Medical Marijuana

FEDS SHOULDN'T GO AFTER PATIENTS WHO USE POT

The jurisdictional struggle over California's medical marijuana law
took a new turn last week when a federal judge offered a patient
cooperative protection from raids by armed agents. The U.S. Justice
Department, however, quickly moved to eliminate that protection by
calling for a U.S. Supreme Court review of the decision.

On Wednesday U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel granted a preliminary
injunction to the Wo/Men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana (WAMM) and
denied an attempt to dismiss a civil case brought by the cooperative
to halt federal interference in their operations. This was the Santa
Cruz club raided by armed agents at dawn -- assault rifles aimed at
patients in wheelchairs -- in September 2002.

Fogel cited the December 2003 decision by the 9th Circuit Court of
Appeal in Raich v. Ashcroft, which ruled there is a constitutional
limitation to the application of the Controlled Substances Act, the
1970 law that prohibits all use of marijuana. The court ruled that
patients who grow their own marijuana or receive it free do not affect
interstate commerce, and their activities are not subject to federal
regulation.

Since 1996, of course, medical use of marijuana has been legal under
California law with a doctor's recommendation. Seven other states --
Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Maine, Oregon and Nevada -- have passed
similar voter initiatives, and Hawaii's legislature enacted a law
protecting patients who use marijuana medically from prosecution.
Nobody has filed suit to overturn these laws on grounds that federal
law takes precedence.

On the same day of his ruling, however, the Justice Department asked
urgently that the U.S. Supreme Court review Fogel's decision.

Angel Raich, the lead plaintiff in the case, put the matter in a
nutshell: "The government doesn't dispute that I would die without
cannabis, but they not only want to keep my medicine from me, they
want the right to take me from my children and see me die in prison."

The Supreme Court should let the district court decision stand.