Pubdate: Tue, 07 Jun 2005
Source: Asbury Park Press (NJ)
Copyright: 2005 Asbury Park Press
Contact:  http://www.app.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/26
Author: Joseph Picard, Staff Writer
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/people/Jim+Miller
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Cannabis - Medicinal)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topics/Raich (Angel Raich)

AREA MAN FIGHTS FOR MEDICAL MARIJUANA

Toms River Resident Says U.S. Supreme Court Ruling Won't Stop His
Quest

Cheryl Lee Miller used marijuana to lessen her pain and she claimed it
prolonged her life. She suffered from multiple sclerosis for 32 years
and died two years ago on June 7 at age 56.

To the end, she and her husband Jim, 52, a carpenter from Toms River,
were advocates of legalizing medical marijuana. Honoring his wife's
deathbed request, Jim Miller continues the effort.

The U.S. Supreme Court decision Monday that marijuana use for medical
purposes violates federal law saddened Miller but will not stop him.

"I can't say their decision surprises me, even though taking someone's
medicine away is among the worst things humans can do to each other,"
Miller said. "I sympathize with those people in California. But we've
got a bill in the state Senate here, and we're going to continue to
push it."

In a 6-to-3 decision, the nation's high court ruled that federal
authorities can prosecute sick people whose doctors prescribe
marijuana to ease pain. The court concluded that state laws do not
protect users from a federal ban on the drug.

The issue was an appeal by the Bush administration in a case involving
two seriously ill California women, Diane Monson and Angel Raich, who
use medical marijuana. The women sued then-Attorney General John
Ashcroft for wanting to prosecute them on federal charges when
California state law has permitted medical marijuana use since 1996.

Original court decisions went in the women's favor, but things changed
on Monday.

Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote the majority opinion, said the
court was not passing judgment on the possible medical benefits of
marijuana use.

At issue was Congress' right to pass laws regulating a state's
economic activity as long as it involves "interstate commerce" -
economic activity that crosses state lines. The California marijuana
in question was home-grown marijuana, which never crossed state lines.
Lawyers for the women argued, therefore, that the federal government
had no jurisdiction.

But lawyers for the Bush administration countered that marijuana is a
commodity whose activity within one state could affect the national
economy.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and
Clarence Thomas dissented.

"If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can
regulate virtually anything," Thomas wrote.

Jim Miller agreed.

"When you look at their reasoning, it's pretty ridiculous," Miller
said. "They're saying they can regulate something that isn't
interstate commerce under the interstate commerce law because that
activity affects interstate commerce by not being interstate commerce.
They can regulate you if it's interstate commerce, and they can
regulate you if it's not. They can regulate you for
everything."

In addition to California, the states of Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii,
Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington have laws
permitting medical marijuana use. The Supreme Court's decision does
not negate these laws.

State Sen. Nicholas Scutari, D-Union, is the author of S-2200, a bill
entitled the "New Jersey Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act,"
which is similar to the medical marijuana laws in other states. If
made law, the measure would prohibit the prosecution of a person under
a doctor's care who "possesses a registry identification card and no
more than six marijuana plants and one ounce of usable marijuana."

The bill is in the Senate's Health, Human Services and Senior Citizens
Committee.

"What the Supreme Court decided on medical marijuana will not affect
what happens in New Jersey," Scutari said.

He explained that states are not required to enforce federal law or
prosecute people for engaging in activities prohibited by federal law.
Therefore, permitting medical marijuana does not put New Jersey in
violation of federal law, he said.

The Supreme Court decision confirmed that federal authorities have the
right to prosecute marijuana cases under federal law. Scutari pointed
out that 99 out of 100 marijuana prosecutions are on the state level,
so his legislation would virtually protect medical marijuana users
from prosecution in New Jersey.

Scutari is hoping to get a committee hearing for his bill in the near
future.

Terrence P. Farley, first assistant Ocean County prosecutor, says,
however, he sees no value in marijuana use.

"Out-of-state drug legalizers and their highly paid local minions . .
. are fostering this issue with the ultimate goal to legalize drugs,"
Farley said.

Some residents disagreed.

"If the marijuana's application is for the relief of pain, then it
should be allowed," said Jim Tierney, 82, of Dover Township.?

Fran Oehme of Dover Township agreed.

"They should legalize it for medical purposes," she said. "They
already allow stronger drugs, like morphine, to be prescribed. Why not
marijuana, which does not have harmful side effects like morphine?"
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake