Supreme court rules against medi-pot

[elbow]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050606/...u_co/scotus_me dical_marijuana_13



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</span>, 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,
<input name="c3" value="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;SEARCH&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://search.news.yahoo.com/search/...News&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://search.news.yahoo.com/search/...&quot;&gt;News Photos&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://images.search.yahoo.com/searc...ages&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=%22HIV%22&fr=yqovly4&quot;&gt;Web&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;" target="_blank" type="hidden" target="_blank">

HIV</span> and other serious illnesses.



In a dissent, Justice <input name="c3" value="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;SEARCH&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://search.news.yahoo.com/search/...News&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://search.news.yahoo.com/search/...&quot;&gt;News Photos&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://images.search.yahoo.com/searc...ages&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=%22Sandra+Day+O%27Connor%22&fr=yqovly4&qu ot;&gt;Web&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;" target="_blank" type="hidden" target="_blank">

Sandra Day O'Connor</span> 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</span>.



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<input name="c3" value="&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;SEARCH&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://search.news.yahoo.com/search/...News&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://search.news.yahoo.com/search/...&quot;&gt;News Photos&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://images.search.yahoo.com/searc...ages&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=%22John+Ashcroft%22&fr=yqovly4&quot;&gt;W eb&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;" target="_blank" type="hidden" target="_blank">

John Ashcroft</span>,
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.



Edited by: elbow

[Zandorf]

the bible thumpers in the federal govenrment can't tell you not to beat
your wife, but they can sure make certain that if you get aids
your ride to hell won't be comfortable.





<!--
var SymRealOnLoad;
var SymReal;

Sym()
{
window.open = SymWinOpen;
if(SymReal != null)
SymReal();
}

SymOnLoad()
{
if(SymRealOnLoad != null)
SymRealOnLoad();
window.open = SymRealWinOpen;
SymReal = window.;
window. = Sym;
}

SymRealOnLoad = window.onload;
window.onload = SymOnLoad;

//-->

[The_Great_Sage]

One example of the crap of them not letting the medical use of MJ, is
my father. He had HIV and lived in california. When he was in the last
and most painful time of his illness and he was close to death he chose
to use on natural drugs and methods. I sat by and watched him suffer
throgh a living hell in a hospital with IVs hooked to him for months.
this wasin '95. the case was in court to have MJ for medical use. He
got arrested for using pot at the end of '94. they drug tested him even
though he was dying. he had no way out but to use the drugs that made
it so i didnt see my father but instead saw a dying man under strong
zombifying pain killers. When he died it was because hisliver couldnt
handle the amount of drugs the made him take. I lost the last
monthsofmy fathers life to the bullshit system that claims to be so
full of "Freedom".



and now as i watch the freinds from my fathers and mothers suport
groups die off filled with chemicals and haunted till death by police
becuase they used pot.



(My story may have no relavance, but i think its a reason they should losen up.)

[enquirewithin]

People like Justice Stevens should be allowed to experience the pain that he is inflicting upon innocent people. This a country which pursues unjustified wars becuase of the greed of its poilticians and tries to 'protect' its citizens from a harmless weed by prosecuting them, even when they are dying.

[greg888]

I agree that drugs should be legal, especially medical marijuana. But I'm
not sure I could argue too much with this decision. It isn't the judge's job
to say what should happen, its their job to interpret the constitution and
the laws which have been passed by congress. Although i personally feel
drug use is protected by the constitution, obviously no judge in the
country agrees with me and I wouldn't expect anything different from the
supreme court. Although a state can allow medical marijuana it seems
like common sense still says that federal law can overide state law. If
some state suddently declared slavery legal again I think everyone would
expect federal law to overide it immediatly. I think the only way we're
going to win any victories is if Congress passes new laws regarding
marijuana. Hopefully cases like this of truly sick people being denied the
only medicine which works for them will stir the public enough to start
demanding changes in federal law. I have a feeling that my optimism is
being generated by my current opiate inebriation though. If I missed
something in this case though I'd like for someone to point it out. I feel
crappy defending these judges when the implications of their decision is
so absurd and inhumane

[drwoo]

Originally Posted by enquirewithin

People like Justice Stevens should be allowed to experience the pain that he is inflicting upon innocent people. This a country which pursues unjustified wars becuase of the greed of its poilticians and tries to 'protect' its citizens from a harmless weed by prosecuting them, even when they are dying.

the irony in the matter is that Justice Stevens is a cancer survivor. The supreme court justices that made the ruling were saying that it shouldn't be legal, but its not their place to say weather or not its legal. While I disagree with them and I am disappointed with the results, the ball is now in congresses court, and well ALL HOPE IS NOW LOST! Just kidding but maybe after next years election we will lose some of the bible toting right wing ultra conservative congress men and might actually have a chance at this passing.

[uqlfy]

See what really gets me is how when the question of MD's prescribing Mj for patients comes up the opposition always</span>
uses the line about how there are doctors who will prescribe it
unethically. Come on has anybody who says that ever considered that
there are already MD's who overprescribe all sorts of stuff. One study
foud that a patient was 25% more likely to be prescribed a specific
medicine if they asked for it by name and said they eithier saw a tv ad
or heard about it from someone with the same symptoms. The problem is
with the doctors and healthcare system, not the medicine.

Furthermore the people who use it recreationally already can get
it. Its not like theres gonna be some army of rabid potheads robbbing
every pharmacy in america.

[Pinkavvy]

this topic is also in the drugnews forum.

what about the 10th amendment? doesn't that ensure that states can govern and trump federal regulations?

this nation needs a national light up day, where everybody gathers and smokes out on government building land.

fuck federalism, and fuck anti-pot politics. fuck big tobacco, and fuck republican bias and appointed judges.

[enquirewithin]

The 10th Amendment</span>, that's the
point. It's the Republicans (or the Democrats for that matter if they
were in power) pushing for more state control.

[gn2osis]

^ Screw the 10th --- how about the 9th? That comes before
the 10th and basically says that just because certain rights aren't
mentioned doesn't mean that THE PEOPLE don't retain them. To me
that means there ought to be a very high threshold for government (Fed
or state or local) to infringe on civil liberties. But the courts
have basically ignored it. I don't think there are any major
decisions in the 20th century citing it.



The issue shouldn't be about states at all, or about the red herring
argument over whether pot is "safe and effective". Are alcohol
and nicotine safe and effective? Come on. We should just
call them all recreational drugs a/o sacraments and be done with it,
and move on to better things. Preaching to the choir here of
course, sorry.

<!--
var SymRealOnLoad;
var SymReal;

Sym()
{
window.open = SymWinOpen;
if(SymReal != null)
SymReal();
}

SymOnLoad()
{
if(SymRealOnLoad != null)
SymRealOnLoad();
window.open = SymRealWinOpen;
SymReal = window.;
window. = Sym;
}

SymRealOnLoad = window.onload;
window.onload = SymOnLoad;

//-->


<!--
var SymRealOnLoad;
var SymReal;

Sym()
{
window.open = SymWinOpen;
if(SymReal != null)
SymReal();
}

SymOnLoad()
{
if(SymRealOnLoad != null)
SymRealOnLoad();
window.open = SymRealWinOpen;
SymReal = window.;
window. = Sym;
}

SymRealOnLoad = window.onload;
window.onload = SymOnLoad;

//-->

Edited by: gn2osis