THE "HIGH" COURT'S DOPEY DECISION

Why They Ruled Against Medical Pot

The U.S. Supreme Court is often referred to as the "High Court." Well,
on May 14th, the court earned this title‹particularly, the "high" part
of it. In a unanimous 8-0 decision, the "high" court ruled that medical
marijuana is not exempt from the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).

This case arises out of a three-year dispute between the Oakland
Cannabis Buyer's Cooperative (OCBC) and the federal government. OCBC
distributes medicinal marijuana to people suffering from AIDS, cancer,
glaucoma and other illnesses. According to some experts, marijuana
alleviates pain. It also increases the appetites of those suffering from
nausea due to chemotherapy.

In 1996, medicinal marijuana was made legal in California with the
landslide passage of Proposition 215. In January 1998, the federal
government sued OCBC, claiming that its distribution of marijuana was
illegal under the CSA. In May 1998, U.S. District Court Judge Charles
Breyer issued a preliminary injunction to shut down OCBC.

Nevertheless, OCBC continued distributing marijuana for medicinal
purposes and in September 1999, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ordered
the District Court to modify its injunction to recognize medical
necessity as a valid exemption from the Act.

However, the federal government, evidencing all of the tenacity of a
pitbull and my mother-in-law combined, brought an application for stay
before the U.S. Supreme Court in August 2000. In a 7-1 decision, the
"high" court granted the stay and agreed to hear the government's
appeal.

Nevertheless, the remaining eight members of the "high" court ruled
against OCBC. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the opinion for the
majority. This is appropriate since his "alleged" statements to Anita
Hill have always made me think that he must have been on drugs at the
time. After all, how else can you explain him trying to seduce a woman
with can of Coke and pubic hair? That's high!

Given Thomas' opinion in this case, his drug-using days appear to be far
from over. In short, he argues that the CSA "reflects a determination
[by Congress] that marijuana has no medical benefits worthy of an
exemption." As a result, "courts of equity cannot, in their discretion,
reject the balance that Congress has struck in a statute." In other
words, there is no medical necessity defense for marijuana because
"Congress said so!"

With this decision, the "high" court is allowing the "collective wisdom"
of Congress to overrule the medical opinions of thousands of doctors who
believe that marijuana has medicinal qualities. On the other hand,
Congress does appear to have its fair share of first-hand experience
with marijuana.

How else would you explain nine-term Ohio Rep. James Traficant, who
traditionally signs off his floor speeches with "Beam me up, Mr.
Speaker!"? Recently, Traficant was indicted for, among other things,
forcing his staffers to work on his farm and requiring them to kick back
a portion of their wages to him every month. But it gets better.

Traficant will represent himself in this case despite the fact that he
has no legal training (or working brain cells). During arraignment,
Traficant plead not guilty "by reason of sanity." Surely, we should take
the advice of this man and his colleagues over medical doctors.

Even more than being ridiculous, the majority's opinion in this case is
cruel. Justice Thomas claims "the Court of Appeals erred when it
consider relevant the evidence that some people have serious medical
conditions, that these people will suffer serious harm if they are
denied cannabis, and that there is no legal alternative to cannabis for
the effective treatment of their medical conditions."

In short, Thomas is saying that the fact that sick people are suffering
and will continue to suffer is irrelevant because "the law is the law!"
Where is Justice Thomas' sensitivity and compassion? Or are those
qualities only reserved for his own confirmation hearing?

As we all remember, Clarence Thomas had no problem crying like a baby
during his confirmation hearing. In fact, I haven't seen so much crying
since The Spice Girls broke up. Justice Thomas was plenty sensitive as
he cried, "This is a high-tech lynching! Boo hoo hoo!"

Now, just 10 years later, he can't even bend to allow sick people to use
a drug that may alleviate some of their suffering. How soon we forget!

Although all members of the "high" court sided with the government, it
must be noted that three justices distanced themselves from Thomas'
opinion. In a concurring opinion written by Justice Stevens, these
justices state that they did not reject medical necessity as a defense
to the CSA but rather that this defense was only available to sick
patients and not OCBC, itself.

On its face, this opinion seems somewhat reasonable since the Oakland
Cannabis Buyers Cooperative cannot claim to need medicinal marijuana for
its own "illnesses." Also, the opinion suggests that these justices
might consider medical necessity as a defense in a case brought against
a sick person.

However, this view is shortsighted. If the cooperatives are closed down,
where is Granny supposed to get her medicinal marijuana‹in the halls of
Congress? It's bad enough to be elderly and suffering from cancer or
glaucoma but it's far worse to have to brave the mean streets to score a
"dime bag." Although a crack house may be perfectly suitable for drug
dealers, Hollywood actors and professional athletes, it is no place for
someone's sweet grandmother.

Unfortunately, the "high" court's lack of compassion will affect
hundreds of thousands of sick patients. Before this ruling, medical
marijuana was legal in California and seven other states and the
District of Columbia. However, as a result of the court's decision,
medical marijuana will be prohibited everywhere, except Washington,
D.C., of course. After all, if the people of the district could elect
Marion Barry as Mayor twice, then surely they can "look the other way"
for Grandpa Joe.

Besides, what would be the harm? The government contends that the
medicinal marijuana is a "loophole" that will destroy effective
enforcement of the CSA. Oh please! Enforcement of the nation's drug laws
is already ineffective. In fact, the CSA could not be any more
ineffective if the Keystone Cops (or LAPD) were in charge of
enforcement.

Does the government really believe that marijuana dealers are checking
Medic-Alert bracelets? "OK, Granny. I can let you have this ounce of
weed but first, read this eye chart."

Of course, we have come to expect this kind of mindlessness from law
enforcement but not from the Supreme Court. From the highest court in
the land, we expect integrity, compassion and the occasional shout of
"Hey! Look at this Coke can!"