Pubdate: Thu, 09 Jun 2005 Source: Seattle Post-Intelligencer (WA) Copyright: 2005 Seattle Post-Intelligencer Contact: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/408 Author: Daniel Abrahamson, Guest Columnist Note: Daniel Abrahamson is the director of legal affairs for the Drug Policy Alliance Cited: Gonzales v. Raich ( www.angeljustice.org/ ) Cited: Drug Enforcement Administration ( www.dea.gov ) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Cannabis - Medicinal) MARIJUANA DECISION PERPETUATES STANDOFF Legally speaking, the U.S. Supreme Court's decision on Monday was unsurprising and broke no new ground. The court, in Gonzales v. Raich, did what most observers predicted: It reaffirmed that federal law enforcement officials have the power to enforce federal laws banning marijuana possession and cultivation against seriously ill patients who use physician-approved marijuana for medical purposes. In so ruling, the court maintained the legal status quo that has been in place for several decades. Practically, the decision promises to perpetuate the political standoff, brewing since the mid-'90s, between state and federal governments regarding medical marijuana. Despite the Raich ruling, states remain free to enact and enforce laws permitting sick people to use medical marijuana. Meanwhile, the federal government still has a choice -- it can waste taxpayer dollars by going after sick and dying patients or it can pursue individuals who pose a real danger to society. To date, 11 states (including Washington) in the past eight years have enacted statutes permitting seriously ill patients to use physician-approved medical marijuana to relieve their suffering. It is conservatively estimated that at least 100,000 such patients are benefiting from the laws. The Raich case involved a valiant legal gambit by two California women patients, Angel Raich and Diane Monson, to prevent federal law enforcement officials from seizing their herbal medicine and arresting them for violating federal drug laws. Monson has a degenerative spinal disorder and Raich suffers from multiple debilitating conditions, including an inoperable brain tumor. She had tried 30 other medicines, and marijuana has proved to be her only effective analgesic. Nevertheless, the court refused to rein in the power of federal police to interfere with her state-sanctioned medicine. Mounting scientific evidence about marijuana's medical efficacy, and Congress' refusal to change federal law on this issue, are almost certain to energize more states to pass laws that confer state protections on people who need medical marijuana. Indeed, even the high court acknowledged in its Raich decision that the evidence on behalf of medical marijuana should "cast serious doubt" on Congress' decision to keep it illegal under federal law. If history is any guide, it appears that federal officials lack either the will or the resources to arrest or prosecute more than a handful of the tens of thousands of people using medical marijuana around the country, perhaps because federal juries are reluctant to convict sick people for using a medicine that relieves their pain. The average medical marijuana patient who complies with state law likely will have little to fear from the federal police. Of course, even a single federal prosecution of a sick person for using a physician-recommended medication is too many, and occurs against the will of the majority: At least 70 percent of U.S. adults support patients' access to medical marijuana. In his majority decision, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the issue of medical marijuana should be heard in Congress. Meanwhile, the House will soon have a chance to protect vulnerable patients by voting yes on a bipartisan amendment by Reps. Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y., and Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., which would prohibit the Justice Department and Drug Enforcement Administration from spending any money on undermining state medical marijuana laws. Last year, almost 150 representatives signed on to the Hinchey/ Rohrabacher amendment, and this year it is poised to pick up more support. It is a win-win for elected officials: By voting for the amendment, they are not only doing what's popular with their constituents, they are doing what's right.