Pubdate: Tue, 07 Jun 2005
Source: Chicago Tribune (IL)
Copyright: 2005 Chicago Tribune Company
Contact:  http://www.chicagotribune.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/82
Pubdate: Tue, 07 Jun 2005
Source: Chicago Tribune (IL)
Author: Jan Crawford Greenburg, Washington Bureau
Note: Tribune national correspondent Vincent J. Schodolski contributed from 
Los Angeles
Cited: Gonzales v. Raich ( www.angeljustice.org/ )
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Cannabis - Medicinal)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topics/Raich (Angel Raich)

TOP COURT REJECTS MARIJUANA FOR SICK

U.S. Laws Trump States' Statutes

WASHINGTON -- Terminally ill patients who smoke marijuana to alleviate
pain can be prosecuted for violating federal drug laws, even if their
own state laws allow them to use marijuana for medical purposes, the
Supreme Court ruled Monday.

In a 6-3 decision, the court ruled that federal drug laws, which say
marijuana has no medical value, trump statutes in 11 states that
allowed terminally ill patients to use the drug or limit penalties for
doing so. Although the ruling does not overturn the state laws, it
means patients who use marijuana for medical reasons could be arrested
and prosecuted under the federal Controlled Substances Act.

Angel Raich, the 39-year-old California woman at the center of the
case who uses marijuana to alleviate chronic pain, said Monday she
would continue to use the drug and that she expected others in her
situation to do so. She and other advocates said they would intensify
efforts to lobby Congress to change federal drug laws, although
Congress has shown no such inclination.

"If I stop using cannabis, unfortunately, I would die," said Raich,
who suffers from wasting disease and joint pain.

The decision, written by Justice John Paul Stevens, acknowledged the
"troubling facts" of the case and Raich's "strong arguments" that she
will suffer irreparable harm without the benefits of marijuana.

But the issue before the court was whether Congress had power to
regulate medical marijuana, not "whether it is wise to enforce the
statute in these circumstances," Stevens wrote.

In ruling against the terminally ill patients, the court strongly
reaffirmed a broad scope of congressional power to regulate interstate
commerce--even of products that are grown and consumed in the same
state. Moreover, the court said that if it had ruled that Congress
could not outlaw medical marijuana, such a decision would surely have
extended to homegrown marijuana used for recreational purposes as well.

The case was one of the most closely watched of the term, not only
because of the practical implications in states with medical marijuana
laws, but also because it involved deciding the extent of
congressional power.

The decision produced an unusual lineup of liberal and conservative
justices and makes clear the court sees real limits to a series of
rulings in the last decade that have sharply curtailed Congress' power
as it relates to the states.

"This is a case simply about the reach of federal power," said Randy
Barnett, a law professor at Boston University School of Law who argued
the case for Raich and another terminally ill California woman, Diane
Monson.

Robert Raich, a lawyer and the husband of Angel Raich, said he did not
expect the court's decision to have a broad practical impact, because
the vast majority of marijuana prosecutions are at the state and local
level. He said advocates would urge Congress to change the law to
reflect marijuana's medicinal value.

In seeking to head off a federal prosecution, Raich and Monson had
argued that Congress had no authority to ban their use of medical
marijuana because the drug was grown solely for their own use and
didn't leave the state of California. As such, it didn't concern
interstate commerce and was not within Congress' power to regulate,
they argued.

But the Justice Department contended that even marijuana grown solely
for personal medical use could affect commerce and that Congress
therefore had power to regulate it, under the Constitution's commerce
clause.

The balance of power between Congress and the states is an issue that
has captivated this court in recent years and sharply divided the
justices. In a series of opinions dating back more than a decade, the
justices have generally divided 5-4, with the five conservatives in
the majority, to put limits on Congress' power to pass laws governing
many areas of American life.

But in Monday's case, two of those five, Justices Anthony Kennedy and
Antonin Scalia, sided with their more liberal colleagues to uphold
Congress' power to regulate medical marijuana use. Scalia wrote a
separate opinion, in which he concurred with the outcome and said he
saw the case as a straightforward one.

In his opinion for the majority, Stevens strongly reaffirmed a 1942
case on the scope of congressional power under the commerce clause.
That case, which said Congress could regulate a farmer's wheat
production that was grown solely for his family's use, was considered
by critics as the most extreme validation of congressional power under
the commerce clause.

"The hopes of those who wanted a fundamental rethinking of
congressional power under the commerce clause are dashed--more even
than they might have feared," said University of Chicago Law School
professor Cass Sunstein.

The court said that the similarities between the wheat case and the
medical marijuana issue were "striking." While neither product was
produced for sale, the court said, Congress still could regulate them
because of its interest in protecting or policing interstate markets
in the products.

"In both cases, the regulation is squarely within Congress' commerce
power because production of the commodity meant for home consumption,
be it wheat or marijuana, has a substantial effect on supply and
demand in the national market for the commodity," Stevens wrote for
the court.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote a sharp dissent, joined by Chief
Justice William Rehnquist and Clarence Thomas, in which she accused
the majority of trivializing past decisions that have curbed the scope
of federal power. O'Connor said the decision "stifles an express
choice by some states, concerned for the lives and liberties of their
people, to regulate medical marijuana differently."

The 11 states that allow medical marijuana usage or limit the penalty
for such use are California, Maryland, Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii,
Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington.

The marijuana case came about after federal agents seized six
marijuana plants from the back yard of Monson, who is 47 and suffering
from a spine disease. She, Raich and two of Raich's caregivers sued to
block the federal government from enforcing the federal drug laws
against them.

The U.S. Court of Appeals from the 9th Circuit agreed that Congress
lacked the authority to subject them to federal drug laws because
their activity did not involve interstate commerce. Luke Macaulay, a
spokesman for the U.S. attorney's office in San Francisco, had no
comment on plans regarding the plaintiffs in the case and referred all
calls to the Justice Department. 
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake