cannabisnews.com: 'No' On Medical Marijuana Use 'No' On Medical Marijuana Use Posted by CN Staff on June 06, 2005 at 12:21:35 PT By Warren Richey, Staff Writer of The CSM Source: Christian Science Monitor Washington, D.C. -- Two California women have no right to use locally grown marijuana for medical purposes when federal drug statutes outlaw its use under any circumstances.In an important decision announced Monday dealing with the balance of governmental powers, the US Supreme Court ruled that the federal government has the authority under the US Constitution to override a state law permitting the medical use of marijuana. The 6-to-3 decision is a defeat for California and nine other states with similar medical marijuana laws. It is also a major setback for those medical patients who have come to rely on marijuana as part of their treatment.In addition, it marks a retreat by the high court from its so-called federalism revival. "There was a counterrevolution in progress, how far will they go. The answer appears to be not very far," says Douglas Laycock, a constitutional law professor at the University of Texas Law School.The case was being closely watched in part to see if the court's conservative wing would continue a constitutional trend begun with decisions in 1995 and 2000 limiting Congress's power to legislate under the Constitution's commerce clause. Those earlier decisions had announced that there are limits to the national government's ability to regulate areas that traditionally have been left to state and local jurisdictions.The commerce clause is not a blank check for federal lawmakers, the court has suggested. But the justices have not spelled out exactly where those limits lie.In this case, the majority justices ruled that the commerce clause does permit the federal government to regulate marijuana use and possession, even when those regulations conflict with state measures permitting the use and possession of marijuana.Specifically at issue in the case was whether Angel Raich and Diane Monson would be permitted to rely on doctor-prescribed marijuana to deal with the pain of chronic illnesses. Ms. Raich was diagnosed with an inoperable brain tumor. Ms. Monson experiences what her doctors say is a degenerative spine disease.Both women have tried a variety of medications but say the side effects have only increased suffering. Their physicians recommended they try marijuana. A 1996 California law permits such use. But federal law bans marijuana as an illegal drug. The law says there is "no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States."Federal drug agents and the US attorney general sought to prosecute Raich and Monson as criminals. Lawyers for the two argued that the federal law impermissibly infringed on California's authority to govern the health and well-being of its residents. Their marijuana was grown locally with local materials and at no time crossed state lines triggering commerce-clause authority, they said.The majority justices disagreed. In his majority opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens says the federal government has the power to enact a total ban on marijuana use, even when locally grown and used.Justice Stevens and the other majority justices saw the case as substantially similar to a landmark 1942 commerce-clause decision called Wickard v. Filburn, in which the high court upheld federal regulation of wheat production on a family farm even when the wheat was grown for home consumption."In both cases, the regulation is squarely within Congress' commerce power because production of the commodity meant for home consumption, be it wheat or marijuana, has a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market for that commodity," Stevens writes."In assessing the scope of Congress' Commerce Clause authority, the court need not determine whether respondents' activities, taken in the aggregate, substantially affect interstate commerce in fact, but only whether a 'rational basis' exists for so concluding," he says."Congress had a rational basis for believing that failure to regulate the intrastate manufacture and possession of marijuana would leave a gaping hole in the CSA [Controlled Substances Act]," Stevens writes.Joining Stevens' majority were Justices Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer. Justice Antonin Scalia filed an opinion concurring in the judgment.Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said in a dissent that if she were a California citizen, she would not have voted for the medical-marijuana provision, nor would she have supported the resulting California law allowing medical use of marijuana if she were a state lawmaker. But she said the high court's job was to uphold the fundamental distribution of power within America's federalist system of government, including a state's power to experiment."One of federalism's chief virtues ... is that it promotes innovation by allowing for the possibility that a single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country," Justice O'Connor writes in a dissent joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas."Today the court sanctions an application of the federal Controlled Substances Act that extinguishes that experiment," she says, without any proof that California's medical marijuana law was having a "substantial effect" on interstate commerce.O'Connor says in upholding federal authority rather than state power, the high court is undermining earlier federalism rulings. In 1995, the court by a 5-to-4 vote struck down the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act. The majority found an insufficient connection between Congress's concern about students taking guns to school and the commerce clause to justify a federal assertion of power at local schools nationwide.The trend continued in 2000 when the same 5-to-4 majority struck down a portion of the Violence Against Women Act that authorized victims of gender-based violence to sue their assailants in federal court. The court said that the problem of gender-based violence did not justify imposition of national laws upon states with similar laws already on the books.Stevens says those cases are fundamentally different from the medical-marijuana case. He says in the earlier cases, the parties asserted that they fell outside Congress's commerce-clause power entirely because they had no relation to an economic enterprise."In contrast, the CSA regulates quintessentially economic activities: the production, distribution, and consumption of commodities for which there is an established, and lucrative, interstate market," Stevens writes.• Linda Feldmann contributed. Source: Christian Science Monitor (US)Author: Warren Richey, Staff Writer of The Christian Science Monitor Published: June 07, 2005 Edition Copyright: 2005 The Christian Science Publishing SocietyContact: oped csps.comWebsite: http://www.csmonitor.com/Related Articles & Web Site:Angel Raich v. Ashcroft Newshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/raich.htmCourt Rules Against Pot for Sick Peoplehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread20774.shtmlMarijuana Plaintiff To Defy Court Rulinghttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread20773.shtmlMedical Marijuana Effort Loses at US High Court http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread20772.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #18 posted by afterburner on June 07, 2005 at 08:14:41 PT What about tomatoes? john wayne on June 06, 2005 at 17:10:55 PT What about tomatoes? All we want is for cannabis to be legal, like lettuce and tomatoes. However, the US Supreme Court allows Congress to outlaw all of it! [ Post Comment ] Comment #17 posted by The GCW on June 06, 2005 at 21:12:18 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 #16 posted by john wayne on June 06, 2005 at 17:10:55 PT What about tomatoes? I'm growing tomatoes in my garden. That means I won't buy them from Safeway while my plants bear fruit. Interstate commerce has been affected, therefore new laws are needed to outlaw my tomatoes, and protect interstate commerce. Right, supreme court? And, jurists, don't go saying that this is a trifle, as many thousands of interstate-commerce affecting tomato gardens are being grown right under the noses of the federal police! [ Post Comment ] Comment #15 posted by Sam Adams on June 06, 2005 at 15:37:30 PT One question How the f*** can cannabis be a "commodity" that the feds have the power to "regulate", when at the same time, there's a "total ban" on cannabis?They do what they want. Congress ain't going to change anything anytime soon. They've got us all by the balls right now, how many police and prisons do we have again? And military? Freedom has moved from a reality to neatly packaged lie, sold to the enslaved masses. Here, open up another credit card, peon! I own your ass for life! If you don't like being my faithful servant, a SWAT team will arrive at your door tomorrow morning. And don't forget to provide a urine sample, boy. [ Post Comment ] Comment #14 posted by jose melendez on June 06, 2005 at 15:21:10 PT missed a line My last post should read: " . . . it is certainly irrational to protect an illicit market , especially on the grounds that Congress has the right to make the concededly false claim that cannabis has no utility.Unless, of course that illicit market is what really drives the economy. That would be rational corruption." CCCCP [ Post Comment ] Comment #13 posted by jose melendez on June 06, 2005 at 15:17:19 PT justice: irrational - society: secret? runderwo, I agree it is certainly irrational to protect an illicit market , especially on the grounds that Congress has the right to make the concededly false claim that cannabis has no utility.Unless, of course that illicit market is what really drives the economy. And ben, runderwo makes a good point. I'd like to add that as you have noticed, supression of truth leads to all sorts of corruption.I do agree we should be using techniques honed by the Underground Railroad and the Resistance.But is that not what we have been doing anyway? We are awake, and we are speaking out now against a fraud perpetuated against us. [ Post Comment ] Comment #12 posted by runderwo on June 06, 2005 at 14:57:24 PT ben A secret society will never work as long as people can be prosecuted for using cannabis. The instant someone is prosecuted, they are making the choice between a long time behind bars and rolling over on their contacts. If you are in that situation you really don't have a choice. [ Post Comment ] Comment #11 posted by runderwo on June 06, 2005 at 14:55:51 PT irrational "In both cases, the regulation is squarely within Congress' commerce power because production of the commodity meant for home consumption, be it wheat or marijuana, has a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market for that commodity," Stevens writes."This is not a "rational basis". He claims it has a "substantial effect", but he provides no means of measuring that effect, or even an example of how this effect might occur. He is presuming that the marijuana will be bought if not produced, so production by the consumer will affect the market for it. This presumption requires assuming that people will inevitably do something illegal (buy marijuana) if growing their own is disallowed, which is not reasonable in the least. People with these diseases *WANT* to use cannabis but the risk of prosecution keeps them from even trying it. [ Post Comment ] Comment #10 posted by ben on June 06, 2005 at 14:33:21 PT People Worldwide need to start a secret society Ever wonder why government does idiot stuff, that any non trained person can see is wrong in our so called free society. two words people. Secret Societies. We must learn to become organized and secret ourselves. Otherwise the sick will continue to be prayed on by big pharma, police unions, prison unions,and the courts. all started by these societies. wake up people! [ Post Comment ] Comment #9 posted by jose melendez on June 06, 2005 at 14:13:50 PT grin Even atheists concede that Jesus' message has remarkable staying power and brand identity. What other promotional campaign, product or service can persuade even the most staunch opponent to advertise something they stand firmly against?Besides cannabis and Chronic Candy, I mean. [ Post Comment ] Comment #8 posted by john wayne on June 06, 2005 at 14:01:06 PT it's ok jesus will save us.Right, religi-oids? [ Post Comment ] Comment #7 posted by jose melendez on June 06, 2005 at 13:44:00 PT excuse me In the time it took me to type my post, the poll went to way over 60,000, and climbing:88% !http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8118359/ [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by jose melendez on June 06, 2005 at 13:40:20 PT result: Americans know more, use more pot. I believe Mayan is quite correct:- lies were exposed for the record, plus greater harm principle Today's arbitrary ruling concedes that Congress' finding that marijuana has no medical utility is false, and further notes that users will suffer irreperable harm. - public overwhelming supportsThe MSNBC poll is way over 50,000 votes, consistently 80 to 90 percent against arresting marijuana patients. - unintended consequencesIf the ruling had gone the other way, it would have energized their base and given us a sense of complacency.- resultIndeed, Americans today heard, and even better, we listened and denounce this capricious, corrupting decision. If I read this correctly, even if cops have a field day busting a bunch of us, they are only burying themselves in mountains of paperwork, and risk losing credibility and public image.my guess: demand for cannabis goes through the roof [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by FoM on June 06, 2005 at 13:12:06 PT Rhode Island: News Article from The AP Despit High Court Ruling, Senate Set To Vote on Medical Marijuana June 6, 2005 PROVIDENCE, R.I. -- A U.S. Supreme Court ruling permitting federal authorities to prosecute medical marijuana users should not derail the state's efforts to legalize the drug's use for health problems, a state senator said Monday.The Senate was scheduled to vote Tuesday on a bill permitting the use of marijuana to treat certain medical conditions.Sen. Rhoda Perry, D-Providence, has sponsored similar bills for years. With the proposed legislation drawing more support this year, she said the high court's ruling should not deter the vote."We never intended to pre-empt or undermine federal authority," she said. Ten states already allow some patients to use marijuana for treatment of symptoms like nausea and chronic pain, despite the federal prohibition.If the state does legalize medical marijuana, users would be in violation of federal statutes, but acting within the law on the state level. Perry said that will still be an improvement for those who use marijuana to deal with health problems."It's important to note that nationwide _ including in Rhode Island _ 99 percent of any (criminal) issues dealing with marijuana are on the state level not the federal level," Perry said.It's still not clear if other lawmakers who have supported the change to state law will change their positions based on the Supreme Court ruling.A Senate spokesman said the leadership was reviewing the Supreme Court decision to see if it had any impact on the state bill. A message left with the sponsor of a similar House bill was not immediately returned.The Senate bill would shield from prosecution patients suffering from diseases like cancer and AIDS, as well as their caregivers.The House bill has had one hearing before the House Committee on Health, Education and Welfare.Copyright 2005 Associated Presshttp://www.eyewitnessnewstv.com/Global/story.asp?S=3437769 [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by FoM on June 06, 2005 at 13:07:53 PT Oregon: News Article from The AP State Reviewing High Court Ruling Against Medical marijuana UsersMonday, June 06, 2005SALEM (AP) — Officials in Oregon, one of 10 states with a medical marijuana law, said today they are reviewing how to respond to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that federal authorities may prosecute sick people whose doctors prescribe marijuana to ease pain.Kevin Neeley, a spokesman for state Attorney General Hardy Myers, said the decision could lead to federal action against Oregonians who hold medical marijuana cards.“Today’s decision gives federal authorities in Oregon enhanced footing should they choose to pursue a cardholder who is operating in compliance with Oregon law,” he said. “The Attorney General has said from the outset that we would defend Oregon’s law against federal challenges. In light of today’s decision, we need to review whether or not we are still able to do that.”The Oregon Department of Human Services is in charge of the health agency that hands out medical marijuana cards.Jim Sellers, spokesman for the department, said of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling: “We will be getting advice from the state Department of Justice, but I would asume we will be acting real quickly.”He declined to outline possible steps.More than 10,000 Oregonians hold medical marijuana cards. http://www.eastoregonian.info/Main.asp?SectionID=13&SubSectionID=206&ArticleID=40229 [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by mayan on June 06, 2005 at 13:03:08 PT Enlightenment The 6-to-3 decision is a defeat for California and nine other states with similar medical marijuana laws. It is also a major setback for those medical patients who have come to rely on marijuana as part of their treatment.Just what have we lost that hasn't already been stolen? Americans gained some much needed enlightenment today. It is now obvious to all "liberals","conservatives" and everyone across the entire political spectrum that State's rights are dead and The Constitution is dead. The "land of the free" is but a memory and a dream.We are right where we were yesterday but with much more anger,determination and many,many more allies. Beware the stormtroopers.THE WAY OUT IS THE WAY IN... Hustler asks "What if Everything You Know about 9/11 is Wrong?" http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050604140153943A Lesson In 9/11 Research: http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showpost.php?p=23662&postcount=19/11 Commission Co-chair Lee Hamilton Drenched with Viewer Skepticism on C-SPAN: http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050604085231379/11 Was an Inside Job - A Call to All True Patriots: http://www.911sharethetruth.com/ [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by FoM on June 06, 2005 at 12:57:47 PT Press Release from CAGW Taxpayer Group Criticizes Medical Marijuana Decision Monday - June 06, 2005 WASHINGTON, June 6 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) today criticized the Supreme Court's 6-3 decision in Ashcroft v. Raisch that allows federal authorities to prosecute sick people who smoke marijuana under doctors' orders. The decision overturns the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' December 2003 decision which declared that states have the right to regulate marijuana as a medical treatment. "The emphasis on marijuana is one of many wasteful and absurd policies of the ongoing war on drugs," CAGW President Tom Schatz said. "The federal government's adamant rejection of marijuana as a medical alternative costs taxpayers millions of dollars annually." Patients suffering from illnesses such as AIDS, glaucoma, and multiple sclerosis use the drug for treatment in states where such use is permitted, even though any use of marijuana is prohibited at the federal level. Since 1996, ten states have legalized medicinal marijuana. Yet the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) has opposed such actions on many occasions. When states question the legality and cost of the agency's interferences, ONDCP has adamantly refused to disclose any information, maintaining that meddling in state elections and arresting marijuana users is part of the overall war on drugs. Approximately half of ONDCP's fiscal 2005 budget of $507 million will be concentrated on reducing marijuana use. "The ONDCP campaigns against state ballot initiatives legalizing the use of medicinal marijuana are an infringement upon states' rights, a blatant misuse of tax dollars, and in contravention of ONDCP's original mission," Schatz continued. The Supreme Court majority writes that Congress can regulate the growth and consumption of medical marijuana as "interstate commerce." However, in a dissenting opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas writes, "The Respondents ... use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. 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."CAGW recently released an in-depth and unflattering probe into America's drug policy. Up in Smoke: ONDCP's Wasted Efforts in the War on Drugs details the expensive drug control programs that have failed to produce meaningful results after 17 years. Instead of curbing America's drug problem, ONDCP has wasted $4.2 billion since fiscal 1997 on a propaganda-filled media campaign, fighting state legislation, and deficient anti-drug trafficking programs. "The White House's drug office should use its resources to root out major drug operations in the U.S. instead of creating propaganda-filled news videos and flying across the country on the taxpayers' dime pushing for states to vote no on marijuana initiatives," Schatz continued. "Unfortunately, the Court has handed the federal government a blank check to continue harassing and arresting patients who smoke marijuana for medicinal reasons." Up in Smoke: ONDCP's Wasted Efforts in the War on Drugs is available at: http://www.cagw.org Citizens Against Government Waste is the nation's largest nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to eliminating waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement in government. Copyright: 2005 U.S. Newswire Contact: Tom Finnigan, 202-467-5309 or 202-253-3852 (cell), Lauren Cook, 202-467-5318, both of Citizens Against Government Waste http://press.arrivenet.com/pol/article.php/649010.html [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by FoM on June 06, 2005 at 12:51:51 PT Just a Note I will update this page as more articles become available and I get them posted. That way those who might have missed some of the news in a few days will be able to catch up fairly easily.http://freedomtoexhale.com/raich.htm [ Post Comment ] Post Comment