U.S. outlaws use of medical pot

[claude]

U.S. outlaws use of medical pot

By GINA HOLLAND

WASHINGTON (AP) - Federal authorities may prosecute sick people whose doctors prescribe marijuana to ease pain, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, concluding that state laws don't protect users from a federal ban on the drug.

The decision is a stinging defeat for marijuana advocates who had successfully pushed 10 states to allow the drug's use to treat various illnesses.

Justice John Paul Stevens, writing the 6-3 decision, said that Congress could change the law to allow medical use of marijuana.

The closely watched case was an appeal by the Bush administration in a case involving two seriously ill California women who use marijuana. The court said the prosecution of pot users under the federal Controlled Substances Act was constitutional.

"I'm going to have to be prepared to be arrested," said Diane Monson, one of the women involved in the case.

Stevens said the court was not passing judgment on the potential medical benefits of marijuana, and he noted "the troubling facts" in the case. Monson's backyard crop of six marijuana plants was seized by federal agents in 2002, although the California law was on Monson's side.

In a dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said that states should be allowed to set their own rules.


Under the U.S. Constitution, Congress may pass laws regulating a state's economic activity as long as it involves "interstate commerce" that crosses state borders. The California marijuana in question was homegrown, distributed to patients without charge and without crossing state lines.

"Our national medical system relies on proven scientific research, not popular opinion. To date, science and research have not determined that smoking marijuana is safe or effective," John Walters, director of National Drug Control Policy, said Monday.

Stevens said there are other legal options for patients, "but perhaps even more important than these legal avenues is the democratic process, in which the voices of voters allied with these (California women) may one day be heard in the halls of Congress."

California's medical marijuana law, passed by voters in 1996, allows people to grow, smoke or obtain marijuana for medical needs with a doctor's recommendation. Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington state have laws similar to California.

In those states, doctors generally can give written or oral recommendations on marijuana to patients with cancer, HIV and other serious illnesses.

In Canada, a small portion of Canadians are permitted to possess marijuana to treat a serious medical condition. They must hold an exemption card issued by the federal government.

"The states' core police powers have always included authority to define criminal law and to protect the health, safety and welfare of their citizens," said O'Connor, who was joined in her dissent by two other states' rights advocates: Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas.

The legal question presented a dilemma for the court's conservatives, who have pushed to broaden states' rights in recent years. They earlier invalidated federal laws dealing with gun possession near schools and violence against women on the grounds the activity was too local to justify federal intrusion.

O'Connor said she would have opposed California's medical marijuana law if she were a voter or a legislator. But she said the court was overreaching to endorse "making it a federal crime to grow small amounts of marijuana in one's own home for one's own medicinal use."

Alan Hopper, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer, said that local and state officers handle 99 per cent of marijuana prosecutions and must still follow any state laws that protect patients. "This is probably not going to change a lot for individual medical marijuana patients," he said.

The case concerned two Californians, Monson and Angel Raich. The two had sued then-U.S. attorney general John Ashcroft, asking for a court order letting them smoke, grow or obtain marijuana without fear of arrest, home raids or other intrusion by federal authorities.

Raich, an Oakland woman suffering from ailments including scoliosis, a brain tumour, chronic nausea, fatigue and pain, smokes marijuana every few hours. She said she was partly paralysed until she started smoking pot. Monson, an accountant who lives near Oroville, Calif., has degenerative spine disease and grows her own marijuana plants in her backyard.

In the court's main decision, Stevens raised concerns about abuse of marijuana laws. "Our cases have taught us that there are some unscrupulous physicians who overprescribe when it is sufficiently profitable to do so," he said.

[Doc Martin]

Did we expect anything else?

[crawjo]

This administration just keeps getting worse and worse. Denying terminally sick patients drugs that ease their pain...how awful. Somebody fucking impeach this asshole already.

[Pete C]

Originally Posted by crawjo

This administration just keeps getting worse and worse. Denying terminally sick patients drugs that ease their pain...how awful. Somebody fucking impeach this asshole already.

Impeach the asshole, yes, but this was a Supreme Court decision, based on legalistic interpretation of fed. vs. state jurisdiction, not partisan drug policy agenda. O'Connor wrote the dissent with Rehnquist's concurrence. Ginsburg voted with the majority. So while the consequences are grim, it's not a black & white case.

[Pete C]

State Medical Marijuana Laws Remain Valid Despite U.S. Supreme Court Ruling in Raich v. Ashcroft, ACLU Says

June 6, 2005




FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: media@aclu.org

WASHINGTON -- In response to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling today in Raich v. Ashcroft, that the federal government can enforce federal laws prohibiting the cultivation, possession, and use of medical marijuana even in states where medical marijuana is legal under state law, the American Civil Liberties Union urged state and local governments to protect individual patients and their caregivers.

"The power of state governments to enact and enforce state medical marijuana laws is not affected by the Supreme Court’s ruling," said Allen Hopper, a staff attorney with the ACLU’s Drug Law Reform Project. "State laws allowing the use of medical marijuana still offer patients significant protection."

In its decision, the Court overturned the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that the federal government could not enforce federal marijuana laws against the cultivation, possession and use of medical marijuana by the plaintiffs, Angel Raich and Diane Monson. Angel Raich suffers from several conditions that cause severe, chronic pain, including an inoperable brain tumor, fibromyalgia, endometriosis, scoliosis, uterine fibroid tumors and rotator cuff syndrome. Her doctor warned the Court that she is likely to die if unable to use medical marijuana. Medical marijuana is also the only effective treatment that eliminates Diane Monson’s severe back pain and spasms.

Raich v. Ashcroft is the U.S. Supreme Court’s latest look at the medical marijuana issue. In a case brought by the ACLU and others, Walters v. Conant, the Court chose to let stand the Ninth Circuit’s ruling that under the First Amendment doctors can recommend and discuss medical marijuana with patients.

Valerie Corral was one of the plaintiffs in the Conant case and founded the Wo/Men’s Alliance for Medical Marijuana (WAMM), a Santa Cruz, California-based hospice center that supplies medical marijuana to critically ill patients. The Drug Enforcement Administration raided WAMM in 2002. After the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in Raich, a federal district court granted an injunction protecting WAMM from further federal raids and prosecution. After today’s ruling, however, WAMM members fear that the injunction will be lifted.

In oral arguments last November in the Raich case, Justice Stephen Breyer suggested that patients ask the Food and Drug Administration to reclassify marijuana for medical use as "the obvious way to get what they want," adding, "Medicine by regulation is better than medicine by referendum."

The ACLU, however, pointed out in a recent legal challenge to the DEA that the federal government has a policy of obstructing research that could lead to the development of marijuana as a legal prescription medicine.

"Doctors and patients would like to take Justice Breyer up on his proposal to develop marijuana as a medicine through the FDA approval process," said Allen Hopper. "But the government’s idea of ‘medicine by regulation,’ is to obstruct research. Now more than ever, Congress and local and state governments need to take action to protect patients and their caregivers."

Eleven states have enacted laws allowing patients to use medical marijuana, and a recent CNN/Time poll reported that 80 percent of Americans favor giving patients access to medical marijuana.

Information is available online for the ACLU’s legal challenge to the DEA, In the Matter of Lyle Craker (http://www.aclu.org/DrugPolicy/DrugP...?ID=18105&c=19) and the Walters v. Conant case (http://www.aclu.org/DrugPolicy/DrugP...ID=14058&c=81).

[jesus marion joseph]

What Pete said.

[crawjo]

Originally Posted by Pete C

Impeach the asshole, yes, but this was a Supreme Court decision, based on legalistic interpretation of fed. vs. state jurisdiction, not partisan drug policy agenda. O'Connor wrote the dissent with Rehnquist's concurrence. Ginsburg voted with the majority. So while the consequences are grim, it's not a black & white case.

Yeah, you are right there. But Bush was the one who was pushing this case up through the courts. He, or someone in his administration, was pressing the issue. This hyper, anti-federalist big-government moralism is going too far. Kudos to O'Connor and Rehnquist for dissenting. Heaven forbid that individual states make laws in response to what they perceive as the needs of their citizens, or in response to direct public referendum on the issue.

[Monte Smith]

Originally Posted by crawjo

Kudos to O'Connor and Rehnquist for dissenting.

And Thomas. Go on, you can say it: "Kudos to Clarence Thomas."

[crawjo]

Kudos to Clarence Thomas. (Why would you think I would have a hard time saying that?)

[Monte Smith]

Originally Posted by crawjo

Kudos to Clarence Thomas. (Why would you think I would have a hard time saying that?)

It took you two attempts.

[Pete C]

In more cases than not, the "states rights" position is counter to progressive interests. And when states rights does favor progressive interests, the new right often votes counter to their fundamental principles--as, it appears, Scalia did in this case.

[GoodSpeak]

So much for States rights, eh?


Now what was it the republican party stands for again....?





Hm.

[Monte Smith]

Originally Posted by Pete C

In more cases than not, the "states rights" position is counter to progressive interests. And when states rights does favor progressive interests, the new right often votes counter to their fundamental principles--as, it appears, Scalia did in this case.

That seems natural. The states rights position slows down innovative legislation-from-the-bench by subjecting it to fifty tests.

You're accusing Scalia of hypocrisy here, though, by saying he voted against states rights in order to impose his deeply conservative ethic. OK. So why did the rest of the majority vote the way they did? If you list a number of reasoned arguments that can be explained in ways other than inherent ideological malfeasance, I'm going to smoke a bowl.

[jesus marion joseph]

Originally Posted by GoodSpeak

So much for States rights, eh?


Now what was it the republican party stands for again....?





Hm.

Note to Goody: two of the three of the "right wing" justices of the court (all of whom, I believe, are acknowleged republicans) dissented from the majority opinion. In other words, they support the "states rights" position. Put another way, the center/left of the court more or less agreed with the administration's position.

I will concede, however, that the White House has once again strayed from the traditional republican war cry of "state's rights", as they did during the Terri Schiavo debacle. Put another way, "what Pete said".




















No more political posts after two Munich Darks.

[GoodSpeak]

Originally Posted by jesus marion joseph

Note to Goody: two of the three of the "right wing" justices of the court (all of whom, I believe, are acknowleged republicans) dissented from the majority opinion. In other words, they support the "states rights" position. Put another way, the center/left of the court more or less agreed with the administration's position.

Well, that would be two republicans in America who voted properly.


How 'bout that?

Originally Posted by jesus marion joseph

I will concede, however, that the White House has once again strayed from the traditional republican war cry of "state's rights", as they did during the Terri Schiavo debacle.

I see a pattern of abuse, JMJ.



Buy, hey.....I am a mere teacher.



WTFDIK?

[jesus marion joseph]

Originally Posted by GoodSpeak

Well, that would be two republicans in America who voted properly.

Spoken like a party man.

[GoodSpeak]

Originally Posted by jesus marion joseph

Spoken like a party man.

Well, thank you, JMJ.

That is the nicest thing you've ever said to me.


We Demon-crats have never supported anything as stOOpid.

[Monte Smith]

Originally Posted by GoodSpeak

We Demon-crats have never supported anything as stOOpid.

Goody, I have little faith in your abilities, but can you understand that every Justice who can be called a "Democrat" on the Court voted to keep the federal ban on medical marijuana in place? That means your party did just what you are saying the Republicans did. And only Republicans dissented.

[GoodSpeak]

Originally Posted by Monte Smith

Goody, I have little faith in your abilities, but can you understand that every Justice who can be called a "Democrat" on the Court voted to keep the federal ban on medical marijuana in place? That means your party did just what you are saying the Republicans did. And only Republicans dissented.

Uh-huh.


Tell me, which party has an absolute death grip on American politics right now, eh?


Um.....








Monkey see, monkey do, Monte.

[Monte Smith]

Originally Posted by GoodSpeak

Tell me, which party has an absolute death grip on American politics right now, eh?

OK, but you do understand that every Justice who can be called a "Democrat" on the Court voted to keep the federal ban on medical marijuana in place? And only Republicans dissented.

I mean, all other issues aside, you do UNDERSTAND that this is what happened, right?

[RedJazz]

Originally Posted by GoodSpeak

Uh-huh.


Tell me, which party has an absolute death grip on American politics right now, eh?


Um.....








Monkey see, monkey do, Monte.

I find the blind loyalty toward the Democratic Party on the part of most progressives utterly astonishing. It would be one thing if the Democratic Party really were an opposition party, which it ain't. And the idea of supporting the lesser evil just because it's the only "practical" option is precisely the sort of thinking that has gotten us into the kind of hot water we're in now. The most fundamental problem with the lesser evil is that it's evil.

[Monte Smith]

I don't believe Goody is a lukewarm progressive toeing the party line, Red. I believe Goody is a fish in a fish bowl who gets disturbed when you tap on the glass.

[GoodSpeak]

Originally Posted by Monte Smith

OK, but you do understand that every Justice who can be called a "Democrat" on the Court voted to keep the federal ban on medical marijuana in place? And only Republicans dissented.

I mean, all other issues aside, you do UNDERSTAND that this is what happened, right?

I see.


It's the tired old "Liberal judges" routine, eh?


Oh, yeah.....that'll fly.







You betcha.

Originally Posted by Monte Smith

I don't believe Goody is a lukewarm progressive toeing the party line, Red. I believe Goody is a fish in a fish bowl who gets disturbed when you tap on the glass.

Spoken like a true radical rightist.



Well done, Monte.

[Monte Smith]

Goody, you do at least UNDERSTAND that in this instance every Justice who can be called a "Democrat" on the Court voted to keep the federal ban on medical marijuana in place and only Republicans dissented?

Nevermind the implications for a moment--you do recognize that this is the truth, correct? Just indicate yes and we will realize you are grounded however tenuously in our common reality. I promise not to tap the glass thereafter.

[RedJazz]

Originally Posted by GoodSpeak

I see.


It's the tired old "Liberal judges" routine, eh?


Oh, yeah.....that'll fly.







You betcha.



Spoken like a true radical rightist.



Well done, Monte.

Goody seems as hostile to the left as he is to the right. Unless, that is he considers Kerry, who would be considered an arch reactionary nearly everyhere else in the world a leftist.

[Monte Smith]

Originally Posted by RedJazz

Goody seems as hostile to the left as he is to the right. Unless, that is he considers Kerry, who would be considered an arch reactionary nearly everyhere else in the world a leftist.

I tell you, you are reaching too deeply for Goody's intellect.

[Gary Sisco]

Goodie doesn't even know which planet he lives on, so don't mind.

The truth is that this decision was handed down by the "liberal" justices. and thanks a lot you bunch of miserable hogs at the public trough for life. And people wonder why I couldn't give two shits about the demorrhoids, much less voting for them (or anyone in the present set up).

But the truth is, really: Who gives a fuck? The herbs have been illegal since the 30s but I haven't noticed anyone not smoking them. Who needs the okay of a buncha statists, of whatever party, and what they have to say about it. They oppose anything that gives people pleasure. That's what puritans are all about.

I've been smoking the herbs almost daily since 1968 and I'll still be smoking them the day I die, regardless.

[Dr Dave]

The Bushies did push this case. They want dope illegal, and they've shown they don't care how they do it. The Court, regardless of political leanings, was wrong. An ill woman growing some pot plants in her backyard has nothing to do with interstate commerce. Some Justices may have seen this as a crack in the door that would lead to legalization or at least decriminalization and voted accordingly. Some, including that mental giant Clarence Thomas, stuck to strict interpretation of state's rights. Thomas voted correctly, but for a dumb reason.

And, of course, Gary's right: Who gives a shit? For an illegal product that the Federal Government is throwing its might against, it is awfully easy to procure.

[Dr Dave]

Originally Posted by RedJazz

Goody seems as hostile to the left as he is to the right. Unless, that is he considers Kerry, who would be considered an arch reactionary nearly everyhere else in the world a leftist.

RedJazz: Welcome to JazzCorner. You seem like a person with his/her head on your shoulders, which is a good addition around here. You are not wrong about Goodspeak. On the other hand, there are a great many Americans (several of whom post here) who believe, rightly or wrongly, that John Kerry was and is a "liberal." Some believe this is a respectable position; others treat it as a curse word. And get ready for somebody (anybody) to make a comparison between John Kerry and Kim Jong Il, or any other notorious reactionary, and ask you how you could call Kerry an arch reactionary, etc., etc., etc.

Again, welcome.

[groover]

Originally Posted by Dr Dave

An ill woman growing some pot plants in her backyard has nothing to do with interstate commerce.

The Wickard v. Filburn comparison was weak! Really reaching for a precedent.

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2...df/03-1454.pdf