Pubdate: Mon, 06 Jun 2005
Source: Union Democrat, The (Sonora, CA)
Copyright: 2005 Western Communications, Inc
Contact:  http://uniondemocrat.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/846
Author: Associated Press
Note: Staff Writers Erin Mayes and Chris Nichols contributed to this report.
See: http://www.angeljustice.org and http://www.raichaction.org
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topics/Raich
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Cannabis - Medicinal)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Cannabis - Medicinal)

HIGH COURT OUTLAWS MEDICAL POT

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Federal authorities may prosecute sick people who smoke 
pot on doctors' orders, the Supreme Court ruled today, 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, including California, 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 ruling could affect at least one pending marijuana cultivation case and 
one woman's plans to open a medical marijuana dispensary in Calaveras County.

San Andreas resident Kim Cue has put her plans for a dispensary on hold for 
several months. This latest ruling may mean she'll have to cancel them 
altogether.

Although Cue could not be reached this morning for comment, Calaveras 
County Sheriff Dennis Downum said he believes Cue has been waiting for the 
court's decision to make a move.

Downum said Cue could be in jeopardy of arrest if she proceeds with opening 
the business.

However, he stressed that he's not sure what the ruling's full implications 
are yet.

"The way the news media is couching it is basically (that it) is throwing 
out the marijuana laws," Downum said. "I don't know if that's in fact true. 
We'll kind of be status quo for a week or 10 days, waiting to see what this 
means for us."

Tuolumne County Sheriff's Lt. George Ruckman said the high court's decision 
will not change the department's aggressive stance on marijuana law 
enforcement.

However, the decision does not mean the department will go after medical 
marijuana patients who grow plants within the legal limit -- an amount set 
by individual counties.

"The Tuolumne County Sheriff's Department will continue to enforce 
marijuana laws as we have been. And this new Supreme Court decision means 
that it's fine for us to continue in this manner."

The closely watched Supreme Court 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. 
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake