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