SUPREME COURT WROTE LAW IN MEDICAL MARIJUANA CASE

The U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision regarding medical cannabis didn't
change anything. It did, however, reveal the nine most powerful public
policy manipulators in the world for the pandering dishonest conscienceless
politicians they are.

While contemplating that characterization and what follows, consider this.
The U.S. Supreme Court also once said that runaway slaves had to be
returned to their owners, and that U.S. citizens of Japanese ancestry could
be legally deprived of property and sent to concentration camps.

In 1996, five million California voters (56 per cent) approved the
"Compassionate Use Act", allowing people to use cannabis (marijuana) with a
doctor's recommendation. The Act also defined "caregivers" who could
cultivate cannabis to supply patients' demand. Cooperatives were
established to facilitate delivery of the herb to patients.

Despite the change in California law, possession and distribution of
cannabis are still illegal under federal law (states are not required to
enforce federal laws). The feds charged the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Co-op,
operated by former Rapid Citian Jeff Jones, with distribution. Jones asked
for -- and was denied -- the federal court's permission to use a "medical
necessity" defense argument. Jones appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of
Appeals.

The 9th Circuit agreed with Jones. Federal prosecutors appealed that
decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, which heard arguments on March 28. When
the Supreme Court released its decision a few weeks ago, it agreed with the
lower court that no one may say in federal court, "I grew and gave
marijuana to that person because he needed it to stay alive and was too
sick to grow his own."

We ache for superlatives strong enough to describe the absurdity of the
court's reasoning.

The court and its defenders shamelessly assert that they're not supposed to
"legislate from the bench"; that they were only asked whether there is a
"medical necessity defense" under the Controlled Substances Act. Justice
Clarence Thomas said in the unanimous decision:

"The Cooperative's contention that a common-law medical necessity defense
should be written into the Act is rejected. There is an open question
whether federal courts ever have authority to recognize a necessity defense
not provided by statute. But that question need not be answered to resolve
the issue presented here, for the terms of the Act leave no doubt that the
medical necessity defense is unavailable."

By similar reasoning, the Court could justify the Nazi "public order" laws.
According to Thomas, these same justices could sit there with straight
faces, instructing us, "We cannot locate within the Public Order Laws any
'religious freedom' exemption to the requirements that Jews sew yellow
stars on their clothing or that Jews are no longer allowed to own businesses."

Yes, the Controlled Substances Act states that cannabis has no medical
value. When the Supreme Court sees ludicrous, dangerous and
unconstitutional assertions written into law, its job is to overturn the
law. Instead, this Court affirmed the earth's flatness, and told navigators
to adjust their maps.

Hundreds of scientific studies confirm the therapeutic value of cannabis.
Tens of thousands of patients' own reports confirm cannabis's therapeutic
value. In 1988, a Drug Enforcement Agency administrative law judge said,
"Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically
active substances known to man. It is unreasonable, arbitrary and
capricious for the DEA to stand between those sufferers and the benefits of
this substance in light of the evidence."

The Supreme Court was presented briefs by more than a dozen medical
organizations as to cannabis's therapeutic value. The U.S. government sends
300 marijuana cigarets each month to each of eight patients granted
"compassionate use" exemptions from federal law because the government
knows they benefit from using marijuana.

Knowing all this, the justices lied, saying their hands were tied by
Congress. Why?

It's "really important" to Congress to protect the Controlled Substances
Act. As it becomes more obvious that people gain relief from diseases and
pain by using cannabis, then the whole myth of the evil of cannabis comes
into question. Cannabis is effective over a wide range of medical
conditions currently treated by expensive prescription medicines. The
patent drug companies would suffer sales losses, perhaps substantial, as
their often-toxic extracts of plant and mineral chemicals are foregone for
the relief provided by the inexpensive herb, cannabis.

Admitting that cannabis is a healing herb leads to embarassing questions
about jailing anyone for using it. Acceptance of any benefit from cannabis
leads to its benign cousin, hemp, posing a threat to big oil, big cotton,
big lumber, big paper, big crop chemicals, and a dozen more multi-national
corporate interests.

In January, the South Dakota Cannabis Coalition commissioned a survey to
gauge both South Dakotans' level of knowledge of hemp and medical cannabis
and their willingness to apply common sense and compassion to the law.

The pollsters asked registered voters two questions about medical cannabis use.

"If a seriously ill patient has a doctor's approval to use marijuana for
medical purposes, do you think that patient should be arrested and sent to
prison for using marijuana on his or her doctor's advice?" 481of 505
interviewees (96 per cent) said "No."

"Would you favor a change in South Dakota law so that seriously ill people
- -- with a doctor's approval -- can use medical marijuana legally without
fearing the possibility of being arrested?" 410 of 505 (82 per cent) said
"Yes."

But then, these unwashed voters probably haven't had the benefit of the
advice of highly-paid lawyer lobbyists for the multinational corporations,
nor their campaign contributions.