HTTP/1.0 200 OK
Content-Type: text/html
Medical Pot Users Lose in U.S. Court
Pubdate: Tue, 11 Mar 2003
Source: San Francisco Chronicle (CA)
Copyright: 2003 Hearst Communications Inc.
Contact: http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/388
Author: Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
Note: The decision is at
http://www.toad.com/drugs/angel-v-ashcroft-no-pi.pdf and the major
pleadings at http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/documents/index.html#drugs
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/people/Angel+Raich
MEDICAL POT USERS LOSE IN U.S. COURT
California patients using local weed aren't exempt from federal drug
laws, judge rules
In another legal setback for medical marijuana in California, a
federal judge says two patients who used locally grown pot with their
doctors' approval could face prosecution under federal drug laws.
In a ruling made public Monday, U.S. District Judge Martin Jenkins
expressed sympathy for the two women, for whom "traditional medicine
has utterly failed." But he said the federal ban on marijuana applied
to everyone, including patients using drugs that never cross state
lines.
One plaintiff, Angel Raich of Oakland, suffers from painful and life-
threatening conditions, including a brain tumor, wasting syndrome and
a seizure disorder, said Robert Raich, her attorney and husband.
The second, Diane Monson of Oroville (Butte County), who uses
marijuana to ease chronic back pain and muscle spasms, was the target
of a raid in August in which federal agents seized and destroyed her
six plants. Both say marijuana is the only substance that has helped
them.
Neither has been prosecuted, but both filed civil suits in October
seeking injunctions that would prohibit federal prosecution. Their
attorneys said they would appeal.
Supporters of California's Proposition 215, the 1996 initiative that
legalized medical marijuana under state law, were looking for a ruling
that would shield individual patients from the federal crackdown
conducted by both the Clinton and Bush administrations.
Their chief argument is that Congress' constitutional power to
regulate interstate commerce -- the basis of the federal drug laws --
does not extend to marijuana that is grown, distributed and used
within one state's borders, and is permitted by state law.
The U.S. Supreme Court steered clear of the interstate commerce issue
when it ruled in 2001 that a medical marijuana club in Oakland could
not avoid federal enforcement by claiming that its members had a
medical need for the drug.
However, the claim that in-state marijuana is exempt from federal
regulation has since been rejected by two federal judges, in the cases
of the Oakland club and a Santa Cruz medical pot dispensary. Jenkins
reached the same conclusion about individual patients.
The judge said Congress found that any distribution of illegal drugs
ultimately affected interstate commerce and was subject to federal
control. Jenkins said the federal appeals court in San Francisco,
whose decisions are binding on him, accepted Congress' rationale in a
1990 ruling upholding the conviction of a defendant whose marijuana
plants were found rooted in the ground.
He also rejected arguments that patients have a constitutional right
to use marijuana to ease their pain and prolong their life. Jenkins
cited past rulings denying access to substances determined by Congress
to have no legitimate use, such as the purported cancer drug Laetrile.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake