This is truly sad for some of my dearest friends:
Published on Monday, May 14, 2001 at 10:45 AM by the
Associated Press
Going Backwards
Supreme Court Says No Medical Marijuana
Necessity
by Larry Margasak
WASHINGTON �� The Supreme Court handed medical marijuana
users a major defeat
Monday, ruling that a federal law classifying the drug as
illegal has no exception for ill
patients.
The 8-0 decision was a major disappointment to many
sufferers of AIDS, cancer, multiple
sclerosis and other illnesses. They have said the drug
helped enormously in combatting the
devastating effects of their diseases.
Justice Stephen Breyer did not participate because his
brother, a federal judge, initially
presided over the case.
"In the case of the Controlled Substances Act, the statute
reflects a determination that
marijuana has no medical benefits worthy of an exception
(outside the confines of a
government-approved research project)," Justice Clarence
Thomas wrote for the unanimous
court.
Thomas noted the act states marijuana has "no currently
accepted medical use."
The federal government triggered the case in 1998, seeking
an injunction against the
Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative and five other
marijuana distributors.
U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, brother of the
justice, sided with the government. All the
clubs except the Oakland group eventually closed down, and
the Oakland club turned to
registering potential marijuana recipients while it
awaited a final ruling.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the lower
court, ruling that medical necessity
is a legal defense. Charles Breyer followed up by issuing
strict guidelines for making that
claim.
Voters in Arizona, Alaska, California, Colorado, Maine,
Nevada, Oregon and Washington
also have approved ballot initiatives allowing the use of
medical marijuana. In Hawaii, the
legislature passed a similar law and the governor signed
it last year.
The cooperative argued that a drug may not yet have
achieved general acceptance as a
medical treatment, but may still have medical benefits to
a particular patient or class of
patients.
Thomas said the argument cannot overcome the intent of
Congress in approving the statute.
"It is clear from the text of the act that Congress has
made a determination that marijuana
has no medical benefits worthy of an exception," Thomas
wrote.
"Unwilling to view this omission as an accident, and
unable in any event to override a
legislative determination manifest in a statute, we reject
the cooperative's argument."
Advocates of medical marijuana say the drug can ease side
effects from chemotherapy,
save nauseated AIDS patients from wasting away or even
allow multiple sclerosis sufferers
to rise from a wheelchair and walk.
There is no definitive science that the drug works, or
works better than conventional, legal
alternatives.
Several states are considering medical marijuana laws, and
Congress may revisit the issue
this year. A measure to counteract laws like California's
died in the House last year.
Thomas was joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist,
Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin
Scalia and Anthony M. Kennedy. Justice John Paul Stevens
wrote a concurring opinion,
joined by Justices David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
The case is United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers
Cooperative, 00-151.
� Copyright 2001 The Associated Press..
Leadership is an art. ~Max Dupree
www.annieyoung.org (new info 5/7/01)
_______________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
