Pubdate: Tue, 07 Jun 2005 Source: Contra Costa Times (CA) Copyright: 2005 Knight Ridder Contact: http://www.contracostatimes.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/96 Cited: Gonzales v. Raich ( www.angeljustice.org/ ) Cited: Marijuana Policy Project ( www.mpp.org ) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Cannabis - Medicinal) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topics/Raich (Angel Raich) MEDICAL MARIJUANA DEFEATED The U.S. Supreme Court decided Monday that federal authorities may arrest and prosecute ill or ailing people who under state law legally use marijuana recommended by doctors for medicinal purposes. The high court's 6-3 ruling came in a case brought by two seriously ill California women, Angel Raich of Oakland and Diane Monson of Oroville. Both women use marijuana to cope with chronic illnesses and vowed to continue despite the ruling. "I cannot stop using cannabis because if I stopped using cannabis I would die," said Raich, 39, who uses marijuana every two hours that she is awake to help with a host of problems, including an inoperable brain tumor and wasting syndrome. Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act, passed by California voters in 1996, allows for marijuana use for medicinal purposes. California is one of 10 states to have adopted such legislation. These state laws, however, conflict with the Controlled Substances Act, a federal law passed in 1970 that prohibits cultivation, possession or use of marijuana and other drugs. The question taken up by the high court in the case was whether Congress' authority to regulate commerce includes the power to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana permitted by state law. Attorneys for the two women had argued that enforcing the federal act against them would violate the commerce clause, as well as constitutional provisions and the doctrine of medical necessity. Monson grows her own marijuana and Raich obtains her marijuana from two "John Doe" caregivers who provide locally grown cannabis to her at no charge. But the high court ruled Monday that even marijuana that is locally grown and provided free of charge still affects the national market for the drug, and therefore falls under Congress's power to regulate it. Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, said the Controlled Substances Act is "a valid exercise of federal power," even as applied to the "troubling facts" of the case at hand. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote in a dissent that states should be allowed to set their own rules on the issue. O'Connor was joined in her dissent by two other states' rights advocates: Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas. While conservatives may not necessarily support medical marijuana, they have pushed to broaden states' rights in recent years. The case decided Monday by the Supreme Court originated in August 2002, after federal Drug Enforcement Administration agents seized and destroyed Monson's six homegrown plants, even though county officials concluded that her use of marijuana was permitted under state law. Monson and Raich sued then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, seeking a court order letting them use or grow marijuana without fear of arrest or prosecution by federal authorities. Robert Raich, Angel Raich's husband and attorney, emphasized Monday that the high court's ruling would not affect the validity of medical marijuana laws now on the books. That's because the decision only related to the federal government's right to enforce federal drug laws, and did not deal with the legitimacy of state medical marijuana laws. The attorney said in a news conference in Oakland several hours after the court issued its decision that the situation brought to mind a quote by the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.: "We must accept finite disappointment but never lose infinite hope." "We may have lost one little narrow ruling in a split decision but we still have infinite hope," Raich said. He noted, for example, that Justice Stevens suggested that Congress could change the law to allow medical use of marijuana. In the ruling, Stevens wrote: "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." Bruce Mirken, a spokesman for the Marijuana Policy Project, said the decision gives states even more reason to pass medical marijuana laws. "Today's ruling is not a setback," Mirken said. "The court's decision does not overturn any state medical marijuana laws, it does not take away any of the protections that those laws provide." Mirken noted that federal authorities are responsible for just 1 percent of all marijuana arrests in the United States. Still, some said the high court's ruling, in reaffirming the right of federal authorities to enforce federal drug laws even in states that have enacted medical marijuana legislation, could potentially lead to more aggressive action. Meanwhile, Raich, who is allergic to almost all pharmaceutical medicines, plans to defy the ruling. She told reporters Monday that the eight to nine pounds of marijuana she used each year quite simply keeps her alive. At 5 feet 4 inches tall and about 100 pounds, she said that marijuana stimulates her appetite and helps her to consume the 2,500 to 3,000 calories she needs per day to maintain her weight. Raich said that she will turn her attention next week to Congress, which will consider an amendment to an appropriations bill that would prohibit the Department of Justice from spending funds to interfere with state medical marijuana laws over the coming fiscal year. "Just because we lost this little battle does not mean that the war is over," Raich said, urging the government to show some compassion and not declare a "war on patients." "We're ill. We're not trying to be disobedient; we're just using this medicine because it's what's saving our lives." Robert Raich said he would be deciding whether to push ahead in the case with other legal issues not addressed by the high court, including his argument that a person has a constitutional right to marijuana so as to be "free from pain." [sidebar] WHAT IT MEANS The Supreme Court's decision means that people can be arrested and prosecuted on federal charges for growing and smoking marijuana, even when that activity is considered legal under state law. The high court has ruled that state law does not shield medical marijuana users or growers from federal prosecution. - --- MAP posted-by: Richard Lake