cannabisnews.com: Supreme Court To Hear California Medical Pot Case





Supreme Court To Hear California Medical Pot Case
Posted by CN Staff on November 25, 2004 at 12:39:12 PT
By Matthew Kelly, Hearst Newspapers
Source: Register-Guard
Washington -- Angel Raich of Oakland, Calif., smokes marijuana every two hours as prescribed by her doctor to dull the pain of an inoperable brain tumor and other ailments, including seizures and wasting syndrome. Pot puffing by the 38-year-old mother of two teenagers is legal under California law, thanks to a 1996 voter-approved state referendum. But every time she tokes up, Raich violates federal law that bars the use of marijuana because the federal government considers it a ``controlled substance'' with no accepted medical use, in the same category as heroin.
To make sure that they wouldn't be busted by federal agents, Raich and another medical marijuana patient sued U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft, asking a federal court to protect medical marijuana patients who grow their own cannabis or receive it from caregivers. After Raich won her case in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the federal government appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The justices will hear arguments in the case on Monday. Their decision could determine whether the federal government can use the 1970 Controlled Substances Act to prosecute medical marijuana patients who grow their own pot or receive it free of charge from their caregivers in states that allow the practice. Raich was joined in her lawsuit by two unnamed men who provide her with free pot that is grown in California, and by medical marijuana patient Diane Monson, 46, of Butte County, Calif., who grows her own. Monson became involved in the Raich litigation after federal Drug Enforcement Administration agents raided her home in 2002 and destroyed six of her marijuana plants. The case hinges on whether the federal government can use the ``commerce clause'' in the Constitution to bar medical marijuana use when the pot is home-grown in-state. That clause empowers the federal government to regulate a host of activities deemed part of interstate commerce. Lawyers for Raich and Monson argue that their pot is grown and consumed completely within California in accordance with state laws and, therefore, the federal government has no right to regulate their medicinal use of marijuana because it does not affect interstate commerce. The government disagrees, contending that if Raich and Monson did not use California-grown pot, they would be buyers in the illegal market for marijuana and thus affect the $10.5-billion interstate illicit trade of pot. In other words, Raich and Monson have a depressing affect on interstate pot prices because they're not buyers. The government also argues that, from an enforcement standpoint, it is impossible to differentiate between locally produced and pot grown elsewhere. The Raich case is likely to have implications for the 12 other states, including Oregon, that permit some form of medical marijuana use, with Montana becoming the latest addition to the list when voters there approved a Nov. 2 ballot initiative authorizing the practice. ``This is a case that will appeal to both the liberal wing of the court and the conservative wing of the court,'' said Gerald Uelman, a professor at Santa Clara University Law School. But Rory Little, a professor at the University of California's Hastings School of Law, said he thinks the court could rule unanimously in favor of the government. Source: Register-Guard, The (OR) Author: Matthew Kelly, Hearst NewspapersPublished: November 25, 2004Copyright: 2004 The Register-GuardContact: rgletters guardnet.comWebsite: http://www.registerguard.com/ Related Articles & Web Site:Angel Raich v. Ashcroft Newshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/raich.htmHigh Court To Weigh Medical Marijuana Lawshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19881.shtmlThe Fate of Medical Pothttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19862.shtml Federal Government, Butt Out of Med Marijuanahttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19843.shtml 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #9 posted by rchandar on November 27, 2004 at 16:43:08 PT:
gloovins
No, it was legal until 1937. That year, the "Marijuana Tax Act" was introduced in Congress and passed with almost no dissenting votes.There's a history, yes. The biggest hope that we have is that prohibition as an institution is still, comparatively, a "new" phenomenon.--rchandar
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by ekim on November 26, 2004 at 10:01:32 PT
re Cockamamie Logic
es AB with 3 years of mapping 600 samples in N.E. they go on to say with a straight face --As the database expands, scientists foresee a new way for investigators to trace the drug from grower to smoker. How Many Billions are being wasted while millions of humans are suffering from not being allowed to have access to Cannabis. where is the moral leadership needed to change this picture.http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread16907.shtml
Meriden, Conn. -- State forensic scientists are compiling a DNA database to track the nation's marijuana distribution network. It is built upon two principles: Genetic material does not lie, and drug dealers always grow the most potent marijuana possible.
In three years scientists at the state Forensic Science Laboratory have mapped the genetic profile of about 600 marijuana samples taken from around New England. As the database expands, scientists foresee a new way for investigators to trace the drug from grower to smoker. 
http://www.leap.cc/events
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by siege on November 26, 2004 at 09:05:44 PT
 ekim nutritional value
From the time I could remember till I was 16/17 we when to Mex. to get Hemp food products once every 3 mo. and brough back home, and we eat good then dad was caught  and caged in 55 or 56 and we lost him for a little while and No more food from Mex. It was like eating soy beans but better the withdraw is You can not get enough food and the meat will make you sick for about 3-4 weeks till your body readjusts then you can't get full, you are allways hungry, cakes and pies come real nice biscuits and bread had some body to them and where good eating, the Hemp Oil for cooking was grate you used a lot less then the other types of oil, and different types of sickness started to set in, Diabetes set in on 2 of the family them high blood pressure , and you where not able to comprehend  like before you where a little slower in gaining knowledge this is just a little...
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by ekim on November 26, 2004 at 08:17:45 PT
thnx Kapt-dos could have been interested persons?
or that the server should have been able to handle that much traffic.agonies involved in getting non-toxic cannabis (for which there has never been a determined LD-50, the dose at which 50% of subjects die from receiving it) a fair hearing this is a great point that needs to be examined. another is the nutritional value of Hemp oil as more and more of us are lacking adequate levels of needed omega 3-6 and GLA. 
http://www.leap.cc/events
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by kaptinemo on November 26, 2004 at 06:16:54 PT:
Partly related: States are forming their own
drug safety boards...and some knew Vioxx was unsafe as far back as 2002: http://www.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/11/24/drug.safety.ap/index.htmlWhat does this mean in light of the FACT that the FDA and NIDA's 'researchers' have been taking *bribes* from Big Pharma? It means that the Feds have lost major credibility in being the sole judges of drug safety...and that the States have done a better job. As they would if left to regulate MMJ within their own borders.Centralization of any power leads to ease of corrupting that power. The Federal centralization of drug certification has proven this beyond a doubt - as we have witnessed with the agonies involved in getting non-toxic cannabis (for which there has never been a determined LD-50, the dose at which 50% of subjects die from receiving it) a fair hearing while poisonous crap gets the nod for rushed marketing. Because of this, many States have begun to do their own research...and found out just how crooked things are. This is in large part why the Raich/Monson case is so important...and why the lobbyists for Big Pharma have been screaming in the ears of their back-pocket legislator's and paid-off bureaucrats to file *amicus curiae* ('freind of the court') suits against it. ("Friend of the Court", my arse; there's nothing friendly in attempting murder. Which is PRECISELY what the goons have been doing all this time in attacking patients. Angel Raich herself, like Steve Kubby and God alone knows how many others, are ALIVE today thanks to cannabis, and ONLY to cannabis. These sanctimonious swine have no shame...)
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by gloovins on November 26, 2004 at 01:10:11 PT
oh yes & 1 more thing
you all know cannabis was legal tender up until the 1800's,...no? Just like to inform the masses...
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by gloovins on November 26, 2004 at 01:03:57 PT
the Gov't argues
"fungibility" of Cannabis as the real reason for its current prohibition...read the .pdf ..here is a time saver :adj : of goods or commodities; freely exchangeable for or replaceable by another of like nature or kind in the satisfaction of an obligation n : a commodity that is freely interchangeable with another in satisfying an obligationThat is the US Gov't attempt to classify cannabis. Have no doubts, they are against cannabis as a free healer of the people. Remember, the 1st laws regarding cannabis in the 1700's in the US was one HAD to grow it....hopefully, sanity will arise from this historic decision...
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by afterburner on November 25, 2004 at 20:19:08 PT
Cockamamie Logic
"The government disagrees, contending that if Raich and Monson did not use California-grown pot, they would be buyers in the illegal market for marijuana and thus affect the $10.5-billion interstate illicit trade of pot." But the federal government does not want people to use marijuana [sic]. If Raich and Monson are not allowed to use locally-grown California pot, they will be forced to become "buyers in the illegal market for marijuana" which the federal government says it does not want."In other words, Raich and Monson have a depressing affect on interstate pot prices because they're not buyers." Yes, we know, in the twisted universe of the prohibitionists, increasing the price is a good thing, and depressing the price is unacceptable. The price is not the only thing being depressed by federal government's supply-side interdiction fantasy."The government also argues that, from an enforcement standpoint, it is impossible to differentiate between locally produced and pot grown elsewhere." What about that genetic tracking device that can track cannabis as easily as FedEx or UPS can track a package? The federal government uses the same kind of faulty logic as the pseudo-scientific studies: full of what ifs, maybes, mights, and coulds.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by siege on November 25, 2004 at 14:28:09 PT
 Start Impeachment
But Rory Little, a professor at the University of California's Hastings School of Law, said he thinks the court could rule unanimously in favor of the government. If the [[ Supreme Court ]] rule unanimously in favor of the government. or X number out of X number It is time to Start Impeachment on these justices and file suit on the CSA 1970 Controlled Substances Act as being Unconstitutional and then go from there.
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment