cannabisnews.com: Medical Marijuana Effort Loses at U.S. High Court 










  Medical Marijuana Effort Loses at U.S. High Court 

Posted by CN Staff on June 06, 2005 at 10:25:27 PT
By Greg Stohr 
Source: Bloomberg.com  

USA -- The U.S. Supreme Court dealt a blow to the medical marijuana movement, ruling that federal narcotics laws ban the drug even when it never crosses state lines and is used only to relieve pain or nausea. The justices, siding with the Bush administration, today said Congress's power over interstate commerce is broad enough to cover locally grown and used medical marijuana. The 6-3 ruling overturns a decision that favored two California women, including one who says cannabis relieves life-threatening symptoms.
The majority said California marijuana users Angel McClary Raich and Diane Monson must turn to ``the democratic process'' for a change in the law. ``The voices of voters allied with these respondents may one day be heard in the halls of Congress,'' Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the court in Washington. California and nine other states exempt seriously ill people from laws banning cultivation and use of marijuana. Today's ruling means people in those states will face the risk of federal prosecution if they use or distribute marijuana. The Bush administration said the lower court ruling would undermine its efforts to enforce anti-drug laws. The case brought into tension two themes of the court under Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist: the limits it has imposed on the federal government and the latitude it has afforded law enforcement officers. Those issues produced an unusual breakdown among the nine justices. A Divided CourtJoining Stevens's majority decision were Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote separately to say he agreed with the result, though not the majority's reasoning. Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas dissented. Those three, along with Scalia and Kennedy, formed 5-4 majorities in a series of previous cases that limited the power of Congress. ``If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything -- and the federal government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers,'' Thomas wrote. Stevens, in his opinion for the court, said locally grown and used marijuana might affect the national market. ``That the national and international narcotics trade has thrived in the face of vigorous criminal enforcement efforts suggests that no small number of unscrupulous people will make use of the California exemptions to serve their commercial ends whenever it is feasible to do so,'' he wrote. Previous Setback It's the second time in four years the high court has ruled against medical marijuana advocates in a fight with the federal government. In 2001 the court said the U.S. Controlled Substances Act, which bans marijuana and other drugs except for use in government-approved research projects, doesn't contain a ``medical necessity'' exception. Raich and Monson, both Northern California residents, say all other medicines either failed to treat their symptoms or caused intolerable side effects. Raich, 39, and her doctor say she might starve to death without marijuana. She suffers a number of conditions, including an inoperable brain tumor and a life-threatening wasting syndrome. Raich uses marijuana given to her by two unidentified caregivers who grow it. Monson, 47, who suffers from chronic back pain and muscle spasms caused by a spinal disease, grows her own marijuana. Federal drug agents raided Monson's home in 2002. She, Raich and the two caregivers then sued to stop federal officials from enforcing the Controlled Substances Act against them.  Impact on Illegal MarketThe San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily barred enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act against the women and caregivers, saying their activities didn't appear to be linked to interstate commerce. The federal government lists marijuana among the most strictly controlled drugs, a classification that also includes LSD and heroin. The Justice Department argued that legalizing medical marijuana would undermine the federal fight against illegal use and trafficking. At arguments in November, acting U.S. solicitor general Paul Clement said the California law might allow use by as many as 100,000 patients. Lawyers for Raich and Monson said the impact of medical marijuana on the illegal market would be trivial. The other medical-marijuana states are Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington. Advocates of medical use say marijuana can ease cancer patients' nausea from chemotherapy, help treat glaucoma, stimulate AIDS patients' appetite and ease pain for multiple sclerosis sufferers. The case is Gonzales v. Raich, 03-1454. To contact the reporter on this story: Greg Stohr in Washington at:  gstohr bloomberg.netSource: Bloomberg.com (US)Author: Greg StohrPublished: June 6, 2005Copyright: 2005 Bloomberg L.P. Contact: gstohr bloomberg.netWebsite: http://www.bloomberg.com/Related Articles & Web Site:Angel Raich v. Ashcroft Newshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/raich.htmGovernment Can Bar Medical Marijuana Use http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread20771.shtmlState Medical Marijuana Laws Remain Valid http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread20770.shtmlSupreme Court Allows Prosecution of Marijuanahttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread20769.shtml 

Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help





Comment #7 posted by The GCW on June 06, 2005 at 21:14:48 PT
2 POLLS
Vote here http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8118359/ Should the federal government prosecute medical marijuana users, now that it has been given the OK by the Supreme Court? * 69575 responses Yes 
10% No 
88% I'm not sure 
2%&&&&LOU DOBBS TONIGHT QUICKVOTE Do you believe the federal government should prosecute doctors who prescribe medical marijuana? Current Results: Yes -- 7% No -- 93% Total: 3264 votes http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/lou.dobbs.tonight/
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by runderwo on June 06, 2005 at 16:33:10 PT
schmeff
"Masturbation may be prohibited due to its negative impact on the sex trade."In fact, that's an apt analogy. We are talking about the justification of prohibiting something on the basis that it may affect the "interstate commerce" of... a black market! Isn't it absurd?Of course, most bible-thumpers would probably agree that masturbation should be outlawed too. The fact that it one of the most harmless things you can do and that it vents urges that may lead to other activities that do cause harm is of no interest to them.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by runderwo on June 06, 2005 at 16:29:06 PT
...
"The Justice Department argued that legalizing medical marijuana would undermine the federal fight against illegal use and trafficking."Does the legalization of opiates under Schedule II undermine the federal fight against illegal use and trafficking?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by schmeff on June 06, 2005 at 11:25:15 PT
Bush to Conservatives: Eat Me
A true conservative wants SMALLER government. This decision, as noted above by Clarence Thomas, will replace Wickard vs. Filburn as a precedent for the broadest interpretation yet of the government's power to regulate virtually everything.We may not be able to make and wear our own clothes, as this will affect the clothing market.Masturbation may be prohibited due to its negative impact on the sex trade.The food we grow in our Victory Gardens may be regulated because it affects the legitimate marketing of agricultural commodities. (Actually, the Supreme Court basically decided this issue in the Wickard case mentioned above.)On an up note, I think Bush has destroyed the GOP. They just haven't realized it yet.The other day I sent Justice Rehnquist a discussion-thread get well card and urged him to do the right thing. Looks like he did. Thanks, Bill, and keep in mind that a wee bit o' the kind bud will do wonders for that post-radiation-treatment nausea.**************Somewhat related: An article in my local (rural Oregon) paper reported that our county jails will start charging inmates a boarding fee of $10 a day for their incarceration. (Do any of you remember stories of how the 'godless communists' would charge the surviving relatives for the bullet used to execute their loved one?)I think Amnesty International is on the right track. Our country has more of its population behind bars than any other nation in the world. Does this mean that we have a greater tendency towards criminality than the people of other nations? If so, how can we justify using our military to 'spread freedom'?Apparently we're now jailing more people than we can afford, and instead of considering the option of jailing fewer people, we'll just enact institutional slavery and charge inmates for their room and board. And if they don't pay...I say throw their asses in jail!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by FoM on June 06, 2005 at 10:51:34 PT
Bloomberg.com Update On Above Article
Stevens, in his opinion for the court, said locally grown and used marijuana might affect the national market. ``That the national and international narcotics trade has thrived in the face of vigorous criminal enforcement efforts suggests that no small number of unscrupulous people will make use of the California exemptions to serve their commercial ends whenever it is feasible to do so,'' he wrote. It's the second time in four years the high court has ruled against medical marijuana advocates in a fight with the federal government. In 2001 the court said the U.S. Controlled Substances Act, which bans marijuana and other drugs except for use in government-approved research projects, doesn't contain a ``medical necessity'' exception. The other medical-marijuana states are Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington. Continued Use Raich and Diane Monson, both Northern California residents, say all other medicines either failed to treat their symptoms or caused intolerable side effects. Raich, 39, and her doctor say she might starve to death without marijuana. She suffers a number of conditions, including an inoperable brain tumor and a life-threatening wasting syndrome. She said today that doctors recently discovered a pre- cancerous growth in her cervix that will require surgery. Raich, who uses marijuana given to her by two unidentified caregivers who grow it, said she will continue to use the drug. `I do not have a choice but to continue to use cannabis,'' she said. ``If I stop, I will die.'' Monson, 47, who suffers from chronic back pain and muscle spasms caused by a spinal disease, grows her own marijuana. Federal drug agents raided Monson's home in 2002. She, Raich and the two caregivers then sued to stop federal officials from enforcing the Controlled Substances Act against them. The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily barred enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act against the women and caregivers, saying their activities didn't appear to be linked to interstate commerce. Controlled Drugs The federal government lists marijuana among the most strictly controlled drugs, a classification that also includes LSD and heroin. The Justice Department argued that legalizing medical marijuana would undermine the federal fight against illegal use and trafficking. At arguments in November, acting U.S. solicitor general Paul Clement said the California law might allow use by as many as 100,000 patients. Lawyers for Raich and Monson said the impact of medical marijuana on the illegal market would be trivial. Advocates of medical use say marijuana can ease cancer patients' nausea from chemotherapy, help treat glaucoma, stimulate AIDS patients' appetite and ease pain for multiple sclerosis sufferers. The case is Gonzales v. Raich, 03-1454. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aEUoq48LwapY&refer=us
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by PainWithNoInsurance on June 06, 2005 at 10:46:09 PT
A Sad Thing and with some nothing is their answer
We'll just have to pay more taxes so the government can bust more sick people and take their possessions away.The sick will have to use pharms, which most of them can't afford because of the great job the federal government has done with healthcare cost, pharmaceutical cost, and insurance cost.Uninsured
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by AgaetisByrjun on June 06, 2005 at 10:34:52 PT
Thomas, Rehnquist, and O'Connor
It's interesting that the conservatives (Clarence Thomas, S.D. O'Connor, William Rehnquist) were the ones who voted in our favor and the liberals let us down. I guess they were serious about states' rights.On a related note, it's also interesting that the only Supreme with cancer (Rehnquist) voted for medical MJ.
[ Post Comment ]




  Post Comment