Pubdate: Tue, 07 Jun 2005
Source: Sun News (Myrtle Beach, SC)
Copyright: 2005 Sun Publishing Co.
Contact:  http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/sunnews/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/987
Note: apparent 150 word limit on LTEs
Author:  Jennifer A. Dlouhy, Hearst Newspapers
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/ )
Cited: Marijuana Policy Project http://www.mpp.org
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Cannabis - Medicinal)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topics/Raich (Angel Raich)

DEFYING HIGH COURT, PATIENTS VOW TO KEEP USING MARIJUANA FOR MEDICAL REASONS

WASHINGTON - Sick patients who say they rely on marijuana to ease their
symptoms vowed to continue using the drug, in defiance of a Supreme
Court decision Monday that gives the federal government carte blanche
to go after them.

Angel Raich, the 39-year-old Oakland, Calif., woman at the center of
the case decided by the Supreme Court, said she will not give up using
marijuana to help boost her hunger and ease pain from a host of
ailments, even though Monday's 6-3 ruling means she could face federal
charges.

"If I was to stop using cannabis, it would be the end of my life,"
said Raich, who says she relies on three ounces of the drug each week
to keep her hungry so she can combat a life-threatening wasting
syndrome. "I just simply cannot hold onto my weight without cannabis."

Raich, who also has an inoperable brain tumor and suffers from chronic
pain, told reporters in a conference call she "would like to be able
to follow the law," but, "because the law is unjust, I am going to
continue this fight."

In 2002, Raich and another California woman, Diane Monson, sued
then-Attorney General John Ashcroft after Drug Enforcement
Administration agents and local county sheriffs raided Monson's home
and confiscated six of her cannabis plants. It is illegal under
federal law to grow, distribute or possess marijuana, but a California
statute allows "seriously ill" residents to cultivate and use
marijuana for medical purposes, with the guidance and approval of
their physicians.

Ten other states have similar laws on the books: Alaska, Arizona,
Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington.

But a six-member majority of the Supreme Court ruled Monday that
federal anti-marijuana laws trump the state statutes. The court found
that Congress has authority under the Constitution's Commerce Clause
to regulate even small quantities of cannabis cultivated within a
state for medical purposes. Such amounts could hit the illegal market
across state lines, the court said.

"Regulation is squarely within Congress' commerce power because
production of the commodity meant for home consumption . . . has a
substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market for
that commodity," said Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority.

Joining Stevens in ruling against Raich were Justices Stephen G.
Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony M. Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and
David H. Souter. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist dissented, along
with Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas.

The Supreme Court specifically did not consider an argument Raich and
Monson made before lower courts: Enforcement of federal drug laws
against their medical use of marijuana would trample their fundamental
rights to life. Lawyers for the pair said Monday they plan to take
that argument back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

In the meantime, state medical cannabis laws remain on the books,
contended Steve Fox, a lobbyist with the Marijuana Policy Project,
which advocates liberalized marijuana policies. But people who grow or
use marijuana under the state laws - and the physicians who facilitate
their access - now risk federal prosecution.

It was unclear Monday how vigorously the Department of Justice would
enforce federal laws against marijuana in light of the ruling - and
whether prosecutors would go after patients who have been using the
drug.

But in a statement, White House Drug Czar John Walters dismissed
claims that cannabis could be used safely for therapeutic purposes.

"To date, science and research have not determined that smoking a
crude plant is safe or effective," said Walters, who heads the Office
of National Drug Control Policy. "We have a responsibility as a
civilized society to ensure that the medicine Americans receive from
their doctors is effective, safe, and free from the pro-drug politics
that are being promoted in America under the guise of medicine."

Walters noted that a synthetic form of the main psychoactive component
of marijuana, tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, is legally available by
prescription to treat nausea under the brand name Marinol. Critics,
including Raich, complain that the substance does not provide the same
kind of relief as marijuana - and can cause side effects such as headaches.

The issue ultimately could be decided on Capitol Hill. In the Supreme
Court's majority opinion, Stevens noted that although they lost in
court, Raich and other marijuana advocates can pursue "the democratic
process, in which the voices of voters allied with these respondents
may one day be heard in the halls of Congress."

A big battle on the issue is already looming. Next week, Reps. Maurice
Hinchey, D-N.Y., and Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., will push a proposal
to bar the Justice Department from spending federal dollars to go
after medical marijuana use in states that allow it.

Their initiative - which will be offered as an amendment to a spending
bill that funds the Department of Justice - is similar to proposals
that failed by large margins in 2004 and 2003. In both cases, the
amendments fell roughly 60 votes shy of what supporters needed.

Advocates of more liberal drug laws are hoping the Supreme Court
decision - and fears that the Bush administration, empowered by the
ruling, will prosecute medical marijuana users - will drive more
lawmakers to their side.

"At this point, we now have six members of the U.S. Supreme Court who
are in essence calling on Congress to change its laws," said Robert
Raich, Angel's husband and one of her lawyers. "That's a pretty
resounding invitation to Congress to listen to the voices of people
like Angel to try and change the laws in their favor."

Opponents of illegal drugs said the Supreme Court decision rightly
would ensure people could not evade federal anti-drug laws by
exploiting state medical marijuana statutes when they were not sick or
when their illnesses could be treated with legal medicines.

Eric A. Voth, a doctor and the chairman of the Institute on Global
Drug Policy said the ruling "upholds the long-established scientific
fact that marijuana is not medicine and it reaffirms that medicine by
popular vote is a dangerous process that bypasses the FDA, reduces
consumer protections and jeopardizes sick patients." 
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake