cannabisnews.com: Justices Appear Unlikely To OK Medical Use of MJ





Justices Appear Unlikely To OK Medical Use of MJ
Posted by CN Staff on November 29, 2004 at 17:46:16 PT
By Stephen Henderson, Knight Ridder Newspapers
Source: Knight Ridder 
Washington -- The Supreme Court on Monday appeared unlikely to shield medical marijuana users from federal drug laws, as justices expressed deep reservations about sanctioning even limited use of illegal drugs. Some justices were skeptical that medicinal pot, which is permitted in 11 states, is always a non-economic enterprise and separate from the illegal drug trade. Others seemed to dispute the idea that Congress could not regulate a substance that is considered contraband. 
Five justices seemed inclined to rule against the two California patients who sued to prevent the federal government from confiscating their drugs, with two others appearing more open to either side. Justice Clarence Thomas remained characteristically silent. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, sick with thyroid cancer, was absent from the bench Monday and is not expected back for the court's five remaining argument sessions this year. Rehnquist, who is receiving chemotherapy and radiation treatments, is working at home, court officials said. He is expected to vote in the medical marijuana case and could write the court's opinion. At issue in the case is whether Congress or the states have the final say over drug policy. The 1970 Controlled Substances Act banned all uses of marijuana, but in the last decade 11 states have adopted laws that permit the use of marijuana with a doctor's recommendation. The case puts the court's conservatives in an odd position. They are the strongest advocates for a line of cases that has restrained federal authority in favor of state autonomy, yet their social conservatism could make it tough for them to side with pot smokers. The case also could put the court in the uncomfortable position of denying relief to patients whose suffering is often palpable. Speaking on the high court's steps after the hearing, Diane Monson, one of the two California plaintiffs, said she would not have been able to attend Monday's hearing if she had not medicated herself earlier in the day. She suffers from severe back spasms and cannot take prescription medicines. Monday's arguments made it clear, though, that the court's conservatives seem inclined to back federal authority in this case and to distinguish it from other instances in which they sided with states. They appeared convinced that marijuana is different because it is almost always related to commerce, which Congress has a constitutional right to regulate, and because it is contraband. California's 1996 "compassionate use" law is what inspired Monson and Angel Raich, who both are afflicted by chronic illnesses and allergic reactions to traditional drugs, to begin using marijuana. They smoke it, inhale as a vapor or rub it on themselves as a balm. After Drug Enforcement Administration officers raided Monson's house and confiscated her homegrown marijuana in 2002, the two women sued. Randy Barnett, the women's lawyer, told the high court that medical marijuana falls outside the commercial drug activity that Congress has a constitutional interest in regulating or prohibiting. He added that the government's war on drugs is not undercut by state efforts to help sick people feel better. "This is different," he said. "It's a narrow class of people growing it for themselves or having a provider grow it for them." Justice Anthony Kennedy, however, wondered how the court could assume that all patients were growing marijuana themselves instead of buying from drug dealers. "Can't we infer from the enormous commercial market that possession of the drug is proof of participation in the market?" Kennedy asked. "Maybe it is and maybe it isn't," Barnett said. Justice Antonin Scalia seized on that point. "But Congress has done this in other areas, like with endangered species," he said. "You can't have eagle feathers, no matter where you got them, for example." Acting Solicitor General Paul Clement said that marijuana has a "high potential for abuse" and "no approved medicinal use." He urged the court to uphold the federal law. Marijuana has "no future, really, in medicine," Clement argued, and when it comes to contraband, "any little island frustrates the goal of stamping out" drugs. Justice Stephen Breyer suggested that perhaps California and other states had acted too quickly to accept the idea of medical marijuana, and the proper channel might be through the Food and Drug Administration, which could elect to shift marijuana from a list of banned drugs to a list of controlled substances. "They never went to the FDA to try to get marijuana rescheduled," Breyer said. "So how can we take for a fact that medical marijuana actually exists?" Complete Title: Justices Appear Unlikely To OK Medical Use of MarijuanaSource: Knight Ridder Washington Bureau (US Wire)Author: Stephen Henderson, Knight Ridder NewspapersPublished: Monday, November 29, 2004Copyright: 2004 Knight Ridder News ServiceContact: krinvestigations krwashington.comWebsite: http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/Related Articles & Web Sites:Raich vs. Ashcroft http://www.angeljustice.org/Angel Raich v. Ashcroft Newshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/raich.htmJustices React Skeptically Medical-Marijuana http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19907.shtmlCourt Questions Possible Abuse of Pot Lawshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19906.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #18 posted by ekim on November 30, 2004 at 20:08:01 PT
put a little love in your heart and the world 
thank you to all that are writing it down for all to see.
its necessary to get it submitted in the record. questions need answers as both create eachother. good to see all the info passed on as all of us are being educated. unkind words used against others is something i have to work at thinking about. hope everyone will have good thoughts for all. 
http://www.leap.cc/events
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #17 posted by Dr Ganj on November 30, 2004 at 16:58:00 PT
How About A Little Research First?
I always thought these judges were intelligent. I now stand corrected. Judge Breyer is an ignorant buffoon, and is an embarrassment to utter such words. Don't judges usually do a little research before cases are heard?
He surely would have learned in 5 minutes on the Internet that numerous attempts at re-scheduling have been tried and thwarted by congress and the DEA. Only through referendum-the will of the voters in nine states have medical marijuana laws have been enacted. The other two states are Hawaii & Vermont where their legislators passed the bills which legalized medical marijuana.
It really disturbs me that nine feeble judges that are completely out of touch with the times, are now in the position to send Brian Epis back to prison for the remaining 8 years of his 10 year sentence-and give the DEA carte blanche to again run amok on growers, patients and compassion clubs. This is justice? This is how the law works? All with a 7-2 vote by our mainly republican appointed Supreme Reamers. 
What's even more ghastly, is octogenarian Rehnquist is absolutely determined to vote on this issue. As he writhes in pain, full of FDA approved drugs, he wants to make sure that the evil weed does not even come close to being available for the ill.
Wow, did Nixon ever pick the right guy for the job. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #16 posted by BGreen on November 30, 2004 at 07:29:11 PT
Brothers Justice Stephen & Judge Charles Breyer
Judge Charles Breyer was the judge presiding over the Ed Rosenthal case.The jurors were so angry over Judge Charles Breyer lying to them that they demanded their verdict be reversed.So much for the assumption of intelligence in that family.The Reverend Bud Green
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #15 posted by potpal on November 30, 2004 at 07:16:27 PT
Hmmmm...
Cannachoc(olate), drooool...
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #14 posted by Robbie on November 30, 2004 at 06:58:08 PT
RE: Breyer is shockingly ignorant
Have you seen our president? Intelligence does not seem to be a prerequisite for government service.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #13 posted by afterburner on November 29, 2004 at 21:36:50 PT
Re/ Breyer is shockingly ignorant 
ONDCP, DEA, FDA, NIDA, now HHS!Currently, NIDA provides research marijuana, grown under contract at the University of Mississippi, to two contracts at the Research Triangle Institute as well as to seven patients on “compassionate use" programs. This program began in 1978 after the Department of Health and Human Services settled a lawsuit but was terminated in 1992 by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, except for the remaining seven that were still alive.Health and Human Services: these are the jokers that the DEA contacted to "disprove" the assertion in the 2001 rescheduling petition that cannabis had been erroneously included in Schedule I. Nothing like crony research. HHS did not even allow the federal "compassionate use" program until they were sued. Then, they cancelled it summarily 14 years later. It would be interesting to see what, if any, justification was given at the time for their decision! Read for yourself (if you have time for 47 pages of text), the DEA's response to the Gettman, Jon; petition to reschedule marijuana: denied!----------------
Contents Federal Register
Vol. 66, No. 75
Wednesday, April 18, 2001
 
----------------
 
Drug Enforcement Administration 
 
NOTICES 
Applications, hearings, determinations, etc.: 
 Gettman, Jon; petition to reschedule marijuana denied, 
 20037–20076 [01–9306] [ TEXT: ] http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2001_register&docid=01-9306-filed [ PDF: ] http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2001_register&docid=01-9306-filed.pdf 
In other words, the DEA *has* been petitioned for rescheduling of medical cannabis, and they turned it down! What do the honorable Justices want us to do then: roll over and play dead?ego destruction or ego transcendence, that is the question.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by E_Johnson on November 29, 2004 at 21:28:02 PT
I still can't get over Breyer
Is fundamental ignorance about the basic workings of government grounds from impeachment from the Supreme Court?This is not going to go well for us if the Drug War ignorance barrier is still so high for these people that they don't understand the difference between the DEA and the FDA.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by E_Johnson on November 29, 2004 at 21:16:55 PT
Breyer is shockingly ignorant
The reason why we never went to the FDA to get marijuana rescheduled is because the FDA has nothing whatsoever to do with scheduling drugs for the CSA. That's the responsibility of the DEA and HHS. The CSA has nothing to do with the FDA.What an absolute dolt. How did a dolt like this ever make it to the Supreme Court?He doesn't even know how the regulatory system works, and he's supposed to issue a learned ruling on it????
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by afterburner on November 29, 2004 at 21:13:17 PT
Here's What Supreme Court Justices Want to Protect
"2. The Controlled Substances Act of 1970: This flawed legislation from the Nixon/Mitchell Department of Justice is the framework for federal and state anti-drug social policy. The Department’s own handpicked scientific advisory committee quit en masse in outrage over the irrational classification scheme that was set up."This Act and 'uniform' state laws are utterly irrational and devoid of any medical or scientific legitimacy. The resultant rapidly growing multi-billion dollar drug abuse industry complex is not just ineffectual in suppressing trafficking and use, but actually creates many of the problems whose genesis may be traced to the laws criminalizing drugs."Humanists should press for hearings to investigate the genesis and effects of these laws with an eye to reform...."5. Intrusion of the police into the medical consultation room: We now have police and lawyers writing the drug laws as well as dictating their implementation."A contemporary example is the California research Advisory Panel’s (CRAP) attempt to dispense cannabinoids for the treatment of side effects of nausea from cancer chemotherapy. Edward P. O’Brien, assistant attorney general for the State Attorney General’s office, the chairman of CRAP, has successfully exerted his influence to be the most restrictive in making cannabis available to cancer victims. Despite his valiant efforts the federal bureaucratic obstruction and budget cuts subvert the original intent of the law to permit cancer victims compassionate access to cannabinioids. There are normal medical channels. We do not need another state office."Putting attorneys and police in charge of medical programs is malpractice. "Humanists should confront the California state administration for not putting this program under the health department where it belongs, if the state should be involved at all." --The Significance of Cannabis in the History of Medicine http://www.mikuriya.com/cansig.htmlAnd here is some of the torrential flow of illogic that the Supremes have voiced so far:I Hope the *Justices* Are Playing Devil's Advocate http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread19903.shtml#5And, of course, smoking cannabis is dismissed without a mention of vaporizers or using baked cannabis (or cannabutter or cannachoc).How Do We Get Politicians to Act Rationally? http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/18/thread18345.shtmlAs kap and Kermit the frog both said, "There's a fork in the road." Will the Justices continue the US slide into obscurity and poverty with a support for federal over-control through the Commerce clause, or will they go back to the roots of our once great and prosperous nation?Narco News Publishes Peter Webster on UN Treaties and Legalization
http://www.narconews.com/Issue14/webster1.html
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by John Tyler on November 29, 2004 at 19:29:46 PT
Another thought
Marijuana has "no future, really, in medicine," Clement argued, and when it comes to contraband, "any little island frustrates the goal of stamping out" drugs. 
So this government guy, whose salary we pay, say that some unfortunate people who need cannabis for medical reasons to make their lives liveable should be sacrificed for the "party line". Wow, what unfeeling cruel arrogance! I feel sorry for him because he has just asked for and he will get a "large economy size" can of "bad karma." He can then think about his cruelty when misery is visited upon him.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by John Tyler on November 29, 2004 at 19:09:29 PT
thoughts
I hope I'm wrong, but it seems like the Supremes are buying into the false premis that weed is bad and has no medical use. Thus if needs to remain illegal. Which as we all know is totally wrong. They will follow Bush Admin.'s will and rule against it. The DEA will round up a lot of sick people and put them in jail where they will die. The Chief Justice will die a slow miserable death from cancer and his cancer medications. And yet, people will still grow, and consume cannabis just as before. Nothing will have changed. The prohibs will have learned nothing and will be just as hardheaded, blind, and cruel as ever.  
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by drfistusa on November 29, 2004 at 19:02:27 PT
is lying un-constitutional ? 
at issue is whether congress can contradict science and enforce a fantasy they have created. If they can make up "facts" and jail you for it. If congress says ,no medical value and harmful, even though the scientific community and common sense says otherwise. Can they also decide pot users are witches and burn them at the stake ? 
To go against all the information on benefits and just make it all up must really be a religious belief. If it isn't science and or contradicts science it must be Religion, Remember Galileo, Jailed for observing that the earth revolves around the sun and publishing the data. The Church/state said the sun resolves around the earth, only in the 20 th. century did he get a pardon for it. WE are dealing with promotion of a religious belief by government, is that constitutional. Is govt. lying and killing you constitutional? 
Western Buddhism = Scythien Buddhism
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by goneposthole on November 29, 2004 at 19:00:05 PT
"You can't have eagle feathers"
I've got news for Justice Scalia: People do have eagle feathers."Rehnquist, who is receiving chemotherapy and radiation treatments..."He is also suffering needlessly.  I've seen it happen time and again. When people are treated with chemotherapy and radiation, they're goners from the gitgo. I wish him all of the luck in the world. He might make it far enough to be able to write the decision, but I won't hold my breath. "Marijuana has "no future, really, in medicine," Clement argued, and when it comes to contraband, "any little island frustrates the goal of stamping out" drugs."I am quite sure that drugs are going to be stamped out completely. No ifs, ands or buts about it. That is the stated 'goal'. What planet does Solicitor General Paul Clement live on? Here on earth and in the United States, drugs are everywhere you go. Maybe that is redundant, but it bears repeating. The ignorance level is appalling. Maybe Mr. Clement just arrived here on earth this morning, so he has an excuse. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.The entire Supreme Court can write decisions against the medical use of cannabis until the cows come home, it won't negate the efficacy of cannabis one eensy weensy bit.Truth? Justice? Liberty? May they rest in peace. Tricks and treachery are the practice of fools, that don't have brains enough to be honest.- Benjamin Franklin
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by mayan on November 29, 2004 at 18:16:27 PT
Justice is "Done"
"They never went to the FDA to try to get marijuana rescheduled," Breyer said. "So how can we take for a fact that medical marijuana actually exists?"Oh, you mean the same FDA that approved Vioxx? Give me a break! I wan't to hear these a**holes explain why a terminally ill person should be thrown in jail just because they used a plant to help themselves feel better!FoM, it seems that America may no longer be America. Votes aren't counted,freedom is dead and justice is "done". The "war on terror" is over. The terrorists won. They now run our government. The way out is the way in...911: The lost "terror drill"? Pt.11
http://inn.globalfreepress.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=1073The 9/11 Reichstag Fire:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911_reichstag.html9/11 Was An Inside Job - A Call To All True Patriots:
http://www.911sharethetruth.com/RICO - Rodriguez vs. Bush:
http://www.911forthetruth.com/
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by FoM on November 29, 2004 at 18:01:29 PT
Related News Article from Pravda.RU
Marijuana for Medical Needs: Smoke or Not To Smoke?November 30, 2004Several U.S. Supreme Court justices expressed doubts that states can let seriously ill patients ease their symptoms by using marijuana, a drug the federal government has designated as illegal. The Bush Administration is appealing a lower court decision allowing two California women to use marijuana on their doctors' recommendation. The administration says the federal Controlled Substances Act, which lists marijuana among the most strictly controlled drugs such as cocaine and LSD, overrides laws in 10 states that permit medical use of marijuana. There's no reason to believe "everybody is going to get it from a friend or from plants in the back yard," Justice David H. Souter told the lawyer for the two women Angel Raich and Diane Monson. "They're going to get it in the street. Why isn't that the sensible assumption?", reports Bloomberg. The justices are deciding whether a federal law outlawing marijuana applies to two seriously ill California women whose doctors recommended cannabis for their pain. California is one of 10 states allowing medical use of marijuana, experts said. At issue is whether the federal law, the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, amounts to an unconstitutional use of the U.S. Congress' power to regulate commerce among the states and does not apply to medical marijuana. The case is seen as critical to the medical marijuana movement. The Supreme Court last ruled on the issue in 2001 when it said California cannabis clubs may not distribute marijuana as a "medical necessity" for seriously ill patients, informs Reuters. According to the Guardian, Raich said she hopes the 80-year-old chief justice's chemotherapy treatments "would soften his heart about the issue." "I think he would find that cannabis would help him a lot," said Raich, who uses marijuana every few hours for scoliosis, a brain tumor, chronic nausea and other illnesses. California's law allows people to grow, smoke or obtain marijuana for medical needs with a doctor's recommendation. Besides California, other states with such laws are: Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington. Medical marijuana was an issue in the November elections. Montana voters easily approved a law that shields patients, their doctors and caregivers from arrest and prosecution for medical marijuana. Oregon rejected a measure that would have expanded its medical marijuana program dramatically. Copyright: 2004 by "Pravda.RU" http://newsfromrussia.com/world/2004/11/30/57323.html
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by Dave in Florida on November 29, 2004 at 17:59:24 PT
Friend of the Court
"Rehnquist, who is receiving chemotherapy and radiation treatments, is working at home, court officials said. He is expected to vote in the medical marijuana case and could write the court's opinion."Someone needs to deliver several joints to Rehnquist and hope that he can see for himself the healing power of the herb.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by FoM on November 29, 2004 at 17:57:43 PT
Related News Article from KVBC
Local Doctors Following Supreme Court Medical Marijuana Case
 November 29th, 2004The Supreme Court is hearing arguments for and against medical marijuana, and whether states have the right follow their own rules. Nevada is one of 10 states with laws that allow the use of medical marijuana, but the federal government says it's still illegal. News 3's Kori Chambers tells us what some local doctors are hoping to find in this case.The case centers around two women from California, but the precedent is a big one, especially in states like ours. Some local doctors will be looking to this ruling for clear answers on an issue that has really gone for years without ever being settled. "I voted for it. The state has allowed me to do it, yet I cannot."Of all the medical tools at his disposal, Dr. Shammon Ahmad says one in particular has put him and many others in an uncomfortable position. "Even now, a lot of patients ask me, you know, to prescribe it and I tell them I could but I would get into trouble."The oncologist says medicinal marijuana could very well be useful for some of the thousands who turn to the Comprehensive Cancer Centers of Nevada, but he feels like his hands are tied. The state law he voted for twice legalizes the use of medical marijuana, but federal law still tells a much different story. "I cannot because if I did I would be in trouble."Professor Lynne Henderson teaches constitutional law at UNLV's law school. "It's a tension built in between the extent of federal power and the extent of state power, and we're revisiting this issue throughout various forms throughout our history." She explains that the issue facing the supreme court isn't about the constitutionality of the Federal Controlled Substances Act, but the reach.The question is whose laws should decide what happens between doctor and patient, when marijuana is in the treatment plan? "If the feds have power to act in an area, they trump the state's, that is, federal law would preemp state law in the area where they have power to act."The federal government is arguing that putting drug laws in the hands of the states would make them practically impossible to enforce. So far, the Supreme Court justices seem to be skeptical of the other side of the argument. A decision in favor of the federal government would mean they could actively go after people who might have been protected by state laws.Besides Nevada, nine other states allow people to use marijuana if their doctors agree. Those states are Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Oregon, Vermont and Washington. Arizona also has a law permitting marijuana prescriptions, but no active program. Several states, including Nevada, have voted on measures to decriminalize marijuana for all adults, but so far, that has never passed.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Copyright: 2000 - 2004 WorldNow and KVBC
 
 http://www.kvbc.com/Global/story.asp?S=2626443&nav=15MVTdlH
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by FoM on November 29, 2004 at 17:49:53 PT
What's Next?
Now what will happen?
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment