cannabisnews.com: High Court Strikes Down Medical Use for Marijuana High Court Strikes Down Medical Use for Marijuana Posted by FoM on May 14, 2001 at 10:33:21 PT By The Associated Press Source: CNN The Supreme Court handed medical marijuana users a major defeat Monday, ruling that a federal law classifying the drug as illegal has no exception for ill patients. The 8-0 decision was a major disappointment to many sufferers of AIDS, cancer, multiple sclerosis and other illnesses. They have said the drug helped enormously in combating the devastating effects of their diseases. Justice Stephen Breyer did not participate because his brother, a federal judge, initially presided over the case. "In the case of the Controlled Substances Act, the statute reflects a determination that marijuana has no medical benefits worthy of an exception (outside the confines of a government-approved research project)," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the unanimous court. Thomas noted the act states marijuana has "no currently accepted medical use." The federal government triggered the case in 1998, seeking an injunction against the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative and five other marijuana distributors. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, brother of the justice, sided with the government. All the clubs except the Oakland group eventually closed down, and the Oakland club turned to registering potential marijuana recipients while it awaited a final ruling. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the lower court, ruling that medical necessity is a legal defense. Charles Breyer followed up by issuing strict guidelines for making that claim. Voters in Arizona, Alaska, California, Colorado, Maine, Nevada, Oregon and Washington also have approved ballot initiatives allowing the use of medical marijuana. In Hawaii, the legislature passed a similar law and the governor signed it last year. The cooperative argued that a drug may not yet have achieved general acceptance as a medical treatment, but may still have medical benefits to a particular patient or class of patients. Thomas said the argument cannot overcome the intent of Congress in approving the statute. "It is clear from the text of the act that Congress has made a determination that marijuana has no medical benefits worthy of an exception," Thomas wrote. "Unwilling to view this omission as an accident, and unable in any event to override a legislative determination manifest in a statute, we reject the cooperative's argument." Advocates of medical marijuana say the drug can ease side effects from chemotherapy, save nauseated AIDS patients from wasting away or even allow multiple sclerosis sufferers to rise from a wheelchair and walk. There is no definitive science that the drug works, or works better than conventional, legal alternatives. Several states are considering medical marijuana laws, and Congress may revisit the issue this year. A measure to counteract laws like California's died in the House last year. Thomas was joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia and Anthony M. Kennedy. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a concurring opinion, joined by Justices David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The case is United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative, 00-151. Source: CNN (US Web) Published: May 14, 2001Copyright: 2001 Cable News Network, Inc. Contact: cnn.feedback cnn.com Website http://www.cnn.com/ Forum: http://community.cnn.com/ Related Articles & Web Site:Oakland Cannabis Buyer's Cooperativehttp://www.rxcbc.org/Supreme Court Rules Out Medical Marijuanahttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9703.shtmlCourt Nixes Medical Marijuanahttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9701.shtmlCannabisNews Articles - OCBChttp://cannabisnews.com/thcgi/search.pl?K=OCBC END SNIP --> Snipped Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #18 posted by Chuck Beyer on May 19, 2001 at 12:06:00 PT: Run a new political party Message to US Marijuana Activists and Libertraians. In B.C. Canada the BC Marijuana Party just fought an election wit a candidate in all of BC's (a province in Canada - like a state) and got 3.5% of the votes. We kicked ass and helped sink a few incumbant politicians in swing electoral districts. In this province (state) WE HAVE POWERBy runnning as the Marijuana Party instead of as the Libertarians party we put a sexy face on our political party and the press ate it up. We are hoping to export our political movement to the US. Visit our website at http://www.bcmarijuanaparty.ca Run a new political party [ Post Comment ] Comment #17 posted by kaptinemo on May 14, 2001 at 17:15:37 PT: A call to arms As many of you here know, I hadn't held out much hope concerning the Supremes. But the unanimity of the decision was a little surprising.I am hoping that all reformers who come here, whether they post their comments or not, realize that the time for hesitancy in acting is past. The only way we can win now is the same way we have been winning...via the States.The antis are smirking right now, laughing up their sleeves at us. Their grasp of history is so poor that they think they've won.Only a skirmish. Not the war. [ Post Comment ] Comment #16 posted by J.R. Bob Dobbs on May 14, 2001 at 15:22:40 PT Hot potato, indeed At first, I was particularly stunned by the unanimous vote. But, after ingesting a minor quantity of a powerful anti-emetic, I got to thinking. Everybody seemed to know that it wasn't going to win. Which justice wants to get stuck with the political hot-potato of writing the dissenting opinion? You'd forever be labeled the judge who's pro-pot. Nobody wanted to vote their conscience, for fear they'd get stuck in the spotlight. However, if we can get an issue before them that's likely to pass, this could work in our favor too - who'd want to write the "reefer madness" dissenting opinion when the justices rule to legalize? [ Post Comment ] Comment #15 posted by Ethan Russo, MD on May 14, 2001 at 13:13:41 PT: An Epidemic of Misleading and Inaccurate Headlines John Q. Public tends to have short attention span. Should he merely hazard a casual glance at this and other current headlines, he is apt to think that the game is over. I have not heard the Fat Lady sing, however. The clubs are out and that is all. Prop 215 and its cousins live. The Supreme Court did not rule on individual use or cultivation or the medical necessity for patients. The ruling is disappointing, but narrow.We need to hold these reporters and their editors to higher standards. Read the documents! Report them accurately! Do not aid and abet the thought police. Their job is already too easy. [ Post Comment ] Comment #14 posted by Rambler on May 14, 2001 at 12:53:06 PT I Thought that all three branches of the gov. were sworn to uphold anddefend the Constitution.It doesnt seem quite right that it istreated like some jazz tune gig,where everyone can play theirown interpretation of it.In fact,I thought it was the Supreme Courtsjob to make sure that is was played the way it was composed.I guess now days it's played like a garage band doing Inna-Gadda-Da-Vidafrom memory. [ Post Comment ] Comment #13 posted by Ethan Russo, MD on May 14, 2001 at 12:43:41 PT: Examining the SC Documents There is some wiggle room here, believe it or not. Example 1: In the Opinion, p. 8, "The Cooperative points out, however, that the Attorney General did not place marijuana into schedule I. Congress put it there, and Congress was not required to find that a drug lack an accepted medical use before including the drug in schedule I." The Court goes on to reject this reasoning, but the logic is absolutely circular. Congres has the power, and only they have the power to decide it, neglecting their lack of deliberation, their ignorance, and their mean-spirited intent. A point of attack here would emphasize that Congress should be required to demonstrate conclusively that cannabis lacks an accepted medical use. Even one exception would logically invalidate their doing so. The problem is, NIDA is still blocking the research. This is another reason that GW Pharmaceuticals represents a hope for the movement. Their treatments will succeed, and prove the utility of cannabis. Another way to circumvent this is elect people to Congress who agree to revoke the CSA or amend it with respect to cannabis. This is achievable only if the movement forces the issue into the mainstream and makes it too important to neglect.Example 2: in the Opinion, page 10, footnote 7, "Because federal courts interpret, rather than author, the federal criminal code, we are not at liberty to rewrite it. Nor are we passing today on a constitutional question, such as whether the Controlled Substances Act exceeds Congress' power under the Commerce Clause."This is key. It required a Constitutional Amendment to outlaw alcohol. Cannabis was axed under false pretenses in Congress in 1937 by a tax gambit, and then its continued outlaw status was upheld by invoking the Commerce Clause and its controls on interstate transactions. This is a bogus claim if a California patient uses California-grown material. These points can be argued if the proper case presents itself. Other cases have attempted to address these inconsistencies, but never the the Supreme Court level.Example 3, Stevens' Opinion, page 1, "We hold that medical necessity is not a defense to [italics] manufacturing and distributing marijuana." Also, page 2-3, "Most notably, whether the [medical necessity] defense might be available to a seriously ill patient for whom there is no alternative means of avoiding starvaiton or extraordinary suffering is a difficult issue that is not presented here."In other words, the Clubs are out, but the Court has not ruled upon the right to a medical necessity defense to individuals who face that choice. They might rule differently to possession or cultivation charges of a sick person who sought relief through cannabis. Perhaps that case needs to be brought. I believe that the Ninth Circuit decision with respect to patients still applies.It is apparent from all this that patients, attorneys and concerned citizens must fight harder than ever to assert our rights in this manner and ensure that the correct laws are written, and leave no doubt as to their intent. Free cannabis, and free the patients! [ Post Comment ] Comment #12 posted by Robbie on May 14, 2001 at 12:39:02 PT Let me clarify I guess I'm opposing that viewpoint. I know the SC is very much for interpreting the law certain ways, ways not consistent with what they should be doing. But in the MMJ case, I think they're purposefully mainlining the judgement around the question of distribution.PS FoM I dont have CNN, so I have to wait for transcripts or one of you folks to relate back what is said :-) Now, if CNN broadcast everything on the net, I'd be green (greener), but they don't. [ Post Comment ] Comment #11 posted by Pontifex on May 14, 2001 at 12:38:29 PT: The court needs at least a judicial fig-leaf Hey Rambler,I agree, the ruling that put Shrub in the White House was suspect. In that case, Congress was divided, and the justices' decision was bound to be unpopular one way or the other.The "get arrested for not wearing your seatbelt" ruling was also outrageous, but it was totally in line with Congress' view of the Fourth Amendment. The War on Drugs requires Congress to minimize the 4th, and the Supremes were just backing them up on this one.My point is that the Supreme Court will side with Congress any time Congress' will is clear. The only possible exception is a glaring contradiction in the laws, in which case the Supremes have to discern Congress' intentions -- still not promising.The Supremes were asked if "medical necessity" could overrule the explicit law of Congress. They said "no". This shouldn't surprise anyone; judges are not usually in the business of carving out blanket exceptions to the country's highest laws.There's hope if anybody ever invokes the Constitution's 10th Amendment as a defense, but it seems (from my limited legal knowledge) that a state government or some similar entity would have to bring that case.The whole federal system blows and it's rotten to the core. We won't get much love from the Supremes. Keep smoking and we'll beat this thing at the state level; we're almost there.Few of us would be surprised, after all, if the U.S. Federal Government were the last political entity on earth to accept the legalization of cannabis. [ Post Comment ] Comment #10 posted by FoM on May 14, 2001 at 12:36:55 PT My 2 cents One good thing is we will see how Walters feel about this ruling and what is he going to do about it. [ Post Comment ] Comment #9 posted by Robbie on May 14, 2001 at 12:23:46 PT I agree Rambler I think the court got off of a hot potato that they didn't want any part of. Instead of challenging the constitutionality of it all, they strictly interpreted the case as how the actions of the OCBC are at odds with federal law, namely the CSA. They passed the proverbial buck. The buckers. [ Post Comment ] Comment #8 posted by Rambler on May 14, 2001 at 11:58:02 PT Not the way I see it I must respectfully disagree with you Pontifex.Take a look backat the decision that got bush into the whorehouse,and take a lookat the recent molestation of the Fourth ammendment.The "Law",can be tweaked in many ways.If they had no choice,why were they asked? [ Post Comment ] Comment #7 posted by Pontifex on May 14, 2001 at 11:45:11 PT: Thomas leaves the door open "It is clear from the text of the act that Congress has made a determination that marijuana has no medical benefits worthy of an exception," Thomas wrote. "Unwilling to view this omission as an accident, and unable in any event to override a legislative determination manifest in a statute, we reject the cooperative's argument."Parse these words carefully, for they illustrate how far the court will go in future MMJ cases.The Supremes will not override Congress, no matter how many twitching paraplegics wheel their way into DC. Their job is to read the law as written. The only way they will excuse MMJ is if the Controlled Substances Act is overridden by another law.The 10th Amendment to the constitution states:"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."Since there is no constitutional authority for Congress to regulate drugs, drug laws are a prerogative of the state. QED.This line of reasoning is most likely to be successful with a conservative Supreme Court.Let's hope the next lawyer lucky enough to make it to the SC with a challenge to the drug laws invokes the constitution, the only law that can trump the CSA. As it was, the justices had no choice.Keep it burning... [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by [Anonymous] on May 14, 2001 at 11:34:35 PT: Medical User I was a passenger in a car that hit a tree, and now I amparaplegic, paralyzed from the waist down. Todays rulingwas a shock. Our government isnt even Considering changing any laws. They really just don't care. Pot is the only medicine I can take to calm the muscle spasms in my legs, that are painful and embarrassing. all the other "legal" drugs i get prescribed mess me up way worse then weed, I can't function when Im on baclofen, or trazedone. If I can get up and smoke a half a joint and go to work and try to live a normal life, why am I a criminal?I guess its up to all of the people who actually need it to get together and show how much we need this. People who are not sick or disabled just cannot understand our pain. My wife can barely understand it, and she's been with me since before I was disabled. We need to be heard, somehow. [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by Dave in Florida on May 14, 2001 at 11:32:01 PT How many people in Congress are Doctors? "It is clear from the text of the act that Congress has made a determination that marijuana has no medical benefits worthy of an exception," Thomas wrote. It's too bad that Congress doesn't know shit from shinola and ignores the science. The idiots don't read the daily telegragh either. //http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by FoM on May 14, 2001 at 11:21:58 PT She is hitting home! God Bless Angel McClary! [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by FoM on May 14, 2001 at 11:12:49 PT The Interview is Great! I hope everyone is watching CNN! [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by Robbie on May 14, 2001 at 11:09:00 PT MMJ Poll: Vote now! Do you think people should be allowed to use marijuana for medical purposes? Yes 79% 24K votesNo 21% 6.5K votes CNN - scroll down to vote [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by kaptinemo on May 14, 2001 at 10:54:41 PT: That's it No more playing around. No more half measures. No more begging hat-in-hand for what's ours, anyway. No more dependence upon blind geriatric fools incapable or unwilling to recognize the suffering they aid and abett.We've been forced into corners for far too long. Time to go on the offensive. Either fight for your rights or emigrate. Either get involved politically and end this...or start scoping out British Columbia for real estate. But remember; if you do leave, there's no place on Earth Uncle can't get to you.As 4D said in another posting: No more Mr. Nice Guy. [ Post Comment ] Post Comment Name: Optional Password: E-Mail: Subject: Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message] Link URL: Link Title: