Responses to this message:
[I'm sure you're all shocked]:
Court Rules Against Marijuana Use
By LARRY MARGASAK, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - 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 (news - web sites), cancer, multiple sclerosis and other illnesses. They have said the drug helped enormously in combatting the devastating effects of their diseases.
In other action the court:
-Received a request from lawyers for Terry Nichols, convicted in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing that killed 168 people, asking the justices to reconsider his appeal in light of the FBI (news - web sites)'s failure to give defense lawyers thousands of documents.
-Overturned former baseball player Steve Garvey's $3 million labor settlement Monday, ruling 8-1 that a lower court usurped the role of an outside arbitrator by awarding Garvey the money.
-Agreed to decide if police may prosecute new crimes with evidence seized from homes of criminals who consented to blanket searches as a condition of probation.
Justice Stephen Breyer (news - web sites) did not participate in the marijuana decision 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 (news - web sites) 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 (news - web sites) 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 (news - web sites), Sandra Day O'Connor (news - web sites), Antonin Scalia (news - web sites) and Anthony M. Kennedy. Justice John Paul Stevens (news - web sites) wrote a concurring opinion, joined by Justices David Souter (news - web sites) and Ruth Bader Ginsburg (news - web sites).
The case is United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative, 00-151.
---
Discuss.
One has to wonder at what point the US Congress will bend to the will of the people who elected them when ten states have already passed laws partially legalizing marijuana (all through referendum but Hawaii) and numerous others are well on their way. If 25 states approve such laws, is that enough for our Congress? I've always thought that the one major flaw of the US Constitution is that it has no initiative and referendum-type clause. In nearly every state and most cities and counties, if the pork munching legislative bodies do something their constituents don't like (or don't do something they do like), the citizens can overrule them without having to bother with the difficult task of throwing them out of office. But no matter what the federal government does, we are at its mercy. Admittedly, a national referendum would be a lot of trouble, particularly considering there's no such thing as a national election (even the President is elected state-by- state as we all now know far too well), but I think it would be well worth the effort. I'm fairly sure a referendum to legalize marijuana (medicinal or not) would pass on a national level, especially if it simply gave each state the right to decide if it should be legal there -- even conservatives support states' rights, right?
Responses to this message:
Post a response to this discussion thread