Pubdate: Tue, 07 Jun 2005 Source: Hartford Courant (CT) Copyright: 2005 The Hartford Courant Contact: http://www.courant.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/183 Author: Rinker Buck, Courant Staff Writer Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Cannabis - Medicinal) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/decrim.htm (Decrim/Legalization) 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) RULING IMPEDES POT FOR THE SICK U.S. Supreme Court Delivers Setback for Medical Marijuana In a decision that will probably shed more confusion than light on the increasing popularity of marijuana for medical purposes, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that state laws permitting the drug's limited use do not protect individuals from federal prosecution. The decision was widely interpreted as a defeat for marijuana proponents who waged efforts in 10 states over the past decade to allow the drug's use for relief in a variety of illnesses, from glaucoma to severe reactions to chemotherapy. But many of those same proponents say that marijuana use is now so widespread, especially in California, that federal enforcement efforts will be token at best. The Supreme Court case involved two seriously ill California women, Angel Raich and Diane Monson, who use marijuana under California's liberalized medical marijuana law. Passed in 1996, the law allows state residents to grow, smoke or obtain marijuana for medical needs with a doctor's recommendation. Nine other states, including Oregon, Colorado, Vermont and Maine, have similar laws on their books. But the Bush administration has consistently argued that these state laws violate the federal Controlled Substances Act. Through several appeals, it defended the federal government's right to raid Monson's home and seize her marijuana plants. Monday's decision, without directly addressing the legality of the new state laws, upheld the federal government's right to prosecute individuals or the large marijuana dispensing industry that has evolved over the past several years. The ruling immediately threw the medical marijuana practices in the 10 states into disarray. Oregon, with 10,696 patients registered under its 1999 law, announced on Monday that it was temporarily halting the issuance of new medical marijuana registration cards while awaiting word from its state attorney general on how to interpret the Supreme Court decision. Colorado, which has 668 residents registered in its state program, has also asked its state attorney general for a legal opinion. In Connecticut, the state Senate passed a bill Saturday approving the use of medical marijuana, but passage in the house is now considered doubtful. "I think the Supreme Court's decision today will hamper the state's effort to pass a medical marijuana bill," said Christopher Morano, chief state's attorney. "In light of the ruling, any bill that the state might pass would be largely symbolic." But practical enforcement of the court ruling is considered especially problematic in California, which collects no statewide data on the number of its medical marijuana users but where many experts estimate the figure at 200,000. Under California's 1996 Compassionate Use Act, medical users or their "caregivers" are allowed to possess up to half a pound of marijuana or grow up to six mature plants for their medical use. Medical marijuana users who do not grow their own plants are allowed to obtain the drug from growers who have evolved into a system of openly operated "distribution clubs" or dispensaries. The Bay Area in northern California is believed by advocates to have at least 60 such clubs and networks legally distributing marijuana for medical purposes. Reform advocates concede that the flourishing commercial trade in "medical marijuana" invited abuse by recreational users. Criminal lawyers and pro-marijuana advocates now widely expect a crackdown on these clubs, while saying that private users who either grow or quietly obtain their marijuana will remain unaffected, simply because federal drug-enforcement agents will not be able to catch up with so many users. "It's a chilling effect, a big chilling effect. My phone has been ringing off the hook all day by clients who are terrified about what this means for them," said Los Angeles lawyer Eric D. Shevin, a criminal defense attorney who specializes in both criminal and medical marijuana law. "An individual who is growing marijuana for their own medical use, or even their own nonmedical use, will probably not be affected, but I see the feds definitely prosecuting the clubs. The people operating these dispensaries, which under California law were being run as completely above-ground legal establishments, will now be forced underground. And it's huge, because for every medical marijuana patient obtaining marijuana from the clubs, there were at least two clubs operating underground. So the chill will stop the clubs, but it's not going to stop the sale of marijuana at all." Shevin and many other experts on medical marijuana point out that less than 1 percent of all arrests for drug possession and sale are made by federal authorities. There simply will never be enough federal agents to enforce the federal laws, especially in states where new medical marijuana statutes protect a large class of users, they say. "What this ruling does is maintain the status quo," said Bruce Merkin, the communications director for the Marijuana Policy Project in Washington, D.C., one of the country's largest marijuana reform groups. "The Supreme Court has simply said that people protected under state laws can be prosecuted by federal authorities, but the state and local protections remain intact. Nothing really changes except that medical marijuana users now face the remote chance that federal agents and prosecutors will have time to prosecute a relative handful of legitimate users." Proponents of medical marijuana also point out that survey after survey has shown that most Americans support the medical uses of marijuana and may not be receptive to a harsh crackdown by federal agents. Merkin pointed out that one poll in President Bush's home state last fall, The Scripps Howard Texas Poll, found that 75 percent of residents in the Lone Star State favored a bill in the state legislature to use marijuana to treat symptoms of cancer and other serious illnesses. Among the sample of 900 Texans, 67 percent of Republicans favored medical marijuana. "These are not exactly latte-sipping liberals with a permissive attitude on drug use," Merkin said. "When Republicans from George Bush's own state of Texas express by a margin like that their support for medical uses of marijuana, you know that this is not exactly a case of the conservative bloc universally in favor of a policy." The 6-3 decision to side with federal authority over states' rights was supported by Justices John Paul Stevens, Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer and Antonin Scalia, who wrote that he agreed with the result, though not the majority's reasoning. Sandra Day O'Connor, William Rehnquist and Clarence Thomas dissented. - --- MAP posted-by: Richard Lake