Marijuana.com

Buzzby

High Court Allows Prosecution of Medical Marijuana Users
Associated Press | New York Times | 06/06/2005

WASHINGTON -- Federal authorities may prosecute sick people who smoke pot on doctors' orders, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, concluding that state medical marijuana 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 that it lost in late 2003. At issue was whether the prosecution of medical marijuana 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 other states' rights advocates.

The legal question presented a dilemma for the court's conservatives, who have pushed to broaden states' rights in recent years, invalidating 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 was 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 seriously ill California women, 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.

__________________

 

Mamabudz

Currently in the Halls of Congress:

Hinchey-Rohrabacher amendment which would prohibit the U.S. Justice Department from spending any money undermining state medical marijuana laws.

Change the Controlled Substances Act allowing Marijuana to be re- scheduled to allow it to be used for medical purposes like Ritalin, Tylenol with Codeine and Marinol. The Controlled Substances Act places substances into one of five schedules (or categories). Currently, marijuana classified as a Schedule I drug. Substances defined as Schedule I drugs include substances that have a high potential for abuse, no current accepted medical use, and a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug under medical supervision. Schedule I substances include Ecstasy, LSD, and PCP. Substances defined as Schedule II include substances that have accepted medical value with a high potential for abuse which may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence. Schedule II substances include Cocaine, Morphine and Ritalin. Substances defined as Schedule III drugs include substance that have accepted medical use with a potential for abuse which may lead to low or moderate physical dependence or high psychological dependence but has. Schedule III drugs include a variety of barbiturates, Tylenol with Codeine, and Marinol – a synthetic form of THC, the chemical compound found naturally in marijuana.

About today's decision:

In 2002, Angel Raich and Diane Monson were launched into the national spotlight when both seriously ill medical cannabis patients -- along with two anonymous caregivers who grow and provide medical cannabis to patients free of charge -- sued Attorney General John Ashcroft and the federal government. As part of our continued effort to defend the rights of sick and dying medical marijuana patients, Drug Policy Alliance has been helping to fund the Raich v. Ashcroft case. The goal in launching Raich v. Ashcroft was to put an end to the government's cruel and illegal raids on sick people who legally use medical cannabis according to state law. Today, more than two years after filing the lawsuit, the U.S. Supreme Court reached a decision in Raich v. Ashcroft. In their opinion, the federal government has the constitutional authority to arrest patients and caregivers for marijuana.

The decision does not mean that the federal government SHOULD arrest people for medical marijuana, only that it can.

Also, it’s important to point out that the Supreme Court did NOT overturn state medical marijuana laws. States are still free to remove all local and state criminal penalties for growing, distributing, and using medical marijuana.

Since 99% of all marijuana arrests occur at the local level, this provides enormous protection to patients and their loved ones. .
.
.
.
In light of the Court’s decision Congress has a unique and timely opportunity to deal with the marijuana issue once and for all. Congress should protect medical marijuana patients and their loved ones from federal prosecution by re-scheduling marijuana.



Rescheduling marijuana from a Schedule I to Schedule II or even III (like Marinol) is appropriate. Rescheduling would permit an unbiased and unfettered research process. Rescheduling would streamline the process by which researchers obtain marijuana from the federal government for research purposes and allow for specific studies of marijuana’s medical value on a variety of debilitating and painful conditions. However, most importantly, rescheduling will make it easier for doctors to prescribe marijuana to legitimate patients when appropriate.

Members of Congress should also support the so-called Hinchey-Rohrabacher amendment which would prohibit the U.S. Justice Department from spending any money undermining state medical marijuana laws.

Take Action! Send a Message

Tell Congress: It’s up to YOU to protect sick and dying patients.

The Supreme Court has issued a landmark ruling on medical marijuana! The federal government now has a choice: Enact sensible legislation that preserves the quality of life of patients across the country or continue wasting taxpayer money raiding sick and dying patients even when they abide by state and local law


Write your Action Letter Now To Congress!
It only takes a moment of your time and can mean so much...

follow this link to a prepared Letter

Thank you for your time,

Mama Budz

Enraged American

This ruling means NOTHING to those of us who believe that we are entitled to use marijuana no matter what foolish laws exist.

It IS our Constitutional right according to the 9th and 10th ammendments AND an inalienable right according to the Declaration of Independence.

"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so." - Thomas Jefferson

__________________
The one sided, negative view that people are given about drugs is similar to the one sided, negative view they are given about guns—something that conservatives complain about.
------------------------------------------------------
Freedom with limitations is not freedom at all.

Buzzby

My letter is on its way. Thanks, MB!

This ruling changes nothing - it just leaves things the way they were. If the court had ruled in favor of the plaintiffs it would have meant that the federal government would have to stop its current practice of prosecuting medical marijuana patients and the distribution system that supplies them with their medicine.

When a government no longer represents the interests of its citizens it's time to replace that government. Get active! Get involved! We need candidates running for office who aren't living fifty years in the past.

Stephanie S.

Fortunately this decision didn't necessarily encourage the arrest and incarceration of medical marijuana patients. Still, this ruling basically gives permission to the DEA to continue to raid Cannabis Co-ops and shut them down, thus taking away a lot of peoples medicine.

This is definitely going to take an act of Congress. If you're not already a member of the Drug policy Alliance, follow the link in MamaBudz post and let your voice be heard.


peace

__________________
"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." —George W. Bush, Greece, N.Y., May 24, 2005 (Listen to audio)

 

MouseMR2

Damn.. what dissapointing news to start the morning.

I sent my voice in.. thanks Mamabudz.

troublemaker_42

My letter has been sent as well.....as much as the decision sickens me, we can't give up.

Abomonog

Did you all actually think that you are going to win in a courtroom? Or in Congress for that matter? As long as our government thinks it's power is secure the federal laws will never change, and no Medical Marijuana lawsuit will win in a D.C. Supreme court....EVER!!!! There are just too many kickbacks going into Washingtons pockets for this to ever change. And now that the drug testing industry has a lobby in Washington, it's probably going to take an act of God to get any D.C. lawmaker with significant power on our side.

Nice try Angel Raich and Diane Monson. Sorry, but the deck was stacked from the very beginning.

Although I would like to lose, I'm putting my money on the latter.

I think an amendment forcing the U.S. Justice Department to actually obey the law would work a lot better.

__________________
It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys attack!

castklear

This ruling means NOTHING to those of us who believe that we are entitled to use marijuana no matter what foolish laws exist.


HERE...HERE!!!

I AGREE WITH THE "ENRAGED AMERICAN"!

__________________
It is your job, the task of the people in this world to strip the last remnants of ancient, cruel belief's from the civilized man.

tintala

What a terrible thing to read 1st thing in the morning! It made me want to leave this country, of which i do have an option to do so. The SUPREME COURT Is nothing but an "OLE FOLKS HOME" , I think they are all over 65yrs old! The remedy there is for the old supreme court to "DIE" and this will pave the way for "younger" supreme court of who is not stuck in "OLD WAYS" of thinking. BOTTOMLINE, we need younger blood in the supreme court! ##$#$#$ old bags!