Supreme Court weighs marijuana as medicine
Attorneys for White House, women press their cases
Monday, November 29, 2004 Posted: 6:49 PM EST (2349 GMT)
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court questioned whether state medical marijuana laws might be abused by people who aren't really sick as it debated on Monday whether the federal government can prosecute patients who smoke pot on doctors' orders.
Watching the argument was Angel Raich, an Oakland, California, mother of two who said she tried dozens of prescription medicines to ease the pain of a brain tumor and other illnesses before she turned to marijuana. She and another ill woman, Diane Monson, filed a lawsuit to protect their access to the drug after federal agents confiscated marijuana plants from Monson's yard.
Their attorney, Randy Barnett of Boston, told the justices that his clients are law-abiding citizens who need marijuana to survive. Marijuana may have some negative side effects, he said, but seriously sick people are willing to take the chance because the drug helps them more than traditional medicines.
The justices refused three years ago to protect distributors of medical marijuana from federal charges. They are confronting a more personal issue this time -- the power of federal agents to go after sick people who use homegrown cannabis with their doctors' permission and their states' approval.
The stakes are high because 11 states have passed medical marijuana laws since 1996. A defeat for the two California women might undermine those laws and discourage other states from approving their own.
A loss for the government, on the other hand, could jeopardize federal oversight of illegal drugs and raise questions in other areas such as product safety and environmental activities. A Bush administration lawyer told the justices they would be encouraging people to use potentially harmful marijuana if they were to side with the women.
"Smoked marijuana really doesn't have any future in medicine," said Paul Clement, acting solicitor general.
Justice David H. Souter said about 10 percent of people in America use illegal drugs, and states with medical marijuana laws might not be able to stop recreational users from taking advantage.
"Everybody will say mine is medical," Justice Stephen Breyer said.
And Justice Antonin Scalia said there are many people with "alleged medical needs."
Despite the tenor of the debate, the case is hard to predict. The justices will rule before next summer.
The marijuana users won in the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled that federal prosecution of medical marijuana users is unconstitutional if the pot is not sold, transported across state lines or used for nonmedicinal purposes.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the federal government has a stake in interstate commerce, but with the California medical marijuana patients: "Nobody's buying anything. Nobody's selling anything."
Her colleague, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, observed that homegrown medical marijuana never makes it to the interstate market.
Conservatives like Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, Justice Clarence Thomas and Scalia generally have supported states' rights to set their own policies.
Rehnquist, who is undergoing treatment for thyroid cancer, missed Monday's argument and is not expected to return to the court until January, at the earliest.
Raich said she hopes the 80-year-old chief justice's chemotherapy treatments "would soften his heart about the issue."
"I think he would find that cannabis would help him a lot," said Raich, who uses marijuana every few hours for scoliosis, a brain tumor, chronic nausea and other illnesses.
California's law allows people to grow, smoke or obtain marijuana for medical needs with a doctor's recommendation. Besides California, other states with such laws are: Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington.
Medical marijuana was an issue in the November elections. Montana voters easily approved a law that shields patients, their doctors and caregivers from arrest and prosecution for medical marijuana. Oregon rejected a measure that would have expanded its medical marijuana program dramatically.
The case is Ashcroft v. Raich, case no. 03-1454.
Attorneys for White House, women press their luck
Monday, November 29, 2004 Posted: 6:50 PM EST (2350 GMT)
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court questioned whether state medical marijuana laws might be abused by people who aren't really sick as it debated on Monday whether the federal government can prosecute patients who smoke pot on doctors' orders. The judges astutely noted that no law in the United States is ever abused. They also noted with consistent, airtight logic that potential abuse of a law is an excellent reason for repealing it. Watching the argument was Angel Raich, an Oakland, California, mother of two who said she tried dozens of prescription medicines to ease the pain of a brain tumor and other illnesses before she turned to marijuana. Her attorney, Randy Barnett of Boston, told the justices that his clients are law-abiding citizens who need marijuana to survive. Marijuana may have some negative side effects, he said, like cotton mouth and giggling but seriously sick people are willing to take the chance because the drug helps them more than traditional medicines.
A Bush administration lawyer told the justices they would be encouraging people to use potentially harmful marijuana if they were to side with the women, and encouraging people to contract debilitating diseases. "Why would we promote a non-addictive substance that naturally quells nausea and stimulates the appetite?" said Clement. "Also, by making medical marijuana illegal we hope to prevent people from getting cancer in the first place. The President has been very clear on this. If you don't allow them to smoke pot, millions of people would probably choose not to get cancer. Think about it, without pot, brain tumors really aren't that cool. So the President wants to de-incentivize people from deciding to get crippling medical problems." Justice David H. Souter said about 10 percent of people in America use illegal drugs, and states with medical marijuana laws might not be able to stop recreational users from taking advantage." Everybody will say mine is medical," Justice Stephen Breyer said. "And if somebody breaks the law we should certainly punish the sick people who are obeying it." Justice Scalia said there are many people with "alleged medical needs. Sure Mrs. Raich claims to have scoliosis, and a brain tumor. I 'claimed' to be sick once in high school to get out of a test I hadn't studied for. Plus, I was a terrible athlete in grade school and to get out of gym I faked scoliosis. Scoliosis and brain tumors are so simple to fake. When your mom leaves the room just place the thermometer on the light bulb. Listen carefully. When you hear her coming back pop the thing in your mouth. Easy-peasy-japaneasy." The justices will rule before next summer. The marijuana users won in the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled that federal prosecution of medical marijuana users is unconstitutional if the pot is not sold, transported across state lines or used for nonmedicinal purposes. Not avoiding the real issue at all, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the federal government has a stake in interstate commerce, but with the California medical marijuana patients: "Nobody's buying anything. Nobody's selling anything." Her colleague, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, continued to address the thorny issue head on when she observed that homegrown medical marijuana never makes it to the interstate market. Conservatives like Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, Justice Clarence Thomas and Scalia generally have supported states' rights to set their own policies with regards to gun licensing, liquor sales, gambling, prostitution and fireworks. Thomas, however, noted that a substance as dangerous as marijuana was different. "I won't lie. I was at a few parties in law school where people were smoking pot. Yeah, I know. Believe me, it was ugly. They got all crazy and listened to music and sat on couches. One dude kept laughing when I was trying to tell a story about tort reform. That is not the direction I want sick people going in. Laughing and sitting. No sir-e bob. Not on my watch." Rehnquist, who is undergoing treatment for thyroid cancer, missed Monday's argument and is not expected to return to the court until January, at the earliest. A court spokeswoman read his statement. "Medical marijuana is unnecessary. If people are really sick they should relax with a tall glass of scotch. In study after study distilled spirits have proven to manage nausea and make health problems disappear. Alcohol really is magic. Stem cell research?...not so much."
Monday, November 29, 2004 Posted: 6:49 PM EST (2349 GMT)
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court questioned whether state medical marijuana laws might be abused by people who aren't really sick as it debated on Monday whether the federal government can prosecute patients who smoke pot on doctors' orders.
Watching the argument was Angel Raich, an Oakland, California, mother of two who said she tried dozens of prescription medicines to ease the pain of a brain tumor and other illnesses before she turned to marijuana. She and another ill woman, Diane Monson, filed a lawsuit to protect their access to the drug after federal agents confiscated marijuana plants from Monson's yard.
Their attorney, Randy Barnett of Boston, told the justices that his clients are law-abiding citizens who need marijuana to survive. Marijuana may have some negative side effects, he said, but seriously sick people are willing to take the chance because the drug helps them more than traditional medicines.
The justices refused three years ago to protect distributors of medical marijuana from federal charges. They are confronting a more personal issue this time -- the power of federal agents to go after sick people who use homegrown cannabis with their doctors' permission and their states' approval.
The stakes are high because 11 states have passed medical marijuana laws since 1996. A defeat for the two California women might undermine those laws and discourage other states from approving their own.
A loss for the government, on the other hand, could jeopardize federal oversight of illegal drugs and raise questions in other areas such as product safety and environmental activities. A Bush administration lawyer told the justices they would be encouraging people to use potentially harmful marijuana if they were to side with the women.
"Smoked marijuana really doesn't have any future in medicine," said Paul Clement, acting solicitor general.
Justice David H. Souter said about 10 percent of people in America use illegal drugs, and states with medical marijuana laws might not be able to stop recreational users from taking advantage.
"Everybody will say mine is medical," Justice Stephen Breyer said.
And Justice Antonin Scalia said there are many people with "alleged medical needs."
Despite the tenor of the debate, the case is hard to predict. The justices will rule before next summer.
The marijuana users won in the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled that federal prosecution of medical marijuana users is unconstitutional if the pot is not sold, transported across state lines or used for nonmedicinal purposes.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the federal government has a stake in interstate commerce, but with the California medical marijuana patients: "Nobody's buying anything. Nobody's selling anything."
Her colleague, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, observed that homegrown medical marijuana never makes it to the interstate market.
Conservatives like Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, Justice Clarence Thomas and Scalia generally have supported states' rights to set their own policies.
Rehnquist, who is undergoing treatment for thyroid cancer, missed Monday's argument and is not expected to return to the court until January, at the earliest.
Raich said she hopes the 80-year-old chief justice's chemotherapy treatments "would soften his heart about the issue."
"I think he would find that cannabis would help him a lot," said Raich, who uses marijuana every few hours for scoliosis, a brain tumor, chronic nausea and other illnesses.
California's law allows people to grow, smoke or obtain marijuana for medical needs with a doctor's recommendation. Besides California, other states with such laws are: Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington.
Medical marijuana was an issue in the November elections. Montana voters easily approved a law that shields patients, their doctors and caregivers from arrest and prosecution for medical marijuana. Oregon rejected a measure that would have expanded its medical marijuana program dramatically.
The case is Ashcroft v. Raich, case no. 03-1454.
Attorneys for White House, women press their luck
Monday, November 29, 2004 Posted: 6:50 PM EST (2350 GMT)
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court questioned whether state medical marijuana laws might be abused by people who aren't really sick as it debated on Monday whether the federal government can prosecute patients who smoke pot on doctors' orders. The judges astutely noted that no law in the United States is ever abused. They also noted with consistent, airtight logic that potential abuse of a law is an excellent reason for repealing it. Watching the argument was Angel Raich, an Oakland, California, mother of two who said she tried dozens of prescription medicines to ease the pain of a brain tumor and other illnesses before she turned to marijuana. Her attorney, Randy Barnett of Boston, told the justices that his clients are law-abiding citizens who need marijuana to survive. Marijuana may have some negative side effects, he said, like cotton mouth and giggling but seriously sick people are willing to take the chance because the drug helps them more than traditional medicines.
A Bush administration lawyer told the justices they would be encouraging people to use potentially harmful marijuana if they were to side with the women, and encouraging people to contract debilitating diseases. "Why would we promote a non-addictive substance that naturally quells nausea and stimulates the appetite?" said Clement. "Also, by making medical marijuana illegal we hope to prevent people from getting cancer in the first place. The President has been very clear on this. If you don't allow them to smoke pot, millions of people would probably choose not to get cancer. Think about it, without pot, brain tumors really aren't that cool. So the President wants to de-incentivize people from deciding to get crippling medical problems." Justice David H. Souter said about 10 percent of people in America use illegal drugs, and states with medical marijuana laws might not be able to stop recreational users from taking advantage." Everybody will say mine is medical," Justice Stephen Breyer said. "And if somebody breaks the law we should certainly punish the sick people who are obeying it." Justice Scalia said there are many people with "alleged medical needs. Sure Mrs. Raich claims to have scoliosis, and a brain tumor. I 'claimed' to be sick once in high school to get out of a test I hadn't studied for. Plus, I was a terrible athlete in grade school and to get out of gym I faked scoliosis. Scoliosis and brain tumors are so simple to fake. When your mom leaves the room just place the thermometer on the light bulb. Listen carefully. When you hear her coming back pop the thing in your mouth. Easy-peasy-japaneasy." The justices will rule before next summer. The marijuana users won in the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled that federal prosecution of medical marijuana users is unconstitutional if the pot is not sold, transported across state lines or used for nonmedicinal purposes. Not avoiding the real issue at all, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the federal government has a stake in interstate commerce, but with the California medical marijuana patients: "Nobody's buying anything. Nobody's selling anything." Her colleague, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, continued to address the thorny issue head on when she observed that homegrown medical marijuana never makes it to the interstate market. Conservatives like Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, Justice Clarence Thomas and Scalia generally have supported states' rights to set their own policies with regards to gun licensing, liquor sales, gambling, prostitution and fireworks. Thomas, however, noted that a substance as dangerous as marijuana was different. "I won't lie. I was at a few parties in law school where people were smoking pot. Yeah, I know. Believe me, it was ugly. They got all crazy and listened to music and sat on couches. One dude kept laughing when I was trying to tell a story about tort reform. That is not the direction I want sick people going in. Laughing and sitting. No sir-e bob. Not on my watch." Rehnquist, who is undergoing treatment for thyroid cancer, missed Monday's argument and is not expected to return to the court until January, at the earliest. A court spokeswoman read his statement. "Medical marijuana is unnecessary. If people are really sick they should relax with a tall glass of scotch. In study after study distilled spirits have proven to manage nausea and make health problems disappear. Alcohol really is magic. Stem cell research?...not so much."
posted by wtofd at 20:40
<< Home