Supreme court decision on 2 patients of CA medical pot

Fash · Post by **Fash** » June 6, 2005, 1:59 pm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 66_pf.html

Court Rules Against Pot for Sick People

By GINA HOLLAND
The Associated Press
Monday, June 6, 2005; 12:12 PM

WASHINGTON -- 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.

i don't see this as a defeat... i hope this gets proper perspective in the media.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » June 6, 2005, 3:00 pm

I heard on the radio last night that the US governent would make a half trillion dollars a year on hemp related products (not just smoking it) if they legalized it.

This remains the single most retarded stance that the U.S. government has taken. It's a natural growing plant. Fucking Nancy Reagan and her drugs are bad mmmmkay campaign caused this by lumping every drug into the same category.

This is probably one of the few issues that I'd break out the peppermint patty liberal sandals and tie dyed shirt for and march on washington out of principle. This stuff should be a huge money maker instead of a huge money sink for the U.S.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » June 6, 2005, 3:02 pm

Interesting that O'Connor, Rehnquist, and Thomas were the dissenters.

Sheryl · Post by **Sheryl** » June 6, 2005, 3:17 pm

i live in nevada and voted for the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes, much to my family's dismay. mainly because i know it's often prescribed to terminal cancer patients and i've had to watch somebody die of cancer.

maybe it's an oversimplified view, but if somebody is slowly dying and constantly in pain, i say give them anything that'll help reduce their suffering. if that's weed, then that's ok with me.

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » June 6, 2005, 3:31 pm

While I'm a gun owner this just amazes me... it's ok to possess a lethal weapon but not to smoke some weed when you are about to freakin' die? The federal gov. wants to back out of any gun laws but wants to stick their nose into a few people "legally" smokin' dope... seems like ANOTHER waste of taxpayer money to me.

Marb

Sirensa · Post by **Sirensa** » June 6, 2005, 3:31 pm

The issue before the Court wasn't whether medical marijuana used was OK, but whether it should be governed by the States individually, or by Congress.

Congress won.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » June 6, 2005, 3:35 pm

it makes sense though to say that the Federal Govt controls which medical treatments are approved for use.

Imagine if individual states certified pharmaceuticals - especially considering local politicians are far more corruptable than federal ones.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » June 6, 2005, 4:14 pm

initial reports on fox news are maddening.. essentially the slant is that this is a major win and could be the end of medical marijuana. that couldn't be further from the truth.

this was a proper ruling... the federal government does have the authority to overrule the state government and charge an individual for breaking the law if they want to.

the argument now moves on, with supreme court recommendation... i trust the marijuana advocate groups will now focus on getting this into legislative discussion.

cid · Post by **cid** » June 6, 2005, 4:21 pm

Can prescribe morphine but not pot, you have to love our politics.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » June 6, 2005, 4:58 pm

make it legal for Pfizer to grow weed, and doctors will be righting prescriptions before it before the ink dries.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » June 6, 2005, 5:19 pm

Voronwë wrote:make it legal for Pfizer to grow weed, and doctors will be righting prescriptions before it before the ink dries.

isn't it a little early for cocktails?

miir · Post by **miir** » June 6, 2005, 5:21 pm

Voronwë wrote:make it legal for Pfizer to grow weed, and doctors will be righting prescriptions before it before the ink dries.

It's spelled writting, you idiot.

HAHAH PWNED!21311!!!

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » June 6, 2005, 5:42 pm

miir wrote:
Voronwë wrote:make it legal for Pfizer to grow weed, and doctors will be righting prescriptions before it before the ink dries.
It's spelled writting, you idiot.

HAHAH PWNED!21311!!!

writing

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » June 6, 2005, 6:15 pm

kyoukan wrote:
Voronwë wrote:make it legal for Pfizer to grow weed, and doctors will be righting prescriptions before it before the ink dries.
isn't it a little early for cocktails?

its happy hour somewhere my dear

miir · Post by **miir** » June 6, 2005, 6:18 pm

Ashur wrote:
miir wrote:
Voronwë wrote:make it legal for Pfizer to grow weed, and doctors will be righting prescriptions before it before the ink dries.
It's spelled writting, you idiot.

HAHAH PWNED!21311!!!
writing

It was a joke, I'm not that stupid... really... I'm not.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » June 6, 2005, 8:06 pm

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » June 6, 2005, 8:37 pm

Fash wrote:initial reports on fox news are maddening.. essentially the slant is that this is a major win and could be the end of medical marijuana. that couldn't be further from the truth.

What, you mean Fox isn't fair and balanced any more?

Fash · Post by **Fash** » June 7, 2005, 1:15 am

later on in the day, special report with brit hume reported it properly..

fox is fair... they just beat dead horses all day long.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » June 7, 2005, 8:32 am

I've been forced to listen to Fox News for 8 hour stretches a few times in the past few weeks.

They should name it the Michael Jackson Trial Channel. Do they ever report on anything that's worth a shit?

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » June 7, 2005, 9:51 am

Sueven wrote:I've been forced to listen to Fox News for 8 hour stretches a few times in the past few weeks.

They should name it the Michael Jackson Trial Channel. Do they ever report on anything that's worth a shit?

Could have said the same thing about quite a few national stories across several different news channels. Fox isn't the only news channel guilty of beating a dead horse.

miir · Post by **miir** » June 7, 2005, 10:32 am

Aruman wrote:
Sueven wrote:I've been forced to listen to Fox News for 8 hour stretches a few times in the past few weeks.

They should name it the Michael Jackson Trial Channel. Do they ever report on anything that's worth a shit?
Could have said the same thing about quite a few national stories across several different news channels. Fox isn't the only news channel guilty of beating a dead horse.

Haha yea, CNN is almost as bad as fox when it comes to that.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » June 7, 2005, 11:19 am

main problem is that this is just a totally dead news cycle.

everybody's ratings are way down as a result for the past month.

not that i give 2 shits about the jackson trial, but its probably a bigger story internationally than it is here.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » June 7, 2005, 1:09 pm

Sueven wrote:Interesting that O'Connor, Rehnquist, and Thomas were the dissenters.

Interesting that conservative judges would vote for state rights? That is what classical conservatives are supposed to do. All the Bible-thumpin', moral legislation is NEOconservative bullshit.

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » June 7, 2005, 1:12 pm

Yeah the problem with 24/7 news is...you Always have to fill 24/7 so a lot of things that never would have gotten air pre CNN get air every 30 minutes...and they have to make it seem more important or significant...

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » June 7, 2005, 1:15 pm

Arborealus wrote:Yeah the problem with 24/7 news is...you Always have to fill 24/7 so a lot of things that never would have gotten air pre CNN get air every 30 minutes...and they have to make it seem more important or significant...

average length of tune for a CNN viewer is like 28 minutes as well. hence the repitition....most of the people watching weren't watching an hour ago.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » June 7, 2005, 10:12 pm

Voronwë wrote:main problem is that this is just a totally dead news cycle.

everybody's ratings are way down as a result for the past month.

not that i give 2 shits about the jackson trial, but its probably a bigger story internationally than it is here.

Heheheh... where? We have the same reaction to your over-reporting of celebrity as we both do to the Brits over-reporting of royalty. ie, there's a certain freakish percentage of the community that are so unhappy w/ their own lives they will watch as much of this crap as possible, then there's the majority that think, 'Surely a cat got rescued from a drainpipe or something more newsworthy than how Jackson arrived at court in his PJs'

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » June 8, 2005, 3:31 pm

Very disappointing ruling. Not terribly suprising though unless they wanted to overturn Wickard v. Filburn (which in my opinion richly deserves to be overturned).

Thomas was spot on in his dissent ...

Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use mari-
juana 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.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » June 8, 2005, 5:35 pm

One of the few reasonable things that Thomas has written.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » June 8, 2005, 9:31 pm

22 minutes and we'll give you the world (1010 WINS tagline for non tri-state folk)

ohh, we're talking about tv, where I actually have to consciously stare at the nonsense and not just listen to it while doing things far more important.