Posted on 11/12/2004 5:01:33 PM PST by Wolfie
US Supreme Court to Hear Medicinal Marijuana Case
Doctors in some parts of the United States have prescribed marijuana to people suffering from a variety of medical conditions; from glaucoma patients to cancer victims undergoing painful chemotherapy. Though it is used for medicinal purposes in many parts of the world, marijuana remains illegal in most countries.
Eleven U.S. states currently allow the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes. The issue was also voted on in three states in the November election. It won passage in the northern state of Montana. But voters in the western state of Oregon turned down an initiative for strengthening an existing law that currently allows medicinal marijuana use. And an initiative for outright legalization failed in Alaska.
The case before the Supreme Court, Raich et. al. vs. Ashcroft, stems from a California woman's appeal of her conviction under a federal narcotics law - the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 - that prohibits the distribution and sale of marijuana and other illegal drugs across state lines. She and her co-defendants contend their home-grown plants were not being sold to people in other states and are therefore not in violation of the federal law regulating "commerce among the states."
Steph Sherer is the executive director of the advocacy group, Americans for Safe Access. She says the federal law should not be enforced, especially in the more than eleven states, including California, that protect medical marijuana users from being prosecuted for drug trafficking:
"The argument can be made for a patient who's living in California that's growing their own medicine, there's no interstate commerce that's happening. So therefore, the federal government does not have the jurisdiction to step in and interfere in these laws."
She says marijuana can be used for relief from a variety of illnesses, including multiple sclerosis.
"Everything from helping chronic pain to being used as an anti-nausea medication. It is also used by M.S. patients to stop tremors and muscle spasticity. Scientists in Israel have found that the cannabinoid in the marijuana plant could actually be the precursor to stopping the on-set of Alzheimer's."
Ms. Scherer's claims run counter to the view of U.S. government medical professionals. David Murray, with the National Drug Control Policy office, says marijuana in its dried leaf form - provides no proven medicinal benefits.
"Smoked marijuana has never qualified as an accepted or proved medicine, has never demonstrated, by the standard criteria any new drug would have to go through before being approved, that it is safe to be used and that it is effective."
But Mr. Murray adds that the U.S. government is still evaluating whether the chemical compounds in marijuana might be broken down for their possible medical value.
"Research is going forward to identify cannabinoid active ingredients that can be purified, regulated, standardized and dosed the threatening and risky elements removed and perhaps they could be turned into effective medicines for particular medical conditions. I think those trials are underway and so far, the results are promising but not convincing as yet."
In Britain, the law says cannabis can only be produced, possessed or supplied for research purposes under government license. G.W. Pharmaceuticals is one of the main British companies involved in cannabis drug trials. Company spokesman Mark Rogerson says G.W.'s product; called Sativex is currently awaiting regulatory approval in the United Kingdom.
"Approvals in the U.K. take between 12 and 18 months. That's par for the course if you like. The 18th month milestone was passed a month or so ago. So that's why we hope very much that we're in the final stages."
Mr. Rogerson says the medicine is derived from a whole plant extract, meaning it contains the two main ingredients of marijuana. It is administered as a mouth spray. If it is accepted in Britain, approval for other European countries' markets will likely follow. But he concedes the United States is a difficult and expensive market in which approval for the new drug is less certain.
"We fully recognize that the U.S. is a huge opportunity for us. But at the moment, our thinking is: let's work in areas where the practical barriers to entry are a bit lower, for example, the European Union and the Commonwealth. We'll save the United States for when we're a bit bigger and stronger."
The drug is also awaiting approval in Canada. In the meantime, the government's Health Canada agency says dried marijuana is distributed through legal avenues as a compassionate gesture to sick people. The drug is ordered from a government-funded and controlled cannabis plantation. But Canadian government scientists are still studying this program to make sure that the medical marijuana is both safe and effective.
An Israeli pharmaceutical company, Pharmos, is also testing a variant on the active ingredient in marijuana. The developer was scheduled to complete trials in September and hoped to follow with a U.S. Food & Drug Administration review that is expected to extend into 2006.
Experts are uncertain whether this month's Supreme Court hearing will lay the groundwork for tougher laws against medicinal marijuana use or provide a blueprint for future legal distribution of the drug. In either case, health activists, social policy makers and international drug companies will be awaiting the Court's final ruling with great interest.
ping
For example, people are prohibited from taking certain drugs while many children are forced to take Ritalin. Which government will be first to force chip implants in citizens?
No one need be satisfied with someone else's opinion of what they should use in a free society.
And many who don't, and have never, used marijuana, want it re-legalized.
Was just reading Rehnquist's opinion in Lopez (at 3:18 am!), and found the above quote. Do you think there is any chance in hell that a court will ever undo some if not all of the commerce clause expansion described by Rehnquist in Lopez? It almost seems like the medical pot case would be a good opportunity to do it, if they wanted to. And if Scalia believes, as he says he does, that the gubmint should leave it to the states to decide on ABORTION, which clearly skirts very closely with the most grave issue of all, then why would he not also seek to return such a regulatory power as weed-growing to the states?
I don't think so, at least not in the near future. From what I've gathered, Thomas is the only Justice who seems genuinely interested in actually shrinking the expanded commerce clause. Rehnquist has been content to stop the expansion without actually turning anything back, and I don't think that Scalia has objected to that stance.
then why would [Scalia] not also seek to return such a regulatory power as weed-growing to the states?
Because the Bush administration is asking him not to. And that request carries a lot of weight, imo.
On the bright side, when it comes to predicting what the Court's going to do, I'm quite often way off base.
Well, I guess I'll have to hang my hopes on that, then. I've been poking around some of the old source documents on "general welfare". Folks have driven truckloads of laws through that hole, plus the "interstate commerce" clause.
Sandy, you rock. Pardon me while a do a quick hit, and then check out the coverage! I'll put off having supper for this--but I'm gonna go refill my sangria.
This is hilarious...
Stevens: If you reduce demand, then you will reduce prices? Wouldn’t it increase prices?
Barnett: No, if you reduce demand, you reduce price.
Stevens: Are you sure?
Barnett: Yes.
And, it has a different THC delivery profile.
He left out Scalia. Interesting blow by blow account. Wow. That was cool. I can't ever tell what is going to happen based on the oral arguments.
Clement: [U]nder the commerce clause, there can be no as applied challenge.
------
Clement: It would not be a good idea for the courts to second guess Congress.
Clement is just being a good kool aid drinking lawyer. Lawyers are whores.
From the excerpts, Scalia seemed to be a tad skeptical of Clement.
Yes we are. Everyone knows that the medical marijuana scam is just the "camel's nose under the tent for legalizing hard drugs". [Soros]
Ginsburg: If we rule for you, why wouldn’t our ruling cover someone in a neighboring state who grew their own marijuana for medical use even though the state had not authorized it?Good question.
Sounds like he's telling them they screwed up Lopez and Morrison.
Good question.
If it doesn't cover someone in a neighboring state, what does the say about Roe v Wade?
You know, of all the arguments I've ever heard against marijuana, "it's expensive" (for the purchasers) has never been among them. It *is* expensive for the taxpayers... hey maybe that'll be the basis for upholding the jackboots.
My favorite exchange:
Stevens: If you reduce demand, then you will reduce prices? Wouldn’t it increase prices?
Barnett: No, if you reduce demand, you reduce price.
Stevens: Are you sure?
Barnett: Yes.
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.