Supreme Court to hear medical pot case (Updated 3/03/05) (merged)

Edge80

Bluelighter
Joined
Jan 30, 2004
Messages
949
Supreme Court to hear medical pot case

Supreme Court to hear medical pot case

Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer


The U.S. Supreme Court, in an order that could mean bad news for medical marijuana advocates, agreed Monday to hear the Bush administration's challenge of a ruling that protects marijuana patients in California from federal prosecution.
The administration is appealing a decision in December by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco that barred federal drug agents from interfering with the growing and use of marijuana by two women, Angel Raich of Oakland and Diane Monson of Oroville.

The Supreme Court may represent marijuana advocates' last hope of fending off the federal government's attack on medical marijuana operations in California that followed passage of Proposition 215, the 1996 initiative that legalized medical use of the drug under state law. The Clinton administration moved to shut down clubs that sprang up around the state to supply marijuana to patients, and the Bush administration has escalated raids and criminal prosecutions.

However, the court has consistently rejected challenges to federal drug laws. Three years ago, the justices overturned another Ninth Circuit decision that would have allowed cannabis clubs to distribute marijuana, without risking federal prosecution, to patients who could show a medical necessity for it.

In the current case, both women had doctors' recommendations to use marijuana for their medical conditions and obtained it without charge from local supplies.

The appeals court said prosecuting them under federal drug laws would be unconstitutional because their activities did not involve interstate commerce, which Congress is authorized to regulate.

A federal judge in San Jose has already relied on that ruling to prohibit further federal enforcement action against a Santa Cruz medical marijuana collective that was raided by federal agents in 2002.

Justice Department lawyers argued, however, that all distribution of illegal drugs, including marijuana, affects interstate commerce and can be prohibited by federal law. The appellate ruling "seriously undermines Congress' comprehensive scheme for the regulation of dangerous drugs," government lawyers said in papers filed with the Supreme Court.

The court announced Monday that it would review the case in the term that starts in October, with a ruling due by June 2005.



HERE
 
Key medical pot case to be heard

By Claire Cooper
Bee Legal Affairs Writer
Tuesday, June 29, 2004

The U.S. Supreme Court will consider next term whether the federal government lacks the power to prosecute medical pot users and caregivers whose activities do not involve interstate commerce, the justices announced Monday.
The decision, expected by early next year, could provide a blueprint for legal marijuana operations in the nine states that try to protect medical users from prosecution and nine more where efforts to enact protective laws are under way.

Or, if the federal government prevails, the decision could deliver a lethal blow to the medical marijuana movement that was fired eight years ago by the approval of legalization initiatives in California and Arizona. The high court accepted the case at the urging of the Bush administration.
"I am excited, nervous and also fearful to go before the Supreme Court because there's so much at stake here. I could actually lose my life," said Angel -Raich, one of two plaintiffs in the test case.

Raich, of Oakland, uses marijuana for relief from an inoperable brain tumor and other ailments. She and Diane Monson of Oroville, who has a degenerative spine disease, initiated the legal showdown by asking a judge to enjoin federal interference with their pot supplies.

Although the medical pot legalization movement has grown rapidly, especially in the Western states, its effectiveness has been curtailed by federal raids and arrests, especially in California. The U.S. drug law, the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, makes no exception for medical use.

Ashcroft v. Raich is an attempt to break the federal-state stalemate for some users and providers. Raich and Monson argue that the federal law's reach does not extend to noncommercial cultivation and use of state-sanctioned pot wholly inside the state's borders.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in the women's favor last year, drawing on recent Supreme Court rulings. The high court has invoked principles of states' rights, or federalism, to bar federal regulation of guns, pornography and domestic violence where interstate commerce wasn't implicated.

Randy Barnett, a Boston University law professor who represented Raich and Monson in the circuit, said the upcoming review "represents a historic opportunity for the Supreme Court to affirm that federalism is not just for conservative causes."

Whatever the decision, other cases will be affected immediately.

The 9th Circuit this month returned four cases involving medical pot cooperatives to federal district judges with instructions to reconsider them in light of the final Raich decision.

Several individual defendants also have based their defenses on the 9th Circuit's Raich ruling. They include Bryan Epis of Chico, whose appeal was heard this month, and David Davidson of Oakland and Cynthia Blake of Red Bluff, who face charges in federal district court in Sacramento.

Link
 
Supreme Court hears pot challenge

Supreme Court hears pot challenge

Tuesday, June 29, 2004

By DAVID KRAVETS
Associated Press Writer

SAN FRANCISCO -- The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Monday to decide whether the federal government can prosecute sick people who smoke marijuana on the advice of a doctor.

The case involves the Bush administration's appeal of a case it lost last year involving two California women who say pot is the only drug that eases their chronic pain and other medical problems.

The case also affects Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, Oregon and Washington state, which have medical marijuana laws similar to California's allowing patients to grow, use or receive marijuana if they have a doctor's recommendation. Thirty-five states in all have passed legislation recognizing marijuana's medicinal value.

Patients' rights groups immediately hailed the high court's decision to hear the case.

"The Supreme Court has a chance to protect the rights of patients everywhere who need medical cannabis to treat their afflictions," said Steph Sherer, executive director of Americans for Safe Access.

The high court will take up the case sometime next winter.

Doctors are already free to recommend marijuana since the justices refused last fall to let the Justice Department punish physicians for discussing marijuana with their patients.

The case the Supreme Court accepted Monday began after several raids on California medical-marijuana clubs and individual growers over the past few years. Two ailing marijuana users, fearing their supplies might dry up, sued Attorney General John Ashcroft and won injunctions barring the Justice Department from prosecuting them or their suppliers.

"I'm real excited and I'm real nervous and real afraid because my life is on the line here," said one of the plaintiffs, Angel Raich, 38, of Oakland, who suffers from scoliosis, a brain tumor, chronic nausea, fatigue and pain.

She and her doctor say marijuana, which she uses every few hours, is the only thing that keeps her alive.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in San Francisco, ruled in the women's favor in December, saying the federal law outlawing marijuana does not apply to patients whose doctors have recommended the drug.

Circuit Judge Harry Pregerson wrote that states are free to adopt medical marijuana laws so long as the marijuana is not sold, transported across state lines or used for non-medicinal purposes.

He said using marijuana on a doctor's advice is "different in kind from drug trafficking."

The Bush administration appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that state laws making exceptions for medical marijuana are trumped by federal drug laws.

The federal Controlled Substances Act says marijuana, like heroin and LSD, has no medical benefits and cannot be dispensed or prescribed by doctors.

The case is Ashcroft v. Raich, 03-1454.

Link
 
Cato brief urges protection of patients' rights in medical marijuana case
Cato Institute
October 18, 2004

Can the federal government ban effective treatments for seriously ill patients?

WASHINGTON—On October 13, the Cato Institute filed a friend-of-the-court brief before the Supreme Court in the medical marijuana case, Ashcroft v. Raich, which the justices are scheduled to hear on November 29. The case asks the Court to uphold a California law legalizing physician-prescribed medical marijuana.

Cato's brief is written by Professor Douglas W. Kmiec, a highly respected conservative legal scholar and a top constitutional lawyer for Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Kmiec, a former dean of Catholic University Law School, is a professor of constitutional law at Pepperdine University Law School.

"This case asks key questions about the proper role of the federal government," says Mark Moller, editor-in-chief of the Cato Supreme Court Review and co-counsel for Cato in this case. "Angel Raich, like many others in chronic, severe pain, has no effective remedy unless medicinal marijuana remains available. Yet the federal government wants to take away Ms. Raich's medication, based on spurious claims that her treatment somehow 'affects' the national 'economy.'"

"That argument is not just short on compassion, it's wrong on the law," adds Moller. "Under our Constitution, health care decisions like Ms. Raich's are a matter for physicians and their patients — not government bureaucrats in Washington."

According to the friend-of-the-court brief filed by the Cato Institute, the case offers the Court the opportunity to "keep faith" with the Constitution, by "protecting California['s] . . . power to address the individual health needs of her citizens."

Marijuana is effective in curing the debilitating side-effects of cancer treatment and in combating chronic illnesses like AIDS, anorexia, and multiple sclerosis. Its availability is a matter of life-or-death for Angel Raich — who suffers from scoliosis and an inoperable brain tumor.

The case could have implications for all Americans, not just Californians. Thirty-five states have passed laws recognizing the medicinal value of marijuana. "If the federal government can interfere with the doctor-patient relationship where there is no national interest at stake," warns Moller, "then citizens will have lost an important freedom — control over their own health and well-being."

For more information on Raich's case or to arrange an interview with Moller, contact the Cato media relations department at 202-789-5200 or [email protected].

Link
 
UPDATE

US Supreme Court to Hear Medicinal Marijuana Case
PolitInfo.com
Nov 13, 2004

Doctors in some parts of the United States have prescribed marijuana to people suffering from a variety of medical conditions; from glaucoma patients to cancer victims undergoing painful chemotherapy. Though it is used for medicinal purposes in many parts of the world, marijuana remains illegal in most countries.

Eleven U.S. states currently allow the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes. The issue was also voted on in three states in the November election. It won passage in the northern state of Montana. But voters in the western state of Oregon turned down an initiative for strengthening an existing law that currently allows medicinal marijuana use. And an initiative for outright legalization failed in Alaska.

The case before the Supreme Court, Raich et. al. vs. Ashcroft, stems from a California woman's appeal of her conviction under a federal narcotics law - the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 - that prohibits the distribution and sale of marijuana and other illegal drugs across state lines. She and her co-defendants contend their home-grown plants were not being sold to people in other states and are therefore not in violation of the federal law regulating "commerce among the states."

Steph Shere is the executive director of the advocacy group, Americans for Safe Access. She says the federal law should not be enforced, especially in the more than eleven states, including California, that protect medical marijuana users from being prosecuted for drug trafficking:

"The argument can be made for a patient who's living in California that's growing their own medicine, there's no interstate commerce that's happening. So therefore, the federal government does not have the jurisdiction to step in and interfere in these laws."

She says marijuana can be used for relief from a variety of illnesses, including multiple sclerosis.

"Everything from helping chronic pain to being used as an anti-nausea medication. It is also used by M.S. patients to stop tremors and muscle spasticity. Scientists in Israel have found that the cannabinoid in the marijuana plant could actually be the precursor to stopping the on-set of Alzheimer's."

Ms. Schere's claims run counter to the view of U.S. government medical professionals. David Murray, with the National Drug Control Policy office, says marijuana in its dried leaf form - provides no proven medicinal benefits.

"Smoked marijuana has never qualified as an accepted or proved medicine, has never demonstrated, by the standard criteria any new drug would have to go through before being approved, that it is safe to be used and that it is effective."

But Mr. Murray adds that the U.S. government is still evaluating whether the chemical compounds in marijuana might be broken down for their possible medical value.

"Research is going forward to identify cannabinoid active ingredients that can be purified, regulated, standardized and dosed the threatening and risky elements removed and perhaps they could be turned into effective medicines for particular medical conditions. I think those trials are underway and so far, the results are promising but not convincing as yet."

In Britain, the law says cannabis can only be produced, possessed or supplied for research purposes under government license. G.W. Pharmaceuticals is one of the main British companies involved in cannabis drug trials. Company spokesman Mark Rogerson says G.W.'s product; called Sativex is currently awaiting regulatory approval in the United Kingdom.

"Approvals in the U.K. take between 12 and 18 months. That's par for the course if you like. The 18th month milestone was passed a month or so ago. So that's why we hope very much that we're in the final stages."

Mr. Rogerson says the medicine is derived from a whole plant extract, meaning it contains the two main ingredients of marijuana. It is administered as a mouth spray. If it is accepted in Britain, approval for other European countries' markets will likely follow. But he concedes the United States is a difficult and expensive market in which approval for the new drug is less certain.

"We fully recognize that the U.S. is a huge opportunity for us. But at the moment, our thinking is: let's work in areas where the practical barriers to entry are a bit lower, for example, the European Union and the Commonwealth. We'll save the United States for when we're a bit bigger and stronger."

The drug is also awaiting approval in Canada. In the meantime, the government's Health Canada agency says dried marijuana is distributed through legal avenues as a compassionate gesture to sick people. The drug is ordered from a government-funded and controlled cannabis plantation. But Canadian government scientists are still studying this program to make sure that the medical marijuana is both safe and effective.

An Israeli pharmaceutical company, Pharmos, is also testing a variant on the active ingredient in marijuana. The developer was scheduled to complete trials in September and hoped to follow with a U.S. Food & Drug Administration review that is expected to extend into 2006.

Experts are uncertain whether this month's Supreme Court hearing will lay the groundwork for tougher laws against medicinal marijuana use or provide a blueprint for future legal distribution of the drug. In either case, health activists, social policy makers and international drug companies will be awaiting the Court's final ruling with great interest.

Link
 
More about Angel Raich

FIGHTING FOR THE RIGHT TO "MIRACLE" MARIJUANA
Angel Raich Found a 'Miracle' In Medical Marijuana. Now She's Asking the Supreme Court to Uphold Her Right to Smoke It.
By Carol Mithers, Los Angeles Times
Sun, 14 Nov 2004

Angel Raich flicks a butane lighter at the bowl of a small glass pipe, inhales deeply, then, in deference to a guest, blows the pungent smoke out the window of the sitting room in her three-story Oakland home. "Without cannabis, I would not survive," she says.

The room is pale blue and filled with ceramic angels.

Beside the lavender couch on which Raich sits, a table holds 11 small glass jars of medical-quality marijuana--strains that growers have named Juicy Fruit and Haze. Alas, her favorite, Romulen, "which is really strong," is all used up.

Raich, 39 years old, 5 feet, 4 inches tall, just 100 pounds, with skin the color and translucence of skim milk, is smoking with her physician's blessing. According to the doctor, she suffers from a staggering array of ailments, including chronic severe pain ( from scoliosis, temporomandibular joint dysfunction and endometriosis ), nausea, life-threatening weight loss, seizures, fibromyalgia and an inoperable brain tumor. "I hurt--every second of every day," she says. "I wouldn't wish my body on my worst enemy." The lighter flares again.

Marijuana doesn't get Raich high--it hasn't in a long time--and it doesn't kill her pain, but it blunts it, loosens her muscles and joints and gives her some appetite.

She goes through some 9 pounds of the drug a year. She smokes or vaporizes about every two hours, and eats marijuana-laced food. She also massages herself with cannabis oils and balms.

In her words, she is "medicating," in accordance with California's Proposition 215, which passed in 1996 and allows marijuana use if recommended by a doctor. According to federal law, however, she's committing a crime.

The U.S. government doesn't recognize any legitimate use of marijuana, so it remains a Schedule I drug, along with heroin and Ecstasy.

This clash of laws, for eight years the cause of much friction between California and federal authorities, will now be resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court--because Raich forced the issue.

In October 2002, Raich, two growers who supply her with marijuana free of charge, and Diane Monson, another medical cannabis patient, filed suit against U.S. Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft and Asa Hutchinson, then head of the Drug Enforcement Administration. They asked for a court injunction to stop federal government arrests and prosecutions of those who grow, possess or use marijuana for medical reasons.

They lost in District Court, but the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision in December 2003, ruling that states could adopt medical marijuana laws if the drug wasn't sold, transported across state lines or used for nonmedicinal purposes.

The federal government then filed its appeal, and the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. Oral arguments are scheduled for Nov. 29.

The court's decision will have national implications. California was the first state to allow the medical use of marijuana, but Arkansas, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Nevada, Oregon and Washington now have similar laws. California likely has the most medical cannabis patients--surprisingly, no one keeps official records, but estimates run from 30,000 to 100,000--as well as an organized and angry pro-cannabis movement. The result has been an ongoing fight that has included busts of patients and pot "dispensaries," and sometimes bizarre law enforcement clashes. An August 2002 raid on Monson's Butte County, Calif., home, for instance, featured a three-hour standoff between DEA agents, who wanted to destroy six marijuana plants, and the county district attorney, who ordered local deputies to protect the weed, at gunpoint if necessary.

Ultimately he was overruled by the U.S. attorney's office in Washington, D.C., and agents chopped down the plants with axes while Monson stood nearby reading aloud the complete text of Proposition 215.

Acting Solicitor General Paul D. Clement, who is arguing Ashcroft vs. Raich for the attorney general, won't comment on the case. His legal brief, however, maintains that exempting medical marijuana from federal drug law would increase drug trafficking, decrease "the incentives for research and development into new legitimate drugs" and "undermine Congress' intent to regulate the drug market to protect public health and safety."

Raich sees the potential loss of the case--and her drugs--in even starker terms. Without marijuana, she says, she will be in constant, excruciating pain, unable to eat and in real danger of death through malnutrition or starvation. "It will mean that the federal government can execute me," she says flatly. "I will have to the leave the country, because I will not be safe here."

Raich is very much the public face of the case that bears her name. For understandable reasons, the marijuana growers involved aren't interested in speaking out--in fact, both sued as John Doe, with their real names kept under seal. Monson, 47, an accountant who has used cannabis to treat back spasms since 1999, says she only wants "to be left alone to pursue my health and happiness. I feel very much forced into my legal actions by the federal government. I led a very private life until the raid on my house."

Raich not only wants to talk, she also has a publicist and courts the press. The "why" is complex.

Certainly she's a true believer.

Medical marijuana, she says, eased her pain, freed her from the disability that trapped her in a wheelchair, literally saved her life. She calls it "my miracle." She also says she found "a new family" in the medical cannabis community, and recognized its fight as the life mission she'd long been searching for. "I'm on the front lines," she declares repeatedly. "I've been a warrior all my life. I fully comprehend the gravity of what I'm doing. I'm trying to save us all."

As Raich tells it, most of her life was a gothic horror.

She was born and raised in working-class Stockton. Her parents divorced when she was 4. In need of day care, her mother, a dental assistant, asked her parents to watch Angel and a younger sibling.

Soon after and until she finished fifth grade, "my grandfather molested me, threatened me, locked me in closets, held me down, forced me to do things I don't want to go into and you wouldn't print if I did," she says. "It was constant." Relations with her mother, who had remarried twice, deteriorated, and two weeks before her 16th birthday, Raich left home.

She married her high school boyfriend at 18; it was a relationship she describes as violent.

The couple worked as apartment managers, moving from Stockton to Sacramento to Lodi. By 24, Angel had two children; by 25, she had left her husband.

With her kids, she moved again, worked briefly as a massage therapist for a chiropractor, remarried and found an accounting job with a firm that handled billing for trucking companies.

Meanwhile, her health was disintegrating. She'd always been sickly--at 12, scoliosis ( curvature of the spine ) had required a full-body brace, and during her teens she'd had several surgeries for endometriosis. She also suffered from asthma.

An accident during a brief stint at a lumber mill had left her with a rotator cuff injury in one shoulder, and two car accidents and a fall had further damaged her back. Then in 1995, when she was 30, her endometriosis flared up, and a doctor prescribed birth control pills.

She'd had a bad reaction to the pill once before, but agreed to try it again.

It was a disaster. "By the second day, my right leg was starting to swell.

By the third, it was getting bright red. Over a period of days, it became purple, and it was burning hot. When I tried to walk, I had to drag it. The doctors couldn't figure out what it was."

Before long, the paralysis had spread to the whole right side of her body. Fully disabled and in a wheelchair, she was in constant pain, but every drug physicians prescribed--acetominophen with codeine, Vicodin, Hydrocodone, methadone and Fentanyl--brought horrendous side effects or allergic reactions such as shakes, hot flashes, itching and intense, continual vomiting.

At one point, "angry at God," she tried to cut her wrists. Unfortunately, she says wryly, "I could only use one arm." Then a nurse at a hospital where she was being treated quietly suggested that she try cannabis.

Raich says she opposed recreational drug use, and the suggestion initially offended her. But what happened next is recounted almost as myth. "My daughter would cry at night. 'Mommy, why can't you do the things that other mommies do? Why can't you play with me?' The suffering I saw in her eyes broke my heart. I had to stop it. I got on the computer and started researching."

The pot that "a family member" bought for her on the street eased the pain a bit and gave Raich the push to ask her doctor for a recommendation. ( Proposition 215 had passed the year before. ) Her husband drove her to a medical marijuana "dispensary," the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative. With its better-quality product, she says, "I started getting surges through my legs. I began to move my fingers a little bit. I knew I had found a miracle."

But in 1998, the federal government sued to close the cannabis cooperative, saying that by distributing marijuana, it was violating the 1970 Controlled Substances Act ( which makes marijuana illegal to manufacture, distribute, dispense or possess with intent to manufacture, distribute or dispense ), and a protracted legal battle began.

Raich was infuriated. She found her own sources, continued to "medicate," and her health continued to improve. By August 1999 she was out of her wheelchair, single again, living in the Bay Area and reborn as a medical cannabis activist.

"The night I tried to kill myself, when I asked God why I had to suffer, I got an answer: 'You can't end suffering if you don't know what suffering is.' The OCBC was like a world opening up to me--I realized that it was where I belonged.

This was part of my destiny, to try to help other patients." Raich volunteered to talk to media, and joined the Medical Cannabis Working Group, which helped the city develop guidelines for the dispensaries and police.

When the cooperative's attorneys took their legal fight to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2001, arguing that the cooperative was distributing marijuana on the basis of medical necessity, Raich became a "spokespatient." By then, cannabis had even given her a new relationship--she and one of the cooperative's lead attorneys, Robert Raich, had fallen in love. They married the next year; Angel's children, now 16 and 18, live with them.

The Supreme Court ruled against the cooperative, and though the court explicitly noted that it was deciding only whether it was legal to dispense marijuana to others, not the legality of possession for personal medical use, raids on patients soon began.

Since September 2001, "about half the federal government's marijuana prosecutions in Northern California have focused on medical cannabis," says Robert Raich. Activists in particular felt targeted, and Angel Raich, who had declared on national television that she wouldn't obey any law that kept her from using cannabis, says she "always wondered when I'd be woken up by my door getting kicked in." In October 2002, Robert Raich, along with David M. Michael, a San Francisco criminal defense attorney, and Randy E. Barnett, an attorney specializing in constitutional law and professor at Boston University School of Law, filed the current suit.

"Angel's effort to enjoin the federal government has to be one of the most courageous steps taken in our movement," says Jeff Jones, co-founder and executive director of the cooperative. He compares the case to Roe vs. Wade.

The strictly legal conflict of Ashcroft vs. Raich is hardly the stuff of drama. In essence, it concerns whether applying the Controlled Substances Act to marijuana grown and possessed within a state, and for which no money changes hands, is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which regulates interstate trade.

The cannabis activists assert that states have the right to regulate conduct that occurs solely within their borders; the federal government says it must regulate controlled substances within states in order to combat national drug trafficking.

But underlying the dispute is a more basic--and controversial--question: Is or isn't marijuana legitimate medicine?

Activists such as Angel Raich call cannabis a wonder drug that has been vilified by both Democratic and Republican administrations for political reasons and to protect pharmaceutical industry profits. ( There are no patents on marijuana plants. ) The federal government and those involved in anti-drug efforts vehemently disagree.

In his brief, Solicitor General Clement argues that the Federal Drug Administration "has never approved marijuana as safe and effective for any medical use." A brief filed on behalf of Ashcroft by a coalition of groups including the Drug Free America Foundation Inc., the Drug Free Schools Coalition and Save Our Society From Drugs calls the idea "a step backward to the times of potions and herbal remedies" and claims that sanctioning medical marijuana use would make the drug appear less harmful to the public--and thus lead to its increased abuse.

"Patients who have been misled into believing smoked marijuana provides a safe and effective therapeutic benefit have been misled and exploited by those in the drug legalization movement who know emotional appeals--based on faulty scientific claims--can best achieve their end goals," says Rep. Mark E. Souder ( R-Ind. ), chair of the House Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources, who with six other representatives also submitted a brief. "If proponents of 'medical' marijuana truly believed that smoking the drug was safe and effective, they would have submitted their data to the FDA."

Scientific examination of these competing claims has failed to issue the definitive blessing or curse both sides would like. Beginning in the 1980s, researchers identified brain and immune system receptors for cannabinoids, the active compounds found in marijuana, which seem to have a natural role in pain moderation. A synthetic version of the cannabinoid THC became available in the late '80s to treat chemotherapy-induced nausea.

Medical cannabis activists claim that these single-cannabinoid synthetics are poor substitutes for the marijuana plant, which contains hundreds of compounds, and are needlessly expensive. ( One synthetic, Marinol, currently sells for about $17 a pill. )

In 1988, after the DEA held two years of public hearings on pot's medicinal value, the agency's chief administrative law judge concluded that marijuana, in its natural form, "is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man," and recommended its reclassification to Schedule II, which would allow doctors to prescribe it. ( The DEA declined the advice. )

In 1997, the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy asked the Institute of Medicine, a component of the National Academy of Sciences, to review scientific literature on the drug. Its eventual conclusion was that "the accumulated data indicate a potential therapeutic value for cannabinoid drugs," and that while many conditions could be treated more effectively with other medications, "there will likely always be a subpopulation of patients who do not respond well to [them]." There was "no conclusive evidence" that smoking marijuana was linked to using other illicit drugs and "no convincing data" that sanctioning medical marijuana would increase its use in the general population.

The Institute of Medicine did condemn smoking as inherently dangerous and specified the need for a smoke-free way to ingest cannabinoids--but also noted that until one was developed, "there is no clear alternative for people suffering from chronic conditions that might be relieved by smoking marijuana, such as pain or AIDS wasting."

It seems fair to say that whatever happens in Ashcroft vs. Raich in court, the federal government has lost the marijuana PR war. According to its legal brief, 25.8 million Americans--about 1 in 11--use marijuana.

A 2002 Time/CNN poll found that 80% of Americans thought adults should be able to use cannabis legally for medical purposes.

In July 2003, Medscape, a website for medical professionals, reported that according to its poll, 3 of 4 doctors and 9 of 10 nurses said they favored decriminalization of marijuana for medical use.

Angel Raich plans to be in Washington when the Supreme Court hears her case. It will be her moment.

At home, her poor health keeps her from doing much, but what energy she has goes to the medical cannabis movement.

For three years, she's headed a nonprofit organization, Angel Wings Patient OutReach, which advocates for the rights of medical cannabis users--and has partly funded her legal battle.

Though it's clear that she's deeply invested in the fight and in her "warrior" identity, she says that all she really wants is for it to end. "Look, I had a really hard life," she says. "I want more than anything to be happy.

To feel safe. To spend time with my children and give them what I never had.

"I don't like using cannabis.

Sometimes I feel like it's taken over my life--if I wasn't using it, I wouldn't be going through all this. But I have the right to be free of pain, and it's not like I have a choice how. Believe me, if I could just take a pill, I would."

Link
 
Last edited:
Upcoming Supreme Court case may shape medipot industry
Patchwork of laws has led to a few foothills shops
By Penne Usher, Auburn Journal Staff Writer
Thursday, November 25, 2004

It will most likely take the decision of the Supreme Court to determine if California's medical marijuana law is legal, but that hasn't stopped a dispensary in Colfax from operating.

"It appears as if under state law there can be certain allowances for the disbursement," said Brad Fenocchio, Placer County district attorney. "At the county level, is this disbursement illegal? Under federal law it is, but under state law it is somewhat contentious."

A case before the U.S. Supreme Court, Raich vs. Ashcroft, could put dispensaries in several counties out of business, permanently. Arguments in the case are expected to be heard beginning Monday.

Two patients with medical conditions, who under California law can use medical marijuana on the recommendation of their physicians, initiated the Raich case.

A proposed shop in Nevada County near Alta Sierra never made it past the permit stage and one in Roseville was raided last month. However, a shop in Placerville got the go-ahead from the city council at a Tuesday meeting.

"They had applied for a permit to operate under our ordinance, which is similar to Auburn's," said John Driscoll, Placerville's city manager. "They were denied the permit, but approved a variance with conditions imposed by the council."

In determining whether to approve the permit the council decided the shop would be too close to a school and a church, "as a crow flies." However, Driscoll explained there are several buildings and obstacles between the business and school that must be circumvented. Based on this information, the council approved the variance.

"The variance and permit will not be immediately operational to ensure it is a legal activity," Driscoll said. "If at the federal level it is preempted and invalid, they will not be able to operate."

As for the Nevada County shop, it didn't make it out of the permit phase either.

"There was no crime committed," said Michael Ferguson, Nevada County district attorney. "It didn't open, (most likely) because of the permit (issue) and the county."

He said much confusion around dispensaries arises from the shops selling marijuana and other "token services" and claim to be a primary caregiver.

Section 11362.5 of California's Health and Safety Code, the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, is to "ensure that seriously ill Californians have the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes where that medical use is deemed appropriate and has been recommended by a physician."

Confusion in the interpretation of the law arises in the section of the code that discusses "primary caregiver."

A primary caregiver, according to the code, reads in part, "the individual designated by a qualified patient or by a person with an identification card, who has consistently assumed responsibility for the housing, health or safety of that patient or person."

Some in the area are opposed to the idea of a "pot shop" anywhere in Placer County.

"I see no point in the shops," said Carl Greenburg, 47, of Auburn. "It seems to me that they are being abused and not used exclusively for medial purposes."

Proponents argue the rights of patients to be free from government influence when it pertains to their medications.

"(This is) about whether the federal government can and should treat an American citizen like a criminal for using a medicine that's been approved by her doctor, validated in scientific studies and legalized by state law," said Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance, in a press release.

Cities and counties have been addressing the shops as they attempt to open to ensure they comply with various local ordinances.

Fenocchio said since there hasn't been any complaints about the Colfax shop, there is not reason at this point to be concerned.

"We haven't seen any complaints come through the office," he said. "We respond based on complaints."

The Nevada County medicinal marijuana store came to the attention of neighboring businesses concerned about the shop's intents to sell starter plants and have a smoking room. The business reportedly did not fit the definition of a highway commercial business.

"In my humble opinion, it is illegal under state law unless the person running the operation is a primary caregiver," Ferguson said.

Link
 
Medical-pot fight goes to justices

Medical-pot fight goes to justices

By Richard Willing
USA TODAY
11-25-04

Angel Raich, a 39-year-old mother of two, smokes marijuana eight times a day in her Oakland home. She does it to relieve pain from a brain tumor and more than a dozen other maladies. And she does it with her doctor's blessing and the permission of the state of California, which allows medical patients to use the otherwise illegal weed if recommended by a physician.

Since 1996, California and 11 other states have passed laws that ease or eliminate sanctions for the medicinal use of pot. But the federal government says it still has the right to prosecute Raich and patients like her because federal law considers pot a harmful drug without proven medical benefits.

On Monday, in a lawsuit brought by Raich and another patient, the U.S. Supreme Court takes up a question that a growing number of medical marijuana users say is critical to their physical well-being and that the federal government says is important to its war against illegal drugs: When it comes to pot and patients, does federal or state law rule?

'Couldn't go on' without it

"I understand that my case brings up an interesting point of law that fascinates judges and lawyers," says Raich, whose husband, Robert, is one of the lawyers on her case. "But for me, it's a matter of life and death. With cannabis, I can play with my kids, walk without a wheelchair, sometimes even get a few hours sleep at night. Without it, I couldn't go on for very long."

Despite a drug war waged by the Bush administration and the Clinton administration before it, marijuana remains a big illegal business. In 2000, Americans bought about $10.5 billion worth of marijuana from drug dealers, according to an estimate by the Office of National Drug Control Policy. Last year, the FBI recorded 755,286 marijuana arrests — an all-time high. Most arrests were for simple possession.

California voters approved the state's "compassionate use" act by voting in 1996 to keep marijuana illegal except for patients under a doctor's care. Raich, a self-described "proper conservative mom," tried pot a year later at the suggestion of a nurse. According to papers filed by Raich's physician in her Supreme Court case, Raich suffers from scoliosis, severe chronic pain, joint dysfunction, endometriosis, fibromyalgia, non-epileptic seizures, an inoperable brain tumor, a uterine fibroid tumor and post-traumatic stress disorder, among other ailments.

Raich smokes marijuana in a pipe, eats it with her food and applies it to her body as a salve at the rate of 3 ounces a week. She says it curtails pain, eases breathing and has improved joint function. Synthetic forms of marijuana, which are permitted by federal law, are ineffective, Raich says. That's a common complaint of medical marijuana users.

The Clinton administration refused to recognize California's law and moved to shut down cooperatives that were set up in Oakland and other communities to grow and distribute pot to patients. Cases challenging that action are moving through federal courts.

The Bush administration went further, however, and conducted raids to destroy marijuana grown for use by patients. In August 2002 in Oroville, Calif., a local district attorney blocked attempts by federal agents to destroy marijuana plants before the U.S. Justice Department ordered him to step aside. The owner of the plants, Diane Monson, a spinal-disease sufferer, joined Raich in filing suit to block the federal government from enforcing federal marijuana laws against California patients.

The medical marijuana users lost in U.S. District Court but won in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, based in San Francisco. In a 2-1 decision, the appeals court found that using federal drug law to trump California's medical pot provision is an overreach that is "likely unconstitutional"

In briefs filed with the Supreme Court, the Justice Department argues that the wording in the Constitution that allows the federal government to regulate interstate commerce permits it to trump any state law that permits drug use. Pot grown in California for local use must be considered to be interstate commerce, acting Solicitor General Paul Clement says. Locally grown drugs can readily enter the interstate market and cannot be differentiated from drugs produced for drug dealers, he says. Allowing the federal government to criminalize locally grown pot is vital to control illicit trafficking, Clement argues.

Opponents of legalized marijuana have joined the case by filing briefs that support the government. The Drug Free America Foundation notes that under federal law, marijuana — like heroin and Ecstasy — is a drug with "no currently accepted medical use."

'Trojan horse'

The foundation argues that the concept of medical marijuana is a "Trojan horse" that could open the way to making all pot legal by exploiting public sympathy for the sick. Raw marijuana, the foundation's brief says, is not an approved medicine. It is a dangerous drug with "proven negative effects" on users, including disease sufferers.

Lawyers for Raich and Monson counter that growing pot locally for a patient's own medicinal use is not an economic activity that the Constitution's commerce clause covers. Attorney Robert Long cites several opinions that indicate marijuana has been found to be an effective medicine in some cases.

Quoting from a 1992 case that upheld a federal right to abortion, Long writes that suffering by marijuana users "is too intimate and personal for the (federal government) to insist ... upon its own vision."

The case could put conservatives on the Supreme Court on the spot. Since the mid-1990s, Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas have trimmed federal attempts to enter areas, such as gun regulation and pornography, that traditionally have been covered by state or local ordinances.

But to do so in this case, notes Kermit Roosevelt, law professor at the University of Pennsylvania, would place the conservatives on the side of pot smoking.

Rory Little, a former federal prosecutor who teaches at the University of California's Hastings College of Law in San Francisco, says it "will be tough" for the medical marijuana side to overcome a 62-year-old Supreme Court precedent. In a 1942 case, an Ohio farmer growing wheat for his own use was deemed to be participating in interstate commerce — and therefore subject to federal controls.

link
 
Supreme Court and Medical Marijuana

High Court to Hear Medical Marijuana Case

WASHINGTON - Angel Raich tried dozens of prescription medicines to ease the pain of a brain tumor and other illnesses before she took up another drug: pot. The 39-year-old mother of two has the support of her doctor and a California medical marijuana law when she uses a blend of a marijuana variety known as "Haze X" every few hours.


Dozens of people camped out outside the Supreme Court, some with blankets, to hear justices debate Monday whether that's enough to protect Raich from the federal government, which makes no exceptions for the seriously ill in its war on drugs.

Groups such as the Drug Free America Foundation fear a government loss in this case will undermine campaigns against addictive drugs.


Supporters of Raich and another ill woman who filed a lawsuit after her home was raided by federal agents argue that people with the AIDS (news - web sites) virus, cancer and other diseases should be able to grow and use marijuana.


Besides California, nine other states allow people to use marijuana if their doctors agree: Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington. Arizona also has a law permitting marijuana prescriptions, but no active program.


After hearing the arguments, the Supreme Court will consider whether the federal law that bans marijuana possession can be enforced in those states.


The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (news - web sites) had ruled against the government in a divided opinion that found federal prosecution of medical marijuana users is unconstitutional if the marijuana is not sold, transported across state lines or used for non-medicinal purposes.


Lawyers for Raich and Diane Monson contend the government has no justification for pursuing ill small-scale users. Raich, an Oakland, Calif., mother of two teenagers, has scoliosis, a brain tumor, chronic nausea and other illnesses. Monson, a 47-year-old accountant who lives near Oroville, Calif., has degenerative spine disease and grows her own marijuana plants in her backyard.


"The federal government has no compelling interest in condemning Angel Raich and Diane Monson to avoidable suffering and even death," their lawyers told justices in a court filing.


The Bush administration argues that Congress has found no accepted medical use of marijuana and needs to be able to eradicate drug trafficking and its social harms.


The Supreme Court ruled three years ago that the government could prosecute distributors of medical marijuana despite their claim that the activity was protected by "medical necessity."


Dozens of groups have weighed in on the latest case, which deals with users and is much more sweeping.


Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi, conservative states that do not have medical marijuana laws, sided with the marijuana users on grounds that the federal government was trying to butt into state business of providing "for the health, safety, welfare and morals of their citizens."


Some Republican members of Congress, meanwhile, urged the court to consider that more than 20,000 people die each year because of drug abuse. A ruling against the government, they said, would help drug traffickers avoid arrest, increase the marijuana supply and send a message that illegal drugs are good.


California's 1996 medical marijuana law allows people to grow, smoke or obtain marijuana for medical needs with a doctor's recommendation.


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. But Oregon rejected a measure that would have dramatically expanded its existing medical marijuana program.


The case is Ashcroft v. Raich, 03-1454.


http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041129/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_medical_marijuana_4
 
Justices appear unlikely to OK medical use of marijuana
By Stephen Henderson, Knight Ridder Newspapers
11/29/04

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?"

Link
 
Excerpts of Medical Marijuana Arguments
By The Associated Press
11/29/2004

Excerpts from Monday's Supreme Court oral argument on medical marijuana, as transcribed by Alderson Reporting Co.:

JUSTICE SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR: "As I understand it, if California's law applies, then none of this homegrown or medical-use marijuana will be on any interstate market. And it is in the area of something traditionally regulated by states."

ACTING SOLICITOR GENERAL PAUL CLEMENT: "Well, Justice O'Connor, let me first say that I think it might be a bit optimistic to think that none of the marijuana that's produced consistent with California law would be diverted into the national market for marijuana. And, of course, the Controlled Substances Act is concerned, at almost every step of the act, with a concern about diversion, both of lawful substances from medical to nonmedical uses and from controlled substances under Schedule I into the national market."

___

CLEMENT: "Any little island of lawful possession of noncontraband marijuana, for example, poses a real challenge to the statutory regime. It would also, I think, frustrate Congress' goal in promoting health. And I think the clearest example of that is the fact that, to the extent there is anything beneficial, health-wise, in marijuana, it's THC, which has been isolated and provided in a pill form."

JUSTICE RUTH BADER GINSBURG: "There is, in this record, a showing that, for at least one of the two plaintiffs, there were some 30-odd drugs taken. None of them worked. This was the only one that would. ... If there were to be a prosecution of any of the plaintiffs in this case, would there be any defense?"

CLEMENT: "Well, Justice Ginsburg, I think we would take the position, based on our reading of the (2001) Oakland Cannabis case _ and, obviously, different justices on this court read the opinion differently and had different views on the extent to which the medical-necessity defense was foreclosed by that opinion _ I would imagine the federal government, in that case, if it took the unlikely step of bringing the prosecution in the first place, would be arguing that, on the authority of Oakland Cannabis, the medical-necessity defense was not available."

___

CLEMENT: "There's something like 400 different chemical components in crude marijuana that one would smoke, and it just sort of belies any logic that all 400 of those would be helpful. ... Smoked marijuana doesn't have much of a future as medicine is, as I think people understand, smoking is harmful. And that's true of tobacco, but it's also true of marijuana. And so the idea that smoked marijuana would be an effective delivery device for medicine, I think, is also something that really doesn't have any future as medicine."

___

RANDY BARNETT, representing two ill California women: "If you accept the government's definition of economic, then washing dishes, today, would be economic, and that would be within the power of Congress to reach."

JUSTICE DAVID H. SOUTER: "You say it's noneconomic because one of these people is a self-grower, another one is getting it from a friend for nothing. But I don't see what reason that you have given, or any reason that you haven't given, for us to believe that, out of _ now I'm going to assume, for the sake of argument, 100,000 potential users _ everybody is going to get it from a friend or from plants in the back yard. Seems to me the sensible assumption is they're going to get it on the street. And once they get it, under California law, it's not a crime for them to have it and use it. But they're going to get it in the street."

BARNETT: "They have a very strong incentive not to get it on the street, because getting it on the street is going to subject them to criminal prosecution, under both California and federal law. ... We are talking about a class of people here who are sick people, who don't necessarily want to violate the law."

SOUTER: "And if I am a sick person, I'm going to say, `Look, if they're not prosecuting every kid who buys, what, a nickel bag or whatever you call a small quantity today, they're not going to prosecute me, either.' I mean, there's not going to be any incentive, it seems to me, to avoid the street market."

___

JUSTICE STEPHEN BREYER: "You know, he grows heroin, cocaine, tomatoes that are going to have genomes in them that could, at some point, lead to tomato children that will eventually affect Boston. You know, we can _ oil that's never, in fact, being used, but we want an inventory of it, federally. You know, I can multiply the examples. And you can, too. So you're going to get around all those examples by saying what?"

BARNETT: "By saying that it's all going to depend on the regulatory scheme."

___

JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA: "Congress has applied this theory in other contexts. One is the protection of endangered species. Congress has made it unlawful to possess ivory, for example. It doesn't matter whether you got it lawfully or not. Or eagle feathers, the mere possession of it, whether you got it through interstate commerce or not. And Congress' reasoning is, `We can't tell whether it came through interstate commerce or not, and to try to prove that is just beyond our ability; and, therefore, it is unlawful to possess it, period.' Now, are those laws, likewise, unconstitutional, as going beyond Congress' commerce power?"

BARNETT: "Not if they're an essential part of a larger regulatory scheme that would be undercut, unless those activities are reached. ... This class of activities _ because it's been isolated by the state of California and is policed by the state of California, so that it's entirely separated from the market."

Content Provided By A.P.

Link
 
Court questions possible abuse of pot laws

Court questions possible abuse of pot laws

11/29/2004,
By GINA HOLLAND
The Associated Press



WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court questioned whether state medical marijuana laws might be abused by people who aren't really sick as it debated Monday whether the federal government can prosecute patients who smoke pot on doctors' orders.


The stakes are high on both the government level — 11 states have passed medical marijuana laws since 1996 — and the personal.

In the courtroom watching the argument were Angel Raich, an Oakland, Calif., mother of two who said she tried dozens of prescription medicines to ease the pain of a brain tumor before she turned to marijuana, and another ill woman, Diane Monson. They filed a lawsuit to protect their access to the drug after federal agents confiscated marijuana plants from Monson's yard.

Their attorney, Randy Barnett of Boston, told the justices his clients are law-abiding citizens who need marijuana to survive. "When people are sick and people are suffering and people are dying, they may be willing to run the risk of these long-term harms in order to get the immediate relief, the lifesaving relief that cannabis has demonstrably been able to provide," he said.

The justices refused three years ago to protect distributors of medical marijuana from federal anti-drug charges. They are confronting a more personal issue this time — the power of federal agents to go after sick people who use homegrown cannabis with their doctors' permission and their states' approval.

A defeat for the two California women might undermine laws passed by California and 10 other states and discourage other states from approving their own.

A loss for the government, on the other hand, could jeopardize federal oversight of illegal drugs and raise questions in other areas such as product safety and environmental activities. A Bush administration lawyer told the justices they would be encouraging people to use potentially harmful marijuana if they were to side with the women.

"If they're right, then I think their analysis would extend to recreational use of marijuana, as well as medical use of marijuana, and would extend to every state in the nation, not just those states that made it lawful," said Paul Clement, acting solicitor general.

Justice David H. Souter said an estimated 10 percent of people in America use illegal drugs, and states with medical marijuana laws might not be able to stop recreational users from taking advantage.

Justice Stephen Breyer said the government makes a strong argument that as many as 100,000 sick people use marijuana in California, and "when we see medical marijuana in California, we won't know what it is. Everybody'll say, `Mine is medical.' Certificates will circulate on the black market. We face a mess."

And Justice Antonin Scalia said there are many people with "alleged medical needs."

Despite the tenor of the debate, the case is hard to predict. The justices will rule before next summer.

The marijuana users won in the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled that federal prosecution of medical marijuana users is unconstitutional if the pot is not sold, transported across state lines or used for nonmedicinal purposes.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the federal government has a stake in interstate commerce, but with the California medical marijuana patients: "Nobody's buying anything. Nobody's selling anything."

Her colleague, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, observed that homegrown medical marijuana never makes it to the interstate market.

Conservatives like Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, Justice Clarence Thomas and Scalia generally have supported states' rights to set their own policies.

Rehnquist, who is undergoing treatment for thyroid cancer, missed Monday's argument and is not expected to return to the court until January, at the earliest.

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.

The case is Ashcroft v. Raich, 03-1454.

Link
 
Medical marijuana case falters
Justices seem skeptical of proponents' arguments
By Linda Greenhouse, NEW YORK TIMES NEWS SERVICE
November 30, 2004

WASHINGTON - The effort by advocates of the medical use of marijuana to link their cause to the Supreme Court's federalism revolution appeared headed for failure yesterday.

During a lively argument, the justices expressed little inclination to view drug policy as an issue of states' rights by which California and other states that have adopted "compassionate use" marijuana measures can displace federal regulation of homegrown marijuana distributed to patients without charge and without crossing state lines.

The case, which drew a crowd to the court, is an appeal by the Bush administration of a ruling last December by the federal appeals court in California that the federal Controlled Substances Act was "likely unconstitutional" as applied to two women who used marijuana under their doctors' care within the terms of Proposition 215, California's Compassionate Use Act, adopted by the voters in 1996.

One patient, Diana Monson, grows her own marijuana and uses it to ease severe back spasms. Angel Raich, who suffers from a brain tumor and other ailments, is too sick to cultivate marijuana and receives it from an anonymous source.

Nine other states have adopted similar measures that permit people with chronic pain or serious illnesses, including cancer and AIDS, to use marijuana under a doctor's supervision.

The 9th Circuit panel held that under the Supreme Court's recent federalism precedents, the women's non-commercial intrastate activity did not fall within Congress' constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce.

But illegal drugs exist within a national market, Paul D. Clement, the acting solicitor general, told the justices.

Clement said court precedents dating to the New Deal made clear that "the relevant focal point is not the individual plaintiff's activities" but rather the impact on the economy of an entire category of activity, taken as a whole, that Congress has chosen to regulate.

Randy E. Barnett, a Boston University Law School professor arguing on behalf of the women, argued that prohibition of "a class of activity that is non-economic and wholly intrastate" was not essential to the government's "regulatory regime." "There is no interstate connection whatsoever," he said.

The justices were skeptical. "Why is this not economic activity?" Justice Antonin Scalia asked. "This marijuana that's grown is like wheat. Since it's grown, it doesn't have to be bought elsewhere."

Barnett said relatively few people would meet the medical criteria for legal marijuana use, and any impact on the overall market for marijuana would therefore be trivial. The administration, by contrast, has predicted that 100,000 Californians will avail themselves of the statute if the court upholds the 9th Circuit's ruling.

With California's population of roughly 34 million, Souter said, the government's estimate of 100,000 was "not implausible" and Barnett's prediction of a "trivial" effect "seems to me insupportable." Souter said the circumstances of the two plaintiffs were "not a realistic premise on which to base constitutional law."

Also yesterday, the court dismissed without comment an appeal from a conservative Florida group that sought to overturn the ruling of Massachusetts' highest court that gave gays and lesbians a right to marry.

The Florida lawyers maintained that this state decision violated the provision of the U.S. Constitution that guarantees to each state "a republican form of government." They suggested this means key decisions must be made by elected legislators, rather than judges.

The dismissal of the claim came as no surprise, and it gives no indication how the justices are likely to rule on future challenges involving same-sex marriage.

Despite its broad power to interpret federal law and the U.S. Constitution, the Supreme Court has no general authority to review a state court's interpretation of state law or its state constitution.

A year ago, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, in a 4-3 ruling, held that the state's protection for equal rights and personal privacy meant that same-sex couples could not be denied the legal privileges of marriage.

Its decision was limited to Massachusetts, but opponents of same-sex marriage feared that other judges -- and perhaps the Supreme Court -- would someday conclude that same-sex marriages in Massachusetts must be honored elsewhere.

Link
 
Seems like these judges are arguing against marijuana's heath benefits rather than actually arguing the grounds by which marijuana can even be federally illegal (interstate trade and commerce). Arrrgh it just makes my blood boil when people who aren't even doctors get to make all the medical decisions for the country. Just a bunch of old-ass out of touch inside-the-box thinkers making health decisions for you and me and telling states rights they can fuck off, congress 0wnz j00!
 
Last edited:
You never can really tell how the current set of US Supreme Court justices will rule on a controversial issue such as medical marijuana. The court is usually split 5-4, not unlike the electorate itself. Lastly, some of the older, more supposedly conservative judges appointed by Presidents such as Ronald (McDonald) Reagan have a far-right wing, pro-NRA, libertarian, contrarian and, frankly, refreshing streak in them. Alaska, a very conservative state, is pushing towards some of the most liberalized laws regarding marijuana and its cultivation in the whole country so far.

Look at all the pressure the public has placed on the courts and the politicians too to outlaw abortion, but legalized abortion is still the law of the land. I say that there is a chance that a freak, maverik decision by the Supreme Court will make legalized medical marijuana the de facto law of the land. I don't think President Bush will mind once Cheney flies to Amsterdam, tries some pot and decides it is not such a big deal unless you are a soldier, in which case pot will automatically turn you into a homosexual pacificistic conscientious objector in our murderous "War on Some Arabs" in response to American outcry over the 9/11/2001 terror attacks.

Our system of government is divided into three, roughly equal in power, branches of government: executive (that's The Presdent), judicial (the judges) and the legislative (politicians) branches. There is little hope for the legislative branch right now--the Republicans in Texas are busy gerrymandering their districts to further squeeze out all Democrats and many politicians are pandering to the rampant hatred of homosexuals by right wing conservatives in the symbolic opposition to gay marriage, for example. The only good hope for the legislative branch would be for Arnold Schwarzenegger to become a Democrat and run for President in 2008, provided that 2/3 of the House and Senate amend the constitution to allow a foreign born citizen to become president. Next time around, the likes of John Kerry will continue not to cut it for the Democratic party.
 
A letter from Angel Raich

My Name is Angel Raich
November 29, 2004

Dear Fellow Reformer,

Greetings. My name is Angel Raich. Since you're a supporter of the Drug Policy Alliance and ending our nation's "war on drugs," you may have heard of me.

In 2002, my name was launched into the spotlight when Diane Monson and I, both seriously ill medical cannabis patients -- along with my two anonymous caregivers who grow and provide medical cannabis to me free of charge -- sued Attorney General John Ashcroft and the federal government. The goal in launching Raich v. Ashcroft was to put an end to the government's cruel and illegal raids on sick people who legally use medical cannabis.

Since we sued the government, the Bush administration has fought us tooth and nail, and has continued to arrest and punish people who use medical cannabis in states where it's legal -- like California, where I live.

Today, more than two years after we filed our lawsuit, the U.S. Supreme Court heard Raich v. Ashcroft. You can read an overview of the case here, and the Alliance's brief on my behalf here.

For me and for thousands of others, this is a life or death issue. I'm very sick -- I suffer from an inoperable brain tumor, a seizure disorder, life-threatening wasting syndrome, severe chronic pain and other documented medical conditions -- but I'll be damned if I'm going to let the federal government prohibit me from improving my health with cannabis. California and 10 other states have laws allowing me to do so. And my doctors and I are convinced that cannabis is the only medicine that is keeping me alive.

As I said earlier in this letter, you may have heard of me. But that was never my aim. All I have ever wanted was to be left alone, to be healthy, to spend time with my husband and children, and to live a life free of fear of arrest or harassment.

I'm grateful that the Drug Policy Alliance, along with other reform groups, has supported me and my case every step of the way, providing everything from legal advice and financial support to court filings on my behalf. In fact, for every dollar you donate to the Alliance today by clicking here, 20 percent of your donation will go directly to my nonprofit, Angel Wings Patient OutReach, Inc., to help defend medical cannabis patients and pay for my Supreme Court case.

But the Alliance isn't just supporting me - it's giving hope to thousands of other medical cannabis patients. Years before my case, the Alliance was instrumental in helping pass California's Proposition 215, a law adopted overwhelmingly by voters in 1996, which gave people like me the right to use medical marijuana under state law.

The Alliance also sued the federal government in the case of Conant v. Walters, which upheld the First Amendment right of doctors to talk about and recommend medical cannabis to patients free from federal government threats or interference. It's because of this case that my doctor, Frank Lucido, can feel free to talk with me openly about my medical cannabis use without risking federal persecution.

Also in California, the Alliance is representing Santa Cruz, seven terminally and chronically ill patients, and the Wo/Men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana (WAMM) in a federal lawsuit that will protect seriously ill patients -- who collectively grow, share and use medical marijuana -- against federal law enforcement interference.

Though the Supreme Court heard my case today, we won't know which way they've decided for at least a few months. That part is uncertain. But win or lose, I can assure you that -- with the generous help of supporters like you -- the Alliance will be working on behalf of me and thousands of other medical cannabis patients.

You can learn more about me and my case at the Alliance website or at my personal website, Angel Justice.

Thank you for your time and generosity.

Yours,

Angel

P.S. Several Alliance staffers got in line at 3 a.m. to hear the oral arguments in my case Monday. You can read their first-person accounts here.

Link
 
Hehe, I like this editorial

Cowards in Washington ignore pot's benefits
War on Drugs? Or war on common sense?
By Joe Conason, New York Observer
12/01/04

No worse example exists of the moral cowardice of the federal government -- implicating all three branches -- than the continuing prohibition of marijuana for medical therapy.

Despite copious evidence that pot has helped to ameliorate the lives of thousands of patients suffering from cancer and AIDS -- and despite burgeoning voter support for legal reform -- Washington officialdom persists in its lethal devotion to prohibition. Even when a blameless woman comes before them to plead for her life, the constituted authorities seem unable to think beyond a law, more than three decades old, that has long since been superseded by science and common sense.

On Nov. 29, Angel McClary Raich appeared at the U.S. Supreme Court with her attorneys to defend her right to grow cannabis for her own medical use. Tormented for most of her life by a horrifying catalogue of ailments, including uterine fibroids, scoliosis and an inoperable brain tumor, Ms. Raich nevertheless has survived while raising two children. The 39-year-old mother and her physicians attribute her ability to overcome seizures, nausea, wasting syndrome and severe pain to the almost continuous ingestion of natural marijuana in various forms.

According to Ms. Raich, she resumed walking after three years in a wheelchair because of the relief afforded by that regimen. She now benefits from the assistance of two fellow Californians, identified only as her "caregivers," who annually cultivate about eight pounds of marijuana for her. Yet to the authorities, her worst offense is not using the forbidden herb, but actively fighting their attempts to prosecute her and others for the act of medicating themselves.

That is how Ms. Raich ended up in the Supreme Court, two years after suing Attorney General John Ashcroft and Drug Enforcement Administration chief Asa Hutchinson. Seeking to assert the supremacy of federal law over the state referendum that legalized medical-marijuana use in 1996, those two worthies had ordered federal agents to raid California's cooperatives and private gardens in search of marijuana plants. Ms. Raich answered that aggressive enforcement with legal papers -- and eventually won an injunction against the raids in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

What is most remarkable about this problem is how impervious our politicians (and most of our judges) are to human compassion and scientific data. To enforce marijuana prohibition, they would willingly endanger the health and lives of innocent citizens -- and even cast aside principles they profess to hold deeply.

Messrs. Ashcroft and Hutchinson are devout Christians of a fundamentalist stripe. Both claim to be "pro-life," but they see no contradiction in depriving Ms. Raich and many other patients of the substance that keeps them alive. Both claim to promote "family values," but they are determined to destroy any family with a member who needs this drug. Both would insist on "states' rights" as a cornerstone of constitutional law, but they won't allow any state to experiment with marijuana reform.

Tellingly, the Justice Department hasn't even tried to argue that Ms. Raich doesn't need her daily tokes. The government position seems to be that her need to live doesn't matter as much as enforcing the Controlled Substances Act, passed by Congress in 1970.

On this issue, there is a pervasive bipartisan blindness, epitomized by the Supreme Court justices during oral argument in Ashcroft v. Raich. More than once, they urged the Raich lawyers to petition Congress and the Food and Drug Administration to change marijuana's legal status so that it is more easily available for research and compassionate use. Work through the system, said the justices.

Had the robed sages bothered to read the papers submitted to them, they might realize that the system doesn't work. Dedicated scientists and advocates have been pursuing legal remedies for many years, with little result. The prejudice against pot remains sufficiently powerful to thwart reform at the federal level. (In fact, cocaine and heroin are treated with greater latitude.) Few in Congress possess the courage to demand change, while the F.D.A. and other federal agencies actively obstruct crucial research that is instead proceeding in other countries. Years ago, the government's own scientists urged that the United States make marijuana more widely available to both patients and researchers. Democrats and Republicans alike callously ignored that plea.

In a society that still promotes alcohol and tobacco, as well as many narcotics and pharmaceuticals with severe side effects, the draconian regulation of marijuana is both illogical and cruel. That is why Americans across red and blue states from Arizona to Maine have voted repeatedly to reform those laws for the sake of the seriously ill.

In law, the validity of those state reforms will depend on an interpretation of the Constitution's commerce clause. Before the Supreme Court rules on Ashcroft v. Raich next year, however, Congress and the Bush administration ought to consider the damage that an inhumane, outdated and stupid statute does to respect for the law and to the reputation of law enforcement.

Joe Conason writes for the New York Observer and Salon.com, and is the author of Big Lies: The Right-Wing Propaganda Machine and How It Distorts the Truth.

Link
 
Alabama becomes California's ally on medical marijuana
By PHILLIP RAWLS, Associated Press
December 4, 2004

MONTGOMERY, Ala. - Alabama, which has some of the nation's toughest drug laws, has become an unlikely ally of California in its defense of marijuana use for medical reasons.

When the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments Monday on California's medical marijuana law, the documents sitting before the justices included legal arguments filed by Alabama Attorney General Troy King, who sided with California and against the Bush administration.

To the Republican attorney general, it's an issue of states' rights rather than drug-control policy.

"I could not disagree more with the public policy that underlies the California law. I think it's flawed. I think it's bad public policy, but if somebody can go in and tell California you can't regulate drugs the way you want to regulate them in California, the next step is they could come to Alabama and tell us we can't do it," King said in an interview.

Alabama is not a lenient state when it comes to marijuana. Between 1995 and 2002, the state averaged 9,446 arrests per year for possession of marijuana, according to the Alabama Criminal Justice Information Center. And in Alabama, someone convicted three times of possessing marijuana can end up serving as much as life in prison.

Alabama's drug laws aside, the attorney general's office has become a defender of states' rights when pertinent cases go before the Supreme Court. The office even has a staff member, Solicitor General Kevin Newsom, whose job is to keep an eye out for important cases.

Newsom, a Harvard Law School graduate, is no stranger to Supreme Court cases, having served as a clerk to Justice David Souter.

With his help, Alabama raised similar states' rights issues in October when the Supreme Court heard arguments on whether states should be able execute killers who are 16 and 17 years old.

King draws a sharp contrast between the states' rights arguments he is making today and those used by Gov. George C. Wallace to defend segregation in the 1960s.

"I'm not sure a lot of the issues he talked about were states' rights issues. I'm not sure segregation is a states' rights issue. Whether the state of Alabama is going to criminalize marijuana use, that is clearly something the state should do. But when you begin talking about segregation, you've got constitutional provisions that provide that everybody is equal," the attorney general said.

The issue before the Supreme Court on Monday was a California law that allows citizens to grow and possess marijuana for medical reasons. Last December, the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals - the same federal court that angered conservatives when it said the phrase "under God" should be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance - upheld the California law.

The Bush administration, which opposes the law, appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Bush administration argued that medical marijuana would undermine federal drug control programs. It also argued that the federal government could step in under the Commerce Clause because the marijuana grown for medical use could end up on the illegal market and could cross state lines.

Not so, said King. His legal brief argued that the federal government has no authority because the medical marijuana is grown and consumed within California, and "it is not economic or commercial in any meaningful sense."

King wasn't alone in filing his arguments. They were signed by the attorneys general of Louisiana and Mississippi - two states also known for tough drug laws.

If things had gone differently 25 years ago, Alabama might have had the medical marijuana case before the Supreme Court rather than California.

In 1979, when medical marijuana was first being discussed nationally, the Alabama Legislature passed a law allowing a marijuana research program for chemotherapy and glaucoma patients that would be supervised by the Alabama Board of Medical Examiners.

State Sen. Larry Dixon, executive director of the Board of Medical Examiners, said the experimental program used a pill that contained one of the substances in marijuana, tetrahydrocannabinols. The pill provided the pain relief of marijuana without the high caused by smoking marijuana.

The program did not prove successful, and the final blow came when the federal government, which used a farm in Mississippi to grow the marijuana used to make the pills, discontinued production, Dixon said.

Even though Alabama's medical marijuana program has been dead for many years, the Legislature has never repealed the law allowing it.

Link
 
Top