Pubdate: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 Source: Oakland Tribune, The (CA) Copyright: 2002 MediaNews Group, Inc. and ANG Newspapers Contact: http://www.oaklandtribune.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/314 Author: Josh Richman Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?115 (Cannabis - California) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/ocbc.htm (Oakland Cannabis Court Case) FEDERAL COURT CONSIDERS POT ARGUMENTS Judge Preparing To Decide Whether U.S. Should Be Blocked From Prosecuting California Lawyers argued Tuesday over whether a federal judge can and should bar U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft and Drug Enforcement Administration chief Asa Hutchinson from treating medical marijuana patients as criminals. U.S. District Judge Martin Jenkins didn't rule Tuesday, but indicated he'll do so no later than mid-January. Patients sued the government officials in October, claiming their civil rights are being violated by federal crackdowns on medical marijuana. The federal government still deems all marijuana growth, possession or use illegal, even though California voters OK'd medical marijuana in 1996. Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Oregon and Washington have similar laws. Jenkins peppered the patients' attorneys -- Robert Raich of Oakland, David Michael of San Francisco and Boston University Law Professor Randy Barnett - -- and Justice Department trial lawyer Mark T. Quinlivan with questions Tuesday. Some questions concerned whether Jenkins even has the authority under 9th Circuit case law to issue an injunction in a case such as this. Quinlivan argued he doesn't, while the patients' attorneys said he does. The lawyers also sparred on whether the federal Controlled Substances Act, which Ashcroft and Hutchinson use as authority to go after medical marijuana patients, should be applied to medical marijuana. Barnett argued Congress' constitutional authority extends only to interstate commerce, while medical marijuana in California is an issue contained wholly within the state's own borders, involving no money changing hands. Quinlivan noted case law has found marijuana use for any purpose can't be considered wholly intrastate and non-economic. Raich argued for the 9th Amendment right of plaintiff Angel McClary Raich, his wife, to be free from pain and prolong her life by using marijuana. "Angel would die were it not for cannabis," he said. "It cannot be the law of the United States that a person must face death because of a law Congress passed for other purposes entirely." Quinlivan argued Congress passed the Controlled Substances Act knowing it would apply to everyone, and marijuana remains on the act's most restricted list, signifying it has no recognized medicinal value. Case law says people have a constitutional right to treatment in general, but not to specific, unproven medicines and methods, he said. Some of this case's constitutional arguments mirror those made to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative's pending case. The OCBC raised those issues after the U.S. Supreme Court in 2001 struck down its medical necessity argument for resuming distribution to patients. But in his concurrence with that opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote individual patients -- rather than clubs like the OCBC -- might have better legal standing to seek such an exception. The patients' lawsuit was a response to that ruling. - --- MAP posted-by: Doc-Hawk