News (Media Awareness Project) - US: Supreme Court Says Government Can Prosecute Medical |
| Title: | US: Supreme Court Says Government Can Prosecute Medical |
| Published On: | 2005-06-07 |
| Source: | Gainesville Sun, The (FL) |
| Fetched On: | 2008-01-16 03:58:24 |
SUPREME COURT SAYS GOVERNMENT CAN PROSECUTE MEDICAL MARIJUANA PATIENTS
Federal authorities may prosecute sick people whose doctors prescribe
marijuana to ease pain, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, concluding that
state laws don't protect users from a federal ban on the drug.
The decision is a stinging defeat for marijuana advocates who had
successfully pushed 10 states to allow the drug's use to treat various
illnesses.
Justice John Paul Stevens, writing the 6-3 decision, said that Congress
could change the law to allow medical use of marijuana.
The closely watched case was an appeal by the Bush administration in a case
involving two seriously ill California women who use marijuana. The court
said the prosecution of pot users under the federal Controlled Substances
Act was constitutional.
"I'm going to have to be prepared to be arrested," said Diane Monson, one
of the women involved in the case.
Stevens said the court was not passing judgment on the potential medical
benefits of marijuana, and he noted "the troubling facts" in the case.
Monson's backyard crop of six marijuana plants was seized by federal agents
in 2002, although the California law was on Monson's side.
In a dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said that states should be
allowed to set their own rules.
Under the Constitution, Congress may pass laws regulating a state's
economic activity so long as it involves "interstate commerce" that crosses
state borders. The California marijuana in question was homegrown,
distributed to patients without charge and without crossing state lines.
"Our national medical system relies on proven scientific research, not
popular opinion. To date, science and research have not determined that
smoking marijuana is safe or effective," John Walters, director of National
Drug Control Policy, said Monday.
Stevens said there are other legal options for patients, "but perhaps even
more important than these legal avenues is the democratic process, in which
the voices of voters allied with these (California women) may one day be
heard in the halls of Congress."
California's medical marijuana law, passed by voters in 1996, allows people
to grow, smoke or obtain marijuana for medical needs with a doctor's
recommendation. Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon,
Vermont and Washington state have laws similar to California.
In those states, doctors generally can give written or oral recommendations
on marijuana to patients with cancer, HIV and other serious illnesses.
"The states' core police powers have always included authority to define
criminal law and to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their
citizens," said O'Connor, who was joined in her dissent by two other
states' rights advocates: Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice
Clarence Thomas.
The legal question presented a dilemma for the court's conservatives, who
have pushed to broaden states' rights in recent years. They earlier
invalidated federal laws dealing with gun possession near schools and
violence against women on the grounds the activity was too local to justify
federal intrusion.
O'Connor said she would have opposed California's medical marijuana law if
she were a voter or a legislator. But she said the court was overreaching
to endorse "making it a federal crime to grow small amounts of marijuana in
one's own home for one's own medicinal use."
Alan Hopper, an American Civil Liberties Union attorney, said that local
and state officers handle 99 percent of marijuana prosecutions and must
still follow any state laws that protect patients. "This is probably not
going to change a lot for individual medical marijuana patients," he said.
The case concerned two Californians, Monson and Angel Raich. The two had
sued then-U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft, asking for a court order
letting them smoke, grow or obtain marijuana without fear of arrest, home
raids or other intrusion by federal authorities.
Raich, an Oakland woman suffering from ailments including scoliosis, a
brain tumor, chronic nausea, fatigue and pain, smokes marijuana every few
hours. She said she was partly paralyzed until she started smoking pot.
Monson, an accountant who lives near Oroville, Calif., has degenerative
spine disease and grows her own marijuana plants in her backyard.
In the court's main decision, Stevens raised concerns about abuse of
marijuana laws. "Our cases have taught us that there are some unscrupulous
physicians who overprescribe when it is sufficiently profitable to do so,"
he said.
The case is Gonzales v. Raich, 03-1454.
[sidebar]
PLAINTIFF IN MEDICAL MARIJUANA CASE SAYS SHE'S READY TO DEFY SUPREME COURT
RULING
One of the lead plaintiffs in the medical marijuana case decided by the
U.S. Supreme Court on Monday says she'll defy the ruling and continue to
smoke pot.
"I'm going to have to be prepared to be arrested," said Diane Monson, who
smokes marijuana several times a day to relieve back pain.
The Supreme Court ruled that federal authorities may arrest and prosecute
people whose doctors prescribe marijuana to ease pain, concluding that
state laws don't protect users from a federal ban on the drug.
The Bush administration had argued that states, even the 10 states with
medical marijuana laws, could not defy the federal Controlled Substances
Act, which declares marijuana to be not only illegal, but of no medical value.
Justice John Paul Stevens, writing the 6-3 decision, said that Congress
could change the law to allow medical use of marijuana.
Monson, 48, of Oroville, was prescribed marijuana by her doctor in 1997,
after standard prescription drugs didn't work or made her sleepy. She is
battling degenerative spine disease.
"I'm way disappointed. There are so many people that need cannabis," Monson
said.
Fifty-six percent of California voters approved the nation's first
so-called medical marijuana law in 1996, allowing patients to smoke and
grow marijuana with a doctor's recommendation.
In 2001, the Supreme Court ruled against pot clubs that distributed medical
marijuana, saying they cannot do so based on the "medical necessity" of the
patient. The ruling forced the Oakland supplier of Angel Raich, the other
plaintiff, to close.
Raich suffers from scoliosis, a brain tumor, chronic nausea and other problems.
Many other cannabis clubs still operate openly in California and other
states, but have taken measures - such as not keeping client lists - to
protect their customers from arrest.
The Drug Enforcement Administration, often working over the objections of
local law enforcement, has periodically raided medical marijuana operations
and their clients' pot supplies.
Raich and Monson sued Attorney General John Ashcroft because they feared
their supplies of medical marijuana might dry up.
[sidebar]
EXCERPTS FROM THE SUPREME COURT'S MEDICAL MARIJUANA RULING
"The exemption for cultivation by patients and caregivers can only increase
the supply of marijuana in the California market. The likelihood that all
such production will promptly terminate when patients recover or will
precisely match the patients' medical needs during their convalescence
seems remote; whereas the danger that excesses will satisfy some of the
admittedly enormous demand for recreational use seems obvious. Moreover,
that the national and international narcotics trade has thrived in the face
of vigorous criminal enforcement efforts suggests that no small number of
unscrupulous people will make use of the California exemptions to serve
their commercial ends whenever it is feasible to do so."
Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority.
"Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or
sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable
effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this
under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything - and
the federal government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers."
Justice Clarence Thomas, dissenting.
"Relying on Congress' abstract assertions, the court has endorsed making it
a federal crime to grow small amounts of marijuana in one's own home for
one's own medicinal use. This overreaching stifles an express choice by
some states, concerned for the lives and liberties of their people, to
regulate medical marijuana differently. If I were a California citizen, I
would not have voted for the medical marijuana ballot initiative; if I were
a California legislator I would not have supported the Compassionate Use
Act. But whatever the wisdom of California's experiment with medical
marijuana, the federalism principles that have driven our Commerce Clause
cases require that room for experiment be protected in this case."
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, dissenting.
"Not only is it impossible to distinguish "controlled substances
manufactured and distributed intrastate" from "controlled substances
manufactured and distributed interstate," but it hardly makes sense to
speak in such terms. Drugs like marijuana are fungible commodities. As the
court explains, marijuana that is grown at home and possessed for personal
use is never more than an instant from the interstate market - and this is
so whether or not the possession is for medicinal use or lawful use under
the laws of a particular state. Congress need not accept on faith that
state law will be effective in maintaining a strict division between a
lawful market for 'medical' marijuana and the more general marijuana market."
Justice Antonin Scalia, concurring.
"The majority prevents states like California from devising drug policies
that they have concluded provide much-needed respite to the seriously ill.
.. Our federalist system, properly understood, allows California and a
growing number of other states to decide for themselves how to safeguard
the health and welfare of their citizens."
Thomas in dissent.
"The case is made difficult by (the California women's) strong arguments
that they will suffer irreparable harm because, despite a congressional
finding to the contrary, marijuana does have valid therapeutic purposes.
The question before us, however, is not whether it is wise to enforce the
statute in these circumstances; rather, it is whether Congress' power to
regulate interstate markets for medicinal substances encompasses the
portions of those markets that are supplied with drugs produced and
consumed locally. Well-settled law controls our answer. The CSA is a valid
exercise of federal power, even as applied to the troubling facts of this
case."
Stevens in the main opinion.
Federal authorities may prosecute sick people whose doctors prescribe
marijuana to ease pain, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, concluding that
state laws don't protect users from a federal ban on the drug.
The decision is a stinging defeat for marijuana advocates who had
successfully pushed 10 states to allow the drug's use to treat various
illnesses.
Justice John Paul Stevens, writing the 6-3 decision, said that Congress
could change the law to allow medical use of marijuana.
The closely watched case was an appeal by the Bush administration in a case
involving two seriously ill California women who use marijuana. The court
said the prosecution of pot users under the federal Controlled Substances
Act was constitutional.
"I'm going to have to be prepared to be arrested," said Diane Monson, one
of the women involved in the case.
Stevens said the court was not passing judgment on the potential medical
benefits of marijuana, and he noted "the troubling facts" in the case.
Monson's backyard crop of six marijuana plants was seized by federal agents
in 2002, although the California law was on Monson's side.
In a dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said that states should be
allowed to set their own rules.
Under the Constitution, Congress may pass laws regulating a state's
economic activity so long as it involves "interstate commerce" that crosses
state borders. The California marijuana in question was homegrown,
distributed to patients without charge and without crossing state lines.
"Our national medical system relies on proven scientific research, not
popular opinion. To date, science and research have not determined that
smoking marijuana is safe or effective," John Walters, director of National
Drug Control Policy, said Monday.
Stevens said there are other legal options for patients, "but perhaps even
more important than these legal avenues is the democratic process, in which
the voices of voters allied with these (California women) may one day be
heard in the halls of Congress."
California's medical marijuana law, passed by voters in 1996, allows people
to grow, smoke or obtain marijuana for medical needs with a doctor's
recommendation. Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon,
Vermont and Washington state have laws similar to California.
In those states, doctors generally can give written or oral recommendations
on marijuana to patients with cancer, HIV and other serious illnesses.
"The states' core police powers have always included authority to define
criminal law and to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their
citizens," said O'Connor, who was joined in her dissent by two other
states' rights advocates: Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice
Clarence Thomas.
The legal question presented a dilemma for the court's conservatives, who
have pushed to broaden states' rights in recent years. They earlier
invalidated federal laws dealing with gun possession near schools and
violence against women on the grounds the activity was too local to justify
federal intrusion.
O'Connor said she would have opposed California's medical marijuana law if
she were a voter or a legislator. But she said the court was overreaching
to endorse "making it a federal crime to grow small amounts of marijuana in
one's own home for one's own medicinal use."
Alan Hopper, an American Civil Liberties Union attorney, said that local
and state officers handle 99 percent of marijuana prosecutions and must
still follow any state laws that protect patients. "This is probably not
going to change a lot for individual medical marijuana patients," he said.
The case concerned two Californians, Monson and Angel Raich. The two had
sued then-U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft, asking for a court order
letting them smoke, grow or obtain marijuana without fear of arrest, home
raids or other intrusion by federal authorities.
Raich, an Oakland woman suffering from ailments including scoliosis, a
brain tumor, chronic nausea, fatigue and pain, smokes marijuana every few
hours. She said she was partly paralyzed until she started smoking pot.
Monson, an accountant who lives near Oroville, Calif., has degenerative
spine disease and grows her own marijuana plants in her backyard.
In the court's main decision, Stevens raised concerns about abuse of
marijuana laws. "Our cases have taught us that there are some unscrupulous
physicians who overprescribe when it is sufficiently profitable to do so,"
he said.
The case is Gonzales v. Raich, 03-1454.
[sidebar]
PLAINTIFF IN MEDICAL MARIJUANA CASE SAYS SHE'S READY TO DEFY SUPREME COURT
RULING
One of the lead plaintiffs in the medical marijuana case decided by the
U.S. Supreme Court on Monday says she'll defy the ruling and continue to
smoke pot.
"I'm going to have to be prepared to be arrested," said Diane Monson, who
smokes marijuana several times a day to relieve back pain.
The Supreme Court ruled that federal authorities may arrest and prosecute
people whose doctors prescribe marijuana to ease pain, concluding that
state laws don't protect users from a federal ban on the drug.
The Bush administration had argued that states, even the 10 states with
medical marijuana laws, could not defy the federal Controlled Substances
Act, which declares marijuana to be not only illegal, but of no medical value.
Justice John Paul Stevens, writing the 6-3 decision, said that Congress
could change the law to allow medical use of marijuana.
Monson, 48, of Oroville, was prescribed marijuana by her doctor in 1997,
after standard prescription drugs didn't work or made her sleepy. She is
battling degenerative spine disease.
"I'm way disappointed. There are so many people that need cannabis," Monson
said.
Fifty-six percent of California voters approved the nation's first
so-called medical marijuana law in 1996, allowing patients to smoke and
grow marijuana with a doctor's recommendation.
In 2001, the Supreme Court ruled against pot clubs that distributed medical
marijuana, saying they cannot do so based on the "medical necessity" of the
patient. The ruling forced the Oakland supplier of Angel Raich, the other
plaintiff, to close.
Raich suffers from scoliosis, a brain tumor, chronic nausea and other problems.
Many other cannabis clubs still operate openly in California and other
states, but have taken measures - such as not keeping client lists - to
protect their customers from arrest.
The Drug Enforcement Administration, often working over the objections of
local law enforcement, has periodically raided medical marijuana operations
and their clients' pot supplies.
Raich and Monson sued Attorney General John Ashcroft because they feared
their supplies of medical marijuana might dry up.
[sidebar]
EXCERPTS FROM THE SUPREME COURT'S MEDICAL MARIJUANA RULING
"The exemption for cultivation by patients and caregivers can only increase
the supply of marijuana in the California market. The likelihood that all
such production will promptly terminate when patients recover or will
precisely match the patients' medical needs during their convalescence
seems remote; whereas the danger that excesses will satisfy some of the
admittedly enormous demand for recreational use seems obvious. Moreover,
that the national and international narcotics trade has thrived in the face
of vigorous criminal enforcement efforts suggests that no small number of
unscrupulous people will make use of the California exemptions to serve
their commercial ends whenever it is feasible to do so."
Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority.
"Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or
sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable
effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this
under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything - and
the federal government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers."
Justice Clarence Thomas, dissenting.
"Relying on Congress' abstract assertions, the court has endorsed making it
a federal crime to grow small amounts of marijuana in one's own home for
one's own medicinal use. This overreaching stifles an express choice by
some states, concerned for the lives and liberties of their people, to
regulate medical marijuana differently. If I were a California citizen, I
would not have voted for the medical marijuana ballot initiative; if I were
a California legislator I would not have supported the Compassionate Use
Act. But whatever the wisdom of California's experiment with medical
marijuana, the federalism principles that have driven our Commerce Clause
cases require that room for experiment be protected in this case."
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, dissenting.
"Not only is it impossible to distinguish "controlled substances
manufactured and distributed intrastate" from "controlled substances
manufactured and distributed interstate," but it hardly makes sense to
speak in such terms. Drugs like marijuana are fungible commodities. As the
court explains, marijuana that is grown at home and possessed for personal
use is never more than an instant from the interstate market - and this is
so whether or not the possession is for medicinal use or lawful use under
the laws of a particular state. Congress need not accept on faith that
state law will be effective in maintaining a strict division between a
lawful market for 'medical' marijuana and the more general marijuana market."
Justice Antonin Scalia, concurring.
"The majority prevents states like California from devising drug policies
that they have concluded provide much-needed respite to the seriously ill.
.. Our federalist system, properly understood, allows California and a
growing number of other states to decide for themselves how to safeguard
the health and welfare of their citizens."
Thomas in dissent.
"The case is made difficult by (the California women's) strong arguments
that they will suffer irreparable harm because, despite a congressional
finding to the contrary, marijuana does have valid therapeutic purposes.
The question before us, however, is not whether it is wise to enforce the
statute in these circumstances; rather, it is whether Congress' power to
regulate interstate markets for medicinal substances encompasses the
portions of those markets that are supplied with drugs produced and
consumed locally. Well-settled law controls our answer. The CSA is a valid
exercise of federal power, even as applied to the troubling facts of this
case."
Stevens in the main opinion.
Member Comments |
No member comments available...
