Niteshift

Well folks, here is your chance to get it decided. I expect many of you will watch this closely:

Medical Marijuana Dispute Gets U.S. Supreme Court Hearing

June 28 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Supreme Court re-entered the debate over medical marijuana, agreeing to decide whether states can let seriously ill people use the drug to treat pain and other symptoms.

The court will hear the Bush administration's appeal of a lower court decision allowing two California women to use marijuana on their doctors' recommendation. The government says the federal Controlled Substances Act, which makes it a crime to possess, grow and sell marijuana, also bans non-commercial medical use of the substance.

California and seven other states allow medical use of marijuana recommended by a doctor. In a previous marijuana case in 2001, the Supreme Court said there was no ``medical necessity'' exception to the controlled-substance law. Today's case asks whether Congress's authority to regulate interstate commerce allows a ban on medical use of locally grown marijuana. {NS: This will have far-reaching effects if they rule no, not just on mmj, but in many other areas}

The appeals court ruling ``seriously undermines Congress's comprehensive scheme for the regulation of dangerous drugs,'' Justice Department lawyers said in court papers filed in Washington. Under the decision ``persons operating intrastate could function essentially as unregulated and unsupervised drug manufacturers and pharmacies,'' government lawyers said.

The court will hear arguments in its term starting in October and rule by July 2005.

The federal government lists marijuana among the most strictly controlled drugs such as LSD and heroin. Advocates of medical use say marijuana can ease cancer patients' nausea from chemotherapy and that it helps treat glaucoma, stimulate AIDS patients' appetite and ease pain for multiple sclerosis sufferers.

Seven Other States

The other states that allow medical use of marijuana are Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, Oregon and Washington, government lawyers said in court papers.

Today's case was filed by California residents Angel McClary Raich and Diane Monson, whose doctors say all other medicines failed to treat their symptoms or caused intolerable side effects.

Raich, of Oakland, suffers from a number of conditions including an inoperable brain tumor, seizures and nausea. She uses marijuana grown free of charge by two caregivers who also joined the suit. Monson, of Oroville, who suffers from chronic back pain and muscle spasms caused by a spinal disease, grows her own marijuana.

After federal drug agents raided Monson's home in August 2002, Monson, Raich and the two unidentified caregivers filed suit seeking to stop federal officials from enforcing the controlled-substances law against them.

`Substantial Increase' in Activity

A judge ruled for the government. The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed in December and granted a preliminary order barring enforcement of the law against Raich, Monson and the two caregivers.

The court said they were likely to win their claim that the federal law didn't apply to them because their activities didn't appear to be linked to interstate commerce. The 9th Circuit returned the case to the judge for further proceedings.

In appealing to the Supreme Court, Justice Department lawyers said the ruling ``threatens a substantial increase in the level of prohibited drug activity'' in the nine western states within the 9th Circuit.

The government pointed to the Supreme Court's 2001 ruling that ordered the shutdown of the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative in California for violating the federal law. Though that ruling said the law didn't allow a medical necessity defense, it left unresolved whether the law overstepped Congress's authority to regulate interstate commerce.

Lawyers for Raich, Monson and the two unidentified caregivers said the women used the drug for ``bona fide medical purposes'' and that Raich's doctor has said she might die without medical marijuana.

The case addresses ``the right to preserve one's life'' as well as ``the fundamental right to alleviate unnecessary pain and agony and protect bodily integrity,'' the lawyers said.

The case is Ashcroft v. Raich, 03-1454.

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news...s9vwg&refer=us

__________________
A burning desire for social justice is never a substitute for knowing what you're talking about. -Thomas Sowell

Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is muzzle flash.

rick

NS- Care to expand a little on this? Im curious as to what things you are referring to?

__________________

Niteshift

NS- Care to expand a little on this? Im curious as to what things you are referring to?

One example near and dear to my heart is gun control.

For example, gun control laws that get passed on the federal level often use the interstate commerce clause as their justification.

Now, a few years back (5-6 IIRC) the federal law about possessing a firearm in a school area was struck down because they could not show a link between that law and interstate commerce.

I mention that because I won't be surprised to see that case brought up in the mmj case, admittedly for good reason.

There are other areas of law where the IC clause has been the thread bare legal justification for those laws.

If the SC actually makes a ruling, instead of just sending it back to the lower court to "fix", it CAN establish a "bright line" rule that will not only change a number of present laws, but effect future laws that try to use the IC clause as their justification.


However, that is the catch.........because it COULD have such far reaching effects, it COULD hurt the case for eliminating the federal law.

rick

Very interesting, thanks for expanding NS.

Rick

Mamabudz

And right you are Niteshift

The case being reviewed is the RAICH case. ANd RAICH relied heaviluy on LOPEZ, which is also an Interstate Commerce case.

A brief bit about the Supremes. To get to the Supreme Court, you have to be able to hang your "Appeal hat" on a appealable hat peg. There are a limited number of issues that can bring an issue up to be appealed before the Supreme court.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had heard oral arguments in a lawsuit by Prop. 215 patients Angel Raich and Diane Monson challenging the constitutionality of the federal government's ban on personal use and cultivation of marijuana for medicine under California law

Now in the RAICH case, where a woman is being supplied Medical marijuana by other growers, in California for this woman, a Claifornian, one of the THREE issues that made the California Appeals Court decide in FAVOR of the the medical marijuana patient was, in fact, that the marijuana was staying in the State.

Raich and Monson were in no way engaged in distribution and sought only the right to use and grow medicine for relief of their own personal pain and suffering in accordance with state law.

No Commerce between the states -- California was sovereign over it's own state and it's own people, and it's own people decided it's own laws -- therefore the Federal Law could not over come the State law allowing this growing of marijuana for the lady in california, Mrs. Raich.

By the way, the attorney who will be arguing this case for Mrs raich, is her husband, attorney Mr. Raich. That's love.

Other lawyers have also been working on this case and in fact Defense Attorney Randy Barnett is the one who was recently quoted as sayin that the case involves "wholly interstate, non-economic activity" of a kind that Congress does not have power to reach, in the same way that recent Supreme Court decisions (Lopez and Morrison) have held that Congress cannot regulate guns in school zones or violence against women.

Any way...let's get back on point.

The Fed Prosecutor has gotten permission from the Supremes to hear the case -- and nite Shift is right, the guns in school zone cases and violence against women cases will be brought in, because they are Supreme Court Cases on POINT wiht the ISSUES of this case.

The ISSUES being: "wholly interstate, non-economic activity" and the Right of the Citizens of a State to Self Sovereignity without Interference Through Overreaching by a Federal Government Except for Overwhelming Social Need.

Niteshift, could you put up a link to the Lopez case? The Headnotes (abstracts of the findings and issues of the case) if you can find them would be great too.

Hugz,

Mama Budz

kevstermon

The question is: does Federal law trump State law?

The US Constitution seems pretty clear.

The 10th Amendment reads,"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The Court ruled today in favor of the Constitution verses the Executive Branch in the Hamdi case.

Will It again?

Who knows?

goldberry

Isn't the fact that they accepted to hear this case a bad thing (since the lower court had already ruled in the patient's favor)?

__________________
"Is our children learning?" George W. Bush

Niteshift

The question is: does Federal law trump State law?

The US Constitution seems pretty clear.

The 10th Amendment reads,"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

That's a very over-simplified answer to a very complicated question.

The answer is.....it depends.

In some cases, federal law can and will override state law. This happens very often, you're just not thinking of it.

Federal laws have over-ridden state laws regarding slavery, segregation, flag burning, civil rights.......all sorts of things.

And your cut and dried interpretation of the 10th Amendment is the issue here........ the Constitution DOES allow the US government to become involved in matters that involve interstate commerce. The question at hand is whether or not the state mmj laws fall into that or not.


Isn't the fact that they accepted to hear this case a bad thing (since the lower court had already ruled in the patient's favor)?

Not at all.

The lower court only has jurisdiction over its particular circuit. While that ruling might help a mmj patient in CA or OR, it doesn't help one in KS.

If the Supreme Court goes the same way, it becomes NATIONAL.

Mamabudz

Yes and No

...don't you just love those answers...

Yes...it is bad in that they don't allow the issue to stand as decided by the 9th DCA. The Supremes could decide that this case DOES come under the pervue of the Commerce Clause..

No...on the other hand, the 9th DCA is also referred to as the 9th Revolving door -- with more of it's cases going to the Supremes than any other court, partly because it does tend to be on the cutting edge. And the Supremes could decide that this case -- after reviewing the evidence -- is Affirmed

...By the way the decision on the Comerce Clause that is in keeping with the current holdings of this Supreme Court ...is to Affirm.

Niteshift

the 9th DCA is also referred to as the 9th Revolving door -- with more of it's cases going to the Supremes than any other court, partly because it does tend to be on the cutting edge.

"Cutting edge" or "fringe", depends on how you look at it.

Not only do more of their cases go to the Supremes, but more of them are overturned by the Supremes than any other Circuit.