Posted on 06/06/2005 8:58:28 AM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection
Federal authorities may prosecute sick people whose doctors prescribe marijuana to ease pain, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, concluding that state laws don't protect users from a federal ban on the drug.
The decision is a stinging defeat for marijuana advocates who had successfully pushed 10 states to allow the drug's use to treat various illnesses.
Justice John Paul Stevens, writing the 6-3 decision, said that Congress could change the law to allow medical use of marijuana.
The closely watched case was an appeal by the Bush administration in a case involving two seriously ill California women who use marijuana. The court said the prosecution of pot users under the federal Controlled Substances Act was constitutional.
"I'm going to have to be prepared to be arrested," said Diane Monson, one of the women involved in the case.
In a dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said that states should be allowed to set their own rules.
Under the Constitution, Congress may pass laws regulating a state's economic activity so long as it involves "interstate commerce" that crosses state borders. The California marijuana in question was homegrown, distributed to patients without charge and without crossing state lines.
"Our national medical system relies on proven scientific research, not popular opinion. To date, science and research have not determined that smoking marijuana is safe or effective," John Walters, director of National Drug Control Policy, said Monday.
Stevens said there are other legal options for patients, "but perhaps even more important than these legal avenues is the democratic process, in which the voices of voters allied with these (California women) may one day be heard in the halls of Congress."
California's medical marijuana law, passed by voters in 1996, allows people to grow, smoke or obtain marijuana for medical needs with a doctor's recommendation. Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington state have laws similar to California.
In those states, doctors generally can give written or oral recommendations on marijuana to patients with cancer, HIV and other serious illnesses.
"The states' core police powers have always included authority to define criminal law and to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens," said O'Connor, who was joined in her dissent by two other states' rights advocates: Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas.
The legal question presented a dilemma for the court's conservatives, who have pushed to broaden states' rights in recent years. They earlier invalidated federal laws dealing with gun possession near schools and violence against women on the grounds the activity was too local to justify federal intrusion.
O'Connor said she would have opposed California's medical marijuana law if she were a voter or a legislator. But she said the court was overreaching to endorse "making it a federal crime to grow small amounts of marijuana in one's own home for one's own medicinal use."
Alan Hopper, an American Civil Liberties Union attorney, said that local and state officers handle 99 percent of marijuana prosecutions and must still follow any state laws that protect patients. "This is probably not going to change a lot for individual medical marijuana patients," he said.
The case concerned two Californians, Monson and Angel Raich. The two had sued then-U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft, asking for a court order letting them smoke, grow or obtain marijuana without fear of arrest, home raids or other intrusion by federal authorities.
Raich, an Oakland woman suffering from ailments including scoliosis, a brain tumor, chronic nausea, fatigue and pain, smokes marijuana every few hours. She said she was partly paralyzed until she started smoking pot. Monson, an accountant who lives near Oroville, Calif., has degenerative spine disease and grows her own marijuana plants in her backyard.
In the court's main decision, Stevens raised concerns about abuse of marijuana laws. "Our cases have taught us that there are some unscrupulous physicians who overprescribe when it is sufficiently profitable to do so," he said.
The case is Gonzales v. Raich, 03-1454.
Not many people are grasping just how much the Commerce Clause grew with this decision. They basically said, "We know it ain't interstatec commerce, but we're treating it like it is". The Federal gov't grew by leaps and bounds today.
"The nonsense finally ended [all that remains is for you losers to whine]. It's over. I'm out. :o)"
What is over? The feds have been saying all along that they were going to ignore the state laws regarding medical marijuana. Now the Supreme Court has said it is okay for them to ignore the state laws. The states, on the other hand, have their own laws. They aren't going to enforce the federal laws. The feds will have to get up off their butts and do this themselves. Medical marijuana is just as legal in the states that legalized it today as it was yesterday. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
The only thing unconstitutional about Roe v Wade is that it mandated all states outlaw abortion.
If you repeal Roe v Wade, it goes back to the states where it belongs.
The federal government has no more right to pass an outright ban then it does to pass an outright mandate.
Spray on what?
That's my question. Why is it that the "legalize pot" types never seem to be interested in a pill form?
Oh, and the theory about Big Pharma never wanting to see it legalized is also quite correct.
"The federal government has no more right to pass an outright ban then it does to pass an outright mandate."
Don't be silly. The Interstate Commerce Clause gives them that right with regards to any subject they deem mandatable.
"It will be interesting to see if the government allows this product to be placed on the market in the U.S."
Let's certainly hope so. Good info.
I answered this pretty thoroughly in this thread, but apparently, you aren't interested in defending your feeble, insulting argument.
On what basis?--a fever dream you once had? Let's see what the FDA says about marinol:
Marinol (dronabinol) is a medication with a potential for abuse. Physicians and pharmacists should use the same care in prescribing and accounting for Marinol as they would with morphine or other drugs controlled under Schedule II (CII) of the Controlled Substances Act.
Because of the risk of diversion, it is recommended that prescriptions be limited to the amount necessary for the period between clinic visits.
VaGthang has been known for a while on FR as one of the more liberal posters, but is aroused by law enforcement, so he thinks he's conservative. Check out his comments on some past Terri Schiavo threads to get an idea of his schtick.
Apparently during the Depression, the court ruled that Congress could pass laws regulating wheat grown on farms, for a farmer's own use. It was argued that even when wheat was grown for personnal use,it could affect the price on the interstate market and therefore the Commerce Clause applied.
Ah yes, WICKARD v. FILBURN rears its ugly head.
It was not the fact that the farmer grew what - rather that he grew wheat in excess of his quota that he had agreed to. If he had not taken subsidies and agreed to the quota they would have had no action against him. While an oject lesson about "taking the King's shilling" it is in no way applicable to the subject at hand.
Because when a sick person can grow their own it is cheap and plentiful. When the drug companies make their weak pills, it will cost $100 a pill.
"That's what insurance is for."
Cuz, you know, everyone has health insurance. Or at least veterans do, right?
Really thin-skinned, aren't you? I wasn't bashing anyone, merely giving an opinion. And I only meant from everything I've read/heard, the synthetic version doesn't get you off, I really don't give a damn, as I stopped smoking weed years ago.
You bet I am. I don't find it very amusing that we throw kids in prison for pot, so, by extention, I also don't find it very amusing when when people blithly pass on planted prohibitionist misinformation.
I wasn't bashing anyone, merely giving an opinion. And I only meant from everything I've read/heard, the synthetic version doesn't get you off, I really don't give a damn, as I stopped smoking weed years ago.
Well, I do give a damn, much as I would if we were throwing every fourth black ghetto teenager in jail for overflossing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.