Pubdate: Tue, 07 Jun 2005
Source: Wall Street Journal (US)
Copyright: 2005 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
Contact:  http://www.wsj.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/487
Author: Jess Bravin
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topics/Raich (Angel Raich)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Cannabis - Medicinal)

SUPREME COURT REJECTS STATE LAWS ALLOWING MEDICAL-MARIJUANA USE

The Supreme Court said the federal government can prosecute sick
patients who grow and use marijuana to alleviate their symptoms,
despite state laws allowing its use.

In a 6-3 opinion by Justice John Paul Stevens, the court said federal
laws outlawing marijuana and finding it without any accepted medical
use took precedence over laws in California and nine other states
authorizing seriously ill patients to use the drug under a physician's
supervision. 	 Justice Stevens questioned the scientific basis and
wisdom of the federal government's policy, and offered sympathy for
the severely ill patients who say the plant is their only effective
treatment for debilitating pain, but he said their remedy was to
petition Congress to change the law. He was joined by Justices Anthony
Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, while
Antonin Scalia filed a concurrence.

The case stemmed from Proposition 215, approved by California voters
in 1996, which allowed "seriously ill" patients to use marijuana when
"deemed appropriate" by a physician. In 2003, the Ninth U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled that federal antidrug laws
didn't apply to patients using marijuana under the state law. That
court said the Commerce Clause of the federal Constitution, which
allows Congress to regulate interstate commerce, didn't apply to "the
intrastate, noncommercial cultivation and possession of cannabis for
personal medical purposes as recommended by a patient's physician
pursuant to valid California state law."

In reversing that decision, Justice Stevens wrote that marijuana fell
squarely under a 1942 precedent dealing with another crop, wheat. In
that case, the court upheld a federal regulatory plan that limited the
amount of wheat a farmer could grow -- even though he intended to use
the excess solely for home consumption. Though the farmer's excess
wheat might be "trivial by itself," the court said in that case,
national demand for the crop might decline if others did the same,
affecting the overall market.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's dissent was joined by Chief Justice
William Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas. Federalism was intended
to "promote innovation," as states explore different policy solutions,
she wrote.

Eight of the 10 states with medical marijuana laws are in the Ninth
Circuit, and following the San Francisco court's ruling federal
authorities halted enforcement against medical patients there, said
Rogene Waite, a spokeswoman for the Drug Enforcement Administration.
Now, she said, "realistically, you can expect cases to go forward."

Advocates for medical marijuana said their fight to win legalization
wasn't over. Attorneys for the patients said they would ask lower
courts to consider arguments under constitutional provisions that
weren't in the case before the Supreme Court. (Gonzales v. Raich)
- ---
MAP posted-by: Derek