Court Rules Against Pot for Sick People

[Blake]

By GINA HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer

1 minute ago

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. At issue was whether the prosecution of pot users under the federal Controlled Substances Act was constitutional.

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.

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 respondents 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.

In a dissent, Justice
Sandra Day O'Connor said that states should be allowed to set their own rules.

"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 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."

The case concerned two Californians, Angel Raich and Diane Monson. 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.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050606/...kxBHNlYwN0bQ--

[bfp]

Justice Thomas [dissents], with which I agree.

[bfp]

Clarence Thomas in his dissent: "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."

Indeed.

[Edwin Watson]

i can seem to find a copy of the published opinion.

the question which they brought up when talking about the Constitution is called the "Commerce Clause" and if the marijuana in question is grown in CA, distributed in CA and done so for free, then the Fed Govt would have no right to regulate it under that clause, but I am wondering how the Fed Govt did justify it. It had to be under some other clause or precedent that they are allowed to Federally regulate illegal drugs and i am interested to find out through what means they get this power.

link to the Opinion?

[bfp]

Originally Posted by Edwin Watson

i can seem to find a copy of the published opinion.

the question which they brought up when talking about the Constitution is called the "Commerce Clause" and if the marijuana in question is grown in CA, distributed in CA and done so for free, then the Fed Govt would have no right to regulate it under that clause, but I am wondering how the Fed Govt did justify it. It had to be under some other clause or precedent that they are allowed to Federally regulate illegal drugs and i am interested to find out through what means they get this power.

link to the Opinion?

http://wid.ap.org/scotus/pdf/03-1454P.ZD1.pdf

[Edwin Watson]

Originally Posted by bfp

http://wid.ap.org/scotus/pdf/03-1454P.ZD1.pdf

that is the dissenting opinion, i was looking for the opinion.

thank you though!!!

[bfp]

Originally Posted by Edwin Watson

that is the dissenting opinion, i was looking for the opinion.

thank you though!!!

Sorry, I thought you were wanting his, you can find everything you need [here]

[Edwin Watson]

Originally Posted by bfp

Sorry, I thought you were wanting his, you can find everything you need [here]

ahhhh, i get it now.




oh, and thanks for the link. cool blog!

[bfp]

Originally Posted by Edwin Watson

ahhhh, i get it now.




oh, and thanks for the link. cool blog!

No prob - yea that link comes in handy.

I read [here] that one of the plantiffs will continue to smoke anyway. Hell I would too. I personally do not see why a citizen who has been a decent human being all of their life can't smoke pot to heal their pain.

Here's a better article:

http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n900/a10.html?999

[Hubb]

depressing that our courts would take this away from people like her.....
MEDICINE.....duh?