Pubdate: Tue, 07 Jun 2005
Source: Charlotte Observer (NC)
Copyright: 2005 The Charlotte Observer
Contact:  http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/
Author: David G. Savage, Los Angeles Times
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Cannabis - Medicinal)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topics/Raich (Angel Raich)

MEDICAL MARIJUANA ILLEGAL, COURT RULES

Justices: Federal Ban Outweighs State Laws

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Monday upheld the federal
government's power to seize and destroy marijuana that is used as
medicine by seriously ill patients, ruling that strict federal drug
laws trump California's liberalized policy on pot.

The Constitution makes the laws of the United States the "supreme law
of the land," and "if there is any conflict between federal and state
law, federal law shall prevail," Justice John Paul Stevens said for
the court. It is up to Congress, he said, to change the law.

The 6-3 decision did not seek to resolve the dispute over whether
marijuana may be good medicine. Instead, the justices focused on
whether the federal government can enforce its zero-tolerance policy
on marijuana in the 10 states -- most of them in the West -- where
voters or lawmakers have opted to legalize marijuana used for medical
purposes.

There is no provision in N.C. or S.C. law that allows the use of
marijuana for medical reasons.

The court's leading liberals -- Justices Stevens, David Souter, Ruth
Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer -- sided with the Bush
administration and its federal drug enforcers, along with two
conservative justices -- Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy.

Three other conservatives -- Chief Justice William Rehnquist and
Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas -- joined the side of
the California marijuana users to limit federal authority.

The case focused on patients who grew marijuana at home for their own
use. It tested whether Congress' power to regulate "commerce among the
states" extends to individuals who were not buying or selling marijuana.

Federal drug agents, prosecutors and judges may arrest, try and punish
those who grow or use marijuana, the high court said, even in states
that have laws legalizing it.

However, state and local police need not assist in those efforts. And
since most law enforcement is carried out by state and local
officials, medical marijuana laws should continue to have practical
significance.

California Attorney General Bill Lockyer said the ruling "shows the
vast philosophical difference between the federal government and
Californians on the rights of patients. ... Taking medicine on the
recommendation of a doctor for a legitimate illness should not be a
crime."

Federal law-enforcement officials downplayed the idea that drug agents
would be unleashed on marijuana-using patients.

"The vast majority of our cases are against those involved in
trafficking, and major cultivation and distribution," said Karen
Tandy, head of the Drug Enforcement Administration. "I don't see any
significant changes in DEA enforcement strategies after today's
decision. We don't target sick and dying people."

The case before the court was brought by two ill California women, one
of whom had her personal marijuana confiscated by federal agents.

Angel Raich, a brain-tumor patient from Oakland, urged Congress on
Monday to rethink its policy toward marijuana.

Raich sued to defend her personal use of marijuana as medicine. She
suffers from serious medical conditions, including an inoperable brain
tumor, chronic back pain and muscle spasms. She and her doctor said
cannabis is uniquely effective in relieving her pain. She sued along
with Diane Monson after DEA agents raided Monson's Butte County,
Calif., home three years ago and destroyed her marijuana plants.

Their lawyers argued that homegrown marijuana did not involve
interstate commerce and so was beyond the authority of the federal
government.

The six-member majority said Congress has the authority to police the
market in marijuana.

"One need not have a degree in economics to understand why a
nationwide exemption for the vast quantity of marijuana (or other
drugs) locally cultivated for personal use ... may have a substantial
impact on the interstate market for this extraordinarily popular
substance," Stevens wrote.

The court's majority made clear it was not endorsing the federal
policy on marijuana.

"The voices of voters allied with (these two women) may one day be
heard in the halls of Congress," Stevens wrote.

Other Actions

Also Monday, the court:

.  Held 6-3 that foreign cruise lines sailing in U.S. waters must
provide better access for disabled passengers.

.  Ruled in favor of the federal government in a dispute with Alaska
over ownership of submerged lands in the Glacier Bay area.

.  Refused to consider reinstating a lawsuit that accuses federal
officials of discriminating against male athletes in enforcing equal
opportunities for women. 
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake