors and other groups in the case. Patients with cancer, AIDS, glaucoma and other illnesses say marijuana relieves pain, stimulates appetite and wards off nausea. The justices let stand a decision last October by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which held that doctors have a constitutional right to speak candidly with their patients about marijuana. ``An integral component of the practice of medicine is the communication between doctor and a patient. Physicians must be able to speak frankly and openly to patients,'' the 9th Circuit said at the time. In their appeal, federal prosecutors argued that doctors who recommend marijuana are interfering with the drug war and circumventing the government's judgment that the illegal drug has no medical benefit. The conflict began after California voters passed the nation's first medical marijuana law in 1996. The Clinton administration said doctors who recommended marijuana would lose their federal licenses to prescribe medicine, could be excluded from Medicare and Medicaid programs, and could face criminal charges if they help patients actually obtain marijuana. Seven California doctors and some of their patients sued during the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration continued the fight. The case pitted the First Amendment free-speech rights of doctors against government authority to discourage illegal drug use. Some California doctors and patients, in court papers, 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 argued that public heath - not free speech - 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,'' the administration said. On the Net: Marijuana Policy Project: http://www.mpp.org/ Drug Policy Alliance: http://www.drugpolicy.org/ Supreme Court Case File: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/03-40.htm American Civil Liberties Union: http://www.aclu.org/DrugPolicy/DrugPolicyMain.cfm Source: Associated Press Author: David Kravets, Associated Press Writer Published: October 14, 2003Copyright: 2003 Associated Press Related Articles & Web Site:Conant vs. Walters if PDFhttp://freedomtoexhale.com/walters.pdfJustices Reject Govt. Medical Marijuana Appealhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17560.shtmlSupreme Court Rejects Anti-Marijuana Casehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17557.shtmlJustices Consider Medical Marijuana Lawshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread17540.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #15 posted by Marc Paquette on October 15, 2003 at 14:54:37 PT:
How ignorant can they be?
I am legal for medical marijuana in Canada since March 2000. It wasn't a question of choice for me because both my liver and stomach were completely intolerant to all medications since winter 1996. I have chronic Hepatitis C, fibromyalgia, chronic pain, arthritis, cervical and lumbar herniation, etc. Even if my liver and stomach would still tolerate medications..none of them were as effective as the best marijuana. Even morhpine or demerol removed only 40% of the pain and barely none of my muscle spasms. They were also very addictive and I had horrible side-effects. The best marijuana will remove up to 98% of the pain and 100% of muscles spasms within seconds. What's great about marijuana is that it's not a narcotic and it never killed or overdosed anyone. We can't say that about legal medications. The heck with government..quality of life and living longer is much more important!Peace,Marc
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #14 posted by kaptinemo on October 15, 2003 at 12:03:00 PT:
FoM, yes, that's the beginning of it
But the meat of the matter is further below, in the following pages.The point I am trying to make is that the ability of the Feds to engage in stonewalling judges and juries by ensuring they never receive our side of the story has been seriously compromised.The Feds have been trying to keep the facts about MMJ out of the eyesight of judges for years by insisting that ONLY the 'criminal' aspects of MMJ manufacture and distribution were the only ones to cross a judge's desk.The recent case of Mr. Rosenthal provides the most obvious example of this: the Feds didn't want the jury to even HEAR the term 'medical' in their deliberations.But now? It's out there on the table. The judges KNOW, now. They know that there are studies out there that refute the anti positions. Studies that call their entire *raison d'etre* into question. In States with MMJ laws, doctors may RECOMMEND cannabis to patients, based LARGELY UPON THE ANECDOTAL HISTORY (and everlasting thanks to the Good Doctors Abrams and Russo, now we have clinical research and examinations of long term MMJ patients and the reporting of their findings) OF CANNABIS'S LACK OF AN LD-50 (TOXICITY) LEVEL.This is what we have been waiting for. This ruling can be used to open the door to further, much more objective research, as now, the Feds MUST either put up or shut up. Find stacks of corpses of 30-40 year long tokers...or clam up. Prove it's toxicity...or slink away with tails between their legs, licking their wounds. The Supreme Court has said that they will let the ruling stand. No arguments; The Black Robes Have Spoken. End of discussion.I realize that many might think I am making a mountain out of a molehile, and that, admittedly, I am not a lawyer. But the ruling mentions OTHER cases, not directly related to MMJ but dealing with the same Fed/State powers problem...which distills down, as always, to the Tenth Amendment. States that have anti-MMJ raids may now be able to sue the Feds for having broached that Amendment 'with malice, aforethought' with the intent of harming the citizens of the affected States. By their actions in this case, the Fed antis have demonstrated their hostility towards basic fundamental civil rights in this country by attempting to limit doctor's free speech. They have stepped WAY over the line, and had their ears pinned back for it. The injunction is PERMANENT. They try this again, under any form of subterfuge, and they risk legal sanction.Like I said before, we still have a long way to go. But the antis have suffered a defeat, a major one, though of course, they won't admit it. They WILL try again, in hopes they get an ignorant or biased judge, but no judge with aspirations of climbing the Fed benches is going to cross the Supremes and risk their political career.Another huge breach has torn through the dike of prohibitionism. Medical efficacy is by no means 100% accepted, but now antis will have to PROVE it *can't be*. The onus is on them, now. 
 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #13 posted by arthur on October 15, 2003 at 08:34:06 PT
reasonable regulation
The administration argued that public heath - not free speech - was at stakeIt is the conduct of the practice of medicine. As such, it is subject to reasonable regulation,'' { the administration said. } 
 
 reasonable regulation where are they, reasonable Discussions the government authority so coninently has not refer to, it looks like they have just blown them self out of the game, with the last statment. 
 
smoke or refrain from smoking marijuana - is not pure speech. It is the conduct of the practice of medicine. DID the government authority just goof by calling it a medicine. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by Dankhank on October 14, 2003 at 21:36:38 PT:
How Much?
Wow, what a research project, AlvinCool ...with luck someone has already done it ...Otherwise it could be a deep search from HHS to IOM, NIDA to Universities.the mind boggles ... good luck ..
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by AlvinCool on October 14, 2003 at 20:09:13 PT
Good News
Wow this is great news!Does anyone know where I might find a total of all studys done by the government and how much was paid for them? 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by ekim on October 14, 2003 at 19:53:57 PT
here it is Verg--- someofthesemusthavebeenoutlawed
Some California doctors and patients, in court papers, compared doctor information on pot to physicians' advice on ``red wine to reduce the risk of heart disease, Vitamin C, acupuncture, or chicken soup.'' 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by FoM on October 14, 2003 at 19:40:03 PT
kaptinemo here is page 17
Is this the page you are talking about?CONANT v. WALTERS administration of drugs by health professionals); Linder v. United States, 268 U.S. 5, 18 (1925) (“direct control of medi-cal practice in the states is beyond the power of the federal government”). We must “show[ ] respect for the sovereign States that comprise our Federal Union. That respect imposes a duty on federal courts, whenever possible, to avoid or mini-mize conflict between federal and state law, particularly in sit-uations in which the citizens of a State have chosen to serve as a laboratory in the trial of novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.” Oakland Cannabis, 532 U.S. at 501 (Stevens, J., concurring) (internal quotation marks omitted). [7] For all of the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court’s order entering a permanent injunction. AFFIRMED. KOZINSKI, Circuit Judge, concurring: I am pleased to join Chief Judge Schroeder’s opinion. I write only to explain that for me the fulcrum of this dispute is not the First Amendment right of the doctors. That right certainly exists and its impairment justifies the district court’s injunction for the reasons well explained by Chief Judge Schroeder. But the doctors’ interest in giving advice about the medical use of marijuana is somewhat remote and impersonal; they will derive no direct benefit from giving this advice, other than the satisfaction of doing their jobs well. At the same time, the burden of the federal policy the district court enjoined falls directly and personally on the doctors: By speaking candidly to their patients about the potential benefits of medical marijuana, they risk losing their license to write prescriptions, which would prevent them from functioning as 19 CONANT v. WALTERS
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by kaptinemo on October 14, 2003 at 19:15:33 PT:
And, I simply couldn't help but notice
It was Johnny Pee who timidly, insincerely called for a debate...but look who is trotted out to be the possible sacrificial lamb for the first round? The Number Two. The understudy. The expendable target.Coward.He reminds me of a nasty joke I heard once. Before WW2, a Moroccan man and his wife were out walking, the wife walking several paces behind him. A Western observer asks why. "Tradition" is the reply.After WW2, the Western man sees the woman walking ahead of the man. The weterner says: "Ah, Achmed, progress!". The Moroccan man turns to him and says, "No. Land mines."
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by kaptinemo on October 14, 2003 at 19:03:38 PT:
Oh, boy, Crisco Johnny has really stepped in it
*"John Walters, director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, noted that the high court's decision concerned the doctor-patient relationship, not any medical benefits of marijuana."*Oh, man. Is he illiterate? HALF THE BLOODY CONCURING OPINION WAS COMPRISED OF THE FACT CANNABIS HAS EVIDENT MEDICINAL QUALITIES. Go back and read the judges opinions. Read Judge Kozinski's concurrence. READ IT. http://www.mpp.org/pdf/conantXvXwalters.pdfScroll down to page 17 of the brief.All he talks about, literally from the first paragraph, is essentially calling into question the government position on medicinal cannabis in general. By mentioning it at all, under the aegis of the case at hand, he makes it quite clear there is legitimate reason to doubt the government's position, based upon anecdotal information and scientific studies, albeit he does it in the language of balance and fairness. He re-iterates that the *prime* issue before the Court is free speech, but notes that one cannot have free speech if the only side heard is the government's through the 'chilling' practice of law enforcement sanctions against doctors for daring to recommend cannabis to patients. In a backhanded way, the 'theoretical' value of cannabis as medicine is acknowledged.The spinmeisters on the ONDCP/DEA payroll are probably fixing several tanker trucks full of coffee right now; they'll need it to begin their damage control operations.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by E_Johnson on October 14, 2003 at 19:03:11 PT
Barthwell pulled a Hillary on PBS! Oh man...
So Dr.Barthwell, can you tell us what the Supreme Court decision meant...IT'S A REALLY NARROW DECISION BEING BLOWN OUT OF PROPORTION BY A VAST LEFT WING CONSPIRACY THAT WANTS TO SELL CRACK TO YOUR CHILDI mean that's basically what Barthwell said. On PBS. They don't do conspiracy theory on PBS. She really raised some eyebrows. She blew her credibility completely by her rant.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by kaptinemo on October 14, 2003 at 18:31:11 PT:
Here's the direct audio link
http://audio.pbs.org:8080/ramgen/newshour/expansion/2003/10/14/scotus.rm?altplay=scotus.rm
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by Prime on October 14, 2003 at 18:23:34 PT
Medical Benefit...
If marijuana had no medical benefit, no doctors would recommend it.Pretty simple logic if you ask me.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by Virgil on October 14, 2003 at 17:55:52 PT
Comment1- ONDCP bear bad fruit
PBS said they were having a debate on medical marijuana. It was really too short to get past the same ole. The ONDCP had a woman that if she got her own television show would be Dr. Butch, not to shoot the messenger. It wasn't but a ten-minute segment and Dr. Butch made sure to keep her game face on with a scorn, snarl, and growl strategy.Kampia of the MPP caught her in two lies in one response where she said the officials of San Francisco something negative marijuana and the medical community something did not support MMJ. So Kampia said the Attorney General and mayors of both Oakland and San Francisco supported MMJ and the Nursing Association with 2.3 million(?) members support MMJ. The Nazi bootlegs should know better than to lie when someone is there to repeat their lies with a correction to the truth.It was just all to short, but it is clear that the ONDCP is saying smoking a plant is so "19th century" when we have "21st century" medicine that gives us Marinol and will bring us the other cannabinoids without having to smoke a plant. Butch said that is what snake-oil salesmen did.Anyway, to understand the cannabis perspective you have to zoom in from the War of Insanity. Now we know the War of Insanity has produced no fruit worth praising and plenty that is so bad it rots on the ground all around us. I realize that the moderators want to keep the issue focused on the billing of a MMJ debate, but the reform people need to introduce the crusade against MMJ and laughing grass as the center pole in a circus that is on its last tour.But time was short and every word had to count and the ONDCP official liar was caught in the act. But it all is so in the culture that at 8PM Whoopi on NBC had a little segment concerning laughing grass and you are only steering peoples thoughts instead of gassing them up on knowledge. The funny line followed mention that the Libertarians are for legal laughing grass and the line was. “They are the party party.”The silence was broken with ONDCP lies with the old snarl and growl. It was answered a little bit of reason and truth. Add a few converts to the cause. The prohibitionist having been living off of bad fruit that they chose to nurture and they cannot stand the idea of letting us have our grain and our soup. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by FoM on October 14, 2003 at 17:16:23 PT
Expanded AP Article
Excerpt: Attorney General John Ashcroft had no comment on the decision, while White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan restated the Bush administration's position on the topic, saying: "As a matter of policy we oppose any efforts to legalize marijuana."John Walters, director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, noted that the high court's decision concerned the doctor-patient relationship, not any medical benefits of marijuana.Public officials and medical professionals must "continue to protect the health of American citizens and reduce the harms caused by marijuana and other dependency-producing drugs," Walters said in a statement, adding that growing and selling marijuana remain federal offenses.http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/mld/ledgerenquirer/news/7011022.htm
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by FoM on October 14, 2003 at 15:33:59 PT
Heads UP: PBS Coming on In Minutes!
MPP to debate drug czar spokesperson on national TV tonight Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2003 Dear Friend:In an historic victory for medical marijuana patients and doctors, the U.S. Supreme Court today declined to hear "Conant v. Walters", letting stand an appellate court ruling barring the federal government from punishing physicians who recommend medical marijuana to patients. The ACLU was instrumental in this victory.Today (Tuesday) at 6:37 p.m. Eastern time, MPP's Rob Kampia will debate a spokesperson from the White House drug czar's office on PBS's "NewsHour with Jim Lehrer". The debate will take place live at 6:37, but the program may not air live in your area -- please check local listings at http://www.pbs.org .The drug czar's office, whose official name is the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, will be represented by Andrea Barthwell, M.D. The debate will last nine minutes.Please see ... * http://www.mpp.org/releases/nr101403.html for MPP's news release * http://www.mpp.org/states/site/quicknews.cgi?key=5167 for the AP articleBy deciding not to hear this case, the U.S. Supreme Court has eliminated any doubt that states have the right to protect medical marijuana patients under state law, and that physicians have the right to give patients honest advice and recommendations, whether the federal government approves or not.At issue in "Conant" was the right of physicians to recommend marijuana to patients when they believe its use would be beneficial. After California voters passed the state's medical marijuana law, Proposition 215, in 1996, the federal government threatened to revoke the DEA registrations of physicians who recommend marijuana -- taking away their right to prescribe any controlled substance and effectively putting them out of business.A group of California physicians and patients, led by AIDS specialist Marcus Conant, M.D., sued in federal court, arguing that physicians have a First Amendment right to freely discuss any potentially beneficial treatment with patients. The doctors and patients won on both the district court and appellate levels, winning a unanimous ruling in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The U.S. Justice Department, led by Attorney General John Ashcroft, asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the 9th Circuit ruling. Today, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case, thereby letting the 9th Circuit court victory stand.Our phones are ringing off the hook, so you might see or hear other MPP representatives in the news over the next 24 hours. For instance, I'll be on the national "Here and Now" radio show tomorrow (Wednesday) at noon Eastern time; the show airs on 45 NPR affiliates nationwide.Sincerely,Bruce MirkenDirector of CommunicationsMarijuana Policy ProjectWashington, D.C. 
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment