Yeah...And the Supreme Court is gonna address it...
iwon.com|top|11-27-2000::16:51|reuters,00.html
U.S. High Court to Decide Medical Marijuana Case
November 27, 2000 4:47 pm EST
By James Vicini
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court said on Monday it would decide whether marijuana can be distributed for medicinal uses to seriously ill patients, a case pitting the federal government against a California cannabis club.
The high court agreed to hear a U.S. Justice Department appeal of a ruling that would allow marijuana clubs to
resume service for patients who can prove that cannabis was a medical necessity.
The court's decision to hear the case marked the latest development in a conflict between federal narcotics laws,
which prohibit distribution of marijuana, and a 1996 California voters' initiative known as Proposition 215.
The California initiative allows seriously ill patients to grow and use marijuana for pain relief as long as they have a doctor's recommendation. Similar measures have been adopted in a number of other states.
In 1998, the Justice Department won an injunction from U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco prohibiting the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative and other similar medicinal marijuana clubs from distributing cannabis.
The Oakland club openly distributed marijuana to numerous people on May 21, 1998. Breyer rejected the club's request to modify his injunction to allow marijuana for seriously ill patients.
Club director Jeff Jones said he was eager for the chance to put his case to the nation's top court. "We have faith
that when the Supreme Court hears this case in its entirety and on its merits, it will consider the needs of the patients who are suffering," he said.
APPEALS COURT ALLOWS MARIJUANA FOR MEDICAL NECESSITY
A U.S. appeals court agreed with the club last year. It ruled Breyer should amend the injunction to allow the clubs
to resume service for those who can prove that cannabis was a medical necessity.
The appeals court said Breyer failed to give enough consideration to the possibility that marijuana was an
indispensable treatment for people served by the club, including AIDS and cancer patients.
The appeals court ruled that medical necessity could be a defense to a charge of distributing drugs in violation of a
federal law, the Controlled Substances Act.
In July, Breyer said the club could give marijuana to sick people facing "imminent harm" from serious medical
conditions and for whom legal alternatives to marijuana do not work or cause intolerable side effects.
The Justice Department got the Supreme Court to issue a stay of Breyer's order, and it also sought review from
the appeals court.
The Justice Department also appealed to the Supreme Court, saying the case presented "an issue of exceptional
and continuing importance."
The Justice Department said the appeals court ruling disregarded the provisions of federal law banning marijuana
distribution outside strictly controlled circumstances and undermined enforcement of federal drug laws.
Attorneys for the club said the appeal should be denied because it presented no compelling reason for review.
They said the ruling did not depart from established precedent.
The decision "has no impact on the government's ability to prosecute individuals for violating federal drug laws,"
they said.
The Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case next year, with a decision due by the end of June.
Medical marijuana supporters were cautious about their chances in the Supreme Court, noting that the issue before
the justices was tightly defined and would not have any impact on state laws already passed in California and
other states.
"No matter how the Supreme Court rules, it will not have anything to do with the validity of patients' rights (to use
medical marijuana) under California law," said Robert Raich, an attorney for the Oakland club.
Jones, the club's director, said the fight would continue no matter what the outcome of the Supreme Court
hearing.
"We are ready to fully and vigorously defend our status if the Supreme Court comes down against us. ... This is
only one appeal, after all," Jones said. |
