Pubdate: Wed, 08 Jun 2005
Source: Los Angeles Daily News (CA)
Copyright: 2005 Los Angeles Daily News
Contact: http://www.dailynews.com/Stories/0,1413,200%257E21664%257E,00.html
Website: http://www.DailyNews.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/246
Author: Daniel N. Abrahamson, Guest Columnist
Note: Daniel Abrahamson is the director of legal affairs for the Drug 
Policy Alliance.
Action: 
http://actioncenter.drugpolicy.org/action/index.asp?step=2&item=25197&ms=hp
Action: http://hinchey.mpp.org/
Action: http://capwiz.com/norml2/mail/oneclick_compose/?alertid=7309441
Cited: Gonzales v. Raich ( www.angeljustice.org/ )
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Cannabis - Medicinal)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/opinion.htm (Opinion)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topics/Raich (Angel Raich)

POT FIGHT FAR FROM OVER

Congress, States, Lower Courts Could Heat It Up Again

Legally speaking, the Supreme Court's decision on Monday was
unsurprising and broke no new ground. The court, in Gonzales v. Raich,
did what most observers predicted: It reaffirmed that federal
law-enforcement officials have the power to enforce federal laws
banning marijuana possession and cultivation against seriously ill
patients who use physician-approved marijuana for medical purposes.

In so ruling, the court maintained the legal status quo that has been
in place for several decades. The court also presented an important
opportunity for Congress to take action in defense of vulnerable patients.

As a practical matter, the court's decision promises to perpetuate the
political standoff, brewing since the mid-1990s, between state and
federal governments regarding medical marijuana. Despite the Raich
ruling, states remain free to enact and enforce laws permitting sick
people to use medical marijuana. Meanwhile, the federal government
still has a choice: It can waste taxpayer dollars by going after sick
and dying patients or pursue individuals who pose a real danger to
society.

In the last eight years, 10 states have enacted statutes permitting
seriously ill patients to use physician-approved medical marijuana to
relieve their suffering. It is conservatively estimated that at least
100,000 such patients are benefiting from these laws.

The Raich case involved a valiant legal gambit by two California
patients, Angel Raich and Diane Monson, to prevent federal
law-enforcement officials from seizing their herbal medicine and
arresting them for violating federal drug laws. Raich suffers from
multiple debilitating conditions, including an inoperable brain tumor,
scoliosis, endometriosis and fibromyalgia. She had tried 30 medicines,
none of which helped alleviate her pain, before she turned to
marijuana as a last resort, and, as her physician states, marijuana
has proved to be her only effective analgesic.

Nevertheless, the high court refused to rein in the power of federal
police to interfere with her state-sanctioned medicine.

Mounting scientific evidence from researchers around the globe about
marijuana's medical efficacy, the continuous outpouring of patient and
physician testimonials, and the refusal of Congress to change federal
law on this issue are almost certain to energize more states to pass
laws that confer state protections on persons who need medical marijuana.

Indeed, even the Supreme Court acknowledged in its Raich decision that
the evidence on behalf of medical marijuana should "cast serious
doubt" on Congress' decision to keep it illegal under federal law.
Along these lines, the U.S. House of Representatives will soon
consider a bipartisan amendment authored by Rep. Maurice Hinchey,
D-N.Y., and Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., which would prohibit the
Justice Department and Drug Enforcement Agency from spending any money
on undermining state medical-marijuana laws.

Last year almost 150 representatives signed on to the
Hinchey-Rohrabacher amendment, and this year it is poised to pick up
more support.

But whether it passes or not, the Raich decision will further motivate
state and local officials to devise innovative methods and procedures
to help insulate seriously ill individuals from the prying eyes and
heavy-handed tactics of federal police. For example, several
municipalities have already enacted or are considering ordinances that
would prevent local police from sharing information or resources with
federal agents about medical-marijuana patients, gardens and
dispensaries.

If history is any guide, it appears that federal officials lack either
the will or the resources to arrest or prosecute more than a small
handful of the tens of thousands of persons currently using medical
marijuana around the country, perhaps because federal juries are
reluctant to convict sick people for using a medicine that relieves
their pain. Of course, even a single federal prosecution of a sick
person for using a physician-recommended medication is one too many;
but as a practical matter, the average medical-marijuana patient who
complies with state law will likely have little to fear from the
federal police.

Although the Supreme Court in 2003 let stand a lower court ruling
permitting physicians to recommend marijuana to patients under the
First Amendment, the Raich decision represents the second time in
recent years that the Supreme Court has denied legal relief to
medical-marijuana advocates.

But Raich does not spell the end of federal litigation in this area.
Other cases involving medical-marijuana patients are awaiting decision
in lower federal courts, raising new and important constitutional
questions left open by the Raich decision. What is more, states will
continue to experiment in expanding state legal protections for
patients, perhaps below federal radar, as communities mobilize to
reduce the pain and suffering of the seriously ill. 
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake