Pubdate: Fri, 18 May 2001
Source: Bay Area Reporter (CA)
Copyright: 2001 The Bay Area Reporter / B.A.R.
Contact:  http://www.mapinc.org/media/41
Website: http://www.ebar.com/
Author: Bob Roehr
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/ocbc.htm (Oakland Cannabis Buyers
Cooperative)

SUPREME COURT SNUFFS OUT MEDICAL POT

The U.S. Supreme Court threw compassion and the pleas of patients to the
wind when it ruled by the letter of the law and against the medical use
of marijuana. In its 8-0 unanimous decision issued Monday, May 14, the
court found that "for the purposes of the Controlled Substances Act,
marijuana has no currently accepted medical use at all."

"Congress has made a determination that marijuana has no medical
benefits worthy of an exception," wrote Justice Clarence Thomas in the
majority opinion that denied use of a medical necessity defense when
prosecuted. He was joined by four other justices who are held to be the
more conservative members of the court. 

A minority opinion, written by Justice John Paul Stevens and joined by
Justices David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, tried to carve out a
narrower ruling. They argued that medical necessity could not be used as
a defense for manufacturing and distribution of marijuana but may be so
employed by individual patients "for whom there is no alternative means
of avoiding starvation or extraordinary suffering." 

Justice Stephen Breyer did not take part in the decision because his
brother, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, handled the case on the
trial court level. The case was the United States v. Oakland Cannabis
Buyers Cooperative. 

Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative director Jeff Jones lamented the
decision as "heavy-handed and misguided." It will limit their "ability
to give direction to patients who are now going to be left to go to the
streets to access their medicines in a way that is unsafe and could put
them in jeopardy." 

Dr. Donald Abrams, a leading researcher in the field of medical use of
marijuana at the University of California, San Francisco, criticized
both the court and Congress for playing doctor. He chooses to let the
doctor and patient decide what is best in each individual situation. 

"This is not going to be over until we win," said Dennis Peron, director
of Californians for Compassionate Use of Marijuana. Peron led the 1996
ballot fight, Proposition 215, where voters approved medical use of
marijuana. 

The issue of medical marijuana is likely to be back before the courts on
questions concerning individual constitutional rights and states' rights
in the context of a federated system of government that divides
responsibilities between the federal and state governments. 

Local law enforcement officials were reviewing the ruling. But some had
already decided that federal law did not affect state law. "If the feds
want to prosecute these people they can," said Mendocino County
California District Attorney Norm Vroman. "In California, the law has
not changed one iota." 

Chuck Thomas, spokesman for the Marijuana Policy Project in Washington,
D.C., said the court ruling only applies to federal prosecutions. "A
state government may still allow its residents to possess, grow, or
distribute marijuana." Only about 1 percent of marijuana cases are
prosecuted under federal law. 

Congressman Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts) has introduced legislation
that would reclassify marijuana from a Schedule I to a Schedule II
controlled substance. That would ease restrictions on research and
medical use, as well as reduce penalties for violating the law. And it
would allow physicians to prescribe or recommend marijuana as therapy as
applicable under state law.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Doc-Hawk