Supreme Court Outlaws Medical Marijuana

[RocketMan Tex]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/06/scotus.medical.marijuana.ap/index.html

Supreme Court allows prosecution of medical marijuana
Monday, June 6, 2005 Posted: 10:40 AM EDT (1440 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Federal authorities may prosecute sick people who smoke pot on doctors' orders, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, concluding that state medical marijuana 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 that it lost in late 2003. At issue was whether the prosecution of medical marijuana users under the federal Controlled Substances Act was constitutional.

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.

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 respondents 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.

In a dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said that states should be allowed to set their own rules.

"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 by other states' rights advocates.

The legal question presented a dilemma for the court's conservatives, who have pushed to broaden states' rights in recent years, invalidating 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 was 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."

The case concerned two seriously ill California women, Angel Raich and Diane Monson. 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, California, has degenerative spine disease and grows her own marijuana plants in her backyard.

[MR. MEOWGI]

What is wrong with these people? Let them feel better. What a piece of crap ruling. Very Sad. :(


So will a Sate policeman still arrest you if it is legal in your state?

[RocketMan Tex]

They say everything comes around again.

The 2000s are starting to look like the 1950s redux.

The only good thing about it is that Chuck Berry should rule Top 40 radio within the next few months.....

[Hippieloser]

I was thinking more along the lines of the 80s, Tex. Hell, I even see people turning up their collars once in a while again...

[Francis3422]

Even as a conservative, I am dissapointed with this ruling, there are some issues that are obviously in need of reform and this is at the top of the list. How long will the government wage war on marijuana, while crack/cocaine and meth destroy communities across the country. I have an aunt that is in chronic pain and she would rather smoke pot than take vicodin or morphine (her prescriptions). I just dont understand this and I never have, smoking marijuana (especially medically) only effects you and government should have no part in this. What is worse, however, is the trillions of dollars we have wasted on the so called war. On all of this, I side with the lefties.

[RocketMan Tex]

Originally posted by Francis3422
Even as a conservative, I am dissapointed with this ruling, there are some issues that are obviously in need of reform and this is at the top of the list. How long will the government wage war on marijuana, while crack/cocaine and meth destroy communities across the country. I have an aunt that is in chronic pain and she would rather smoke pot than take vicodin or morphine (her prescriptions). I just dont understand this and I never have, smoking marijuana (especially medically) only effects you and government should have no part in this. What is worse, however, is the trillions of dollars we have wasted on the so called war. On all of this, I side with the lefties.

The War on Drugs is not about waging war on drugs...it's about the powers that be getting you to take the drugs they want you to take....nicotine, alcohol and prescription pills.

[wnes]

I am always curious to see how US Supreme Court justices side with or dissent from one another in the high profile cases.

I am not interesting in the merit of the medical marijuana (never used, no intent to use, have no opinion about it whatsoever), however I do have some observations from reading the reports (mainly from AP) on this case.

- You would think "liberal" justices are in favor of it, but surprise, surprise - led by John Paul Stevens, all "liberals" oppose the use medical marijuana, albeit they did so mainly on its "technicality". "Liberal" justices siding with Bush administration, interesting.

- Another surprise, Clarence Thomas is not in the same camp as Antonin Scalia. Extremely rare. The last much publicized case I can remeber in which Thomas disagreed with Scalia was whether the cross burning is considered criminal intimidation.

- To Scalia, this time morality takes a higher priority over individual state's jurisdiction. So much for a self-proclaimed strict constitution interpreter.

[andymoon]

Originally posted by Francis3422
Even as a conservative, I am dissapointed with this ruling, there are some issues that are obviously in need of reform and this is at the top of the list. How long will the government wage war on marijuana, while crack/cocaine and meth destroy communities across the country. I have an aunt that is in chronic pain and she would rather smoke pot than take vicodin or morphine (her prescriptions). I just dont understand this and I never have, smoking marijuana (especially medically) only effects you and government should have no part in this. What is worse, however, is the trillions of dollars we have wasted on the so called war. On all of this, I side with the lefties.

Actually, there are far more conservatives than liberals who currently voice support for drug war reform. See the thread I posted today regarding Milton Friedman (conservative economist) calling for regulation of currently illegal drugs.

[JuanValdez]

Did people really think the Supreme Court might decide that state law could trump federal law? That wasn't going to happen. If you want legal pot, you'll have to get it from Congress, not the courts. I'm happy with the decision because the Supreme Court recognized that it wasn't their place to legislate on drugs (ironic thread title, considering).

[Invisible Fan]

IIRC, the Feds couldn't put an outright ban on alcohol and had to resort to a Constitutional amendment to implement one. Later, they couldn't enforce a nationwide drinking age and had to threaten withholding interstate funds to keep the states in line.

Doesn't this ruling reverse that precedent?

[MadMax]

I have not read the opinion, yet. I've learned to refrain from judging legal decisions based solely on a newspaper report of what was decided. The media sucks, sucks, sucks at reporting legal updates like this.

[wnes]

Originally posted by MadMax
I have not read the opinion, yet. I've learned to refrain from judging legal decisions based solely on a newspaper report of what was decided. The media sucks, sucks, sucks at reporting legal updates like this.

Or can you give us a number on how many times Thomas has dissented from Scalia?

[wnes]

Originally posted by wnes
Or can you give us a number on how many times Thomas has dissented from Scalia?

OK I found a 1999 article (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_15_51/ai_55234311) pointing out during his first 5 years on the Supreme Count, Thomas only voted together with Scalia 80% of the time. Although I could not find any sources in more recent years, I have to admit I am somewhat biased (damn the liberal media!) towards thinking Thomas as more or less of a shadow of Scalia.

[Francis3422]

RMTEX- True but the fact remains that what is spent on pot, is insane both in the sum and the allocation compared to other drugs.

[RocketMan Tex]

Originally posted by Francis3422
RMTEX- True but the fact remains that what is spent on pot, is insane both in the sum and the allocation compared to other drugs.

I completely agree with you, and I am astounded that the gubmint can't give us a good reason why.

[flamingmoe]

this decison doesn't really change anything, it really only maintains the status quo - it was state rights issue more than a debate over the merits of medical marijuana

as the Justices pointed out - the only way to change things is through Congress (gulp)

there are a couple of bills out there that, if you support the right of sick people to have medicines that help them live a better life, you should call your representive about and tell them you support

Barney Frank's States' Rights to Medical Marijuana bill (HR 2087), which would reschedule cannabis as a legally prescribable drug (like cocaine, methamphetamine, and angel dust).

U.S. Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL), joined by Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Jim Jeffords (I-VT), have introduced the first-ever Senate bill to ensure that federal juries hear the full story when medical marijuana patients and providers, operating legally under state law, are tried on federal marijuana charges. ...In his statement introducing the legislation, Durbin noted, "This is a narrowly-tailored bill ... Under this legislation, defendants in the ten states with medicinal marijuana laws could be found not guilty of violating federal law if their actions are done in compliance with state law."
http://www.mpp.org/releases/nr20041118.html

[gwayneco]

Originally posted by MadMax
I have not read the opinion, yet. I've learned to refrain from judging legal decisions based solely on a newspaper report of what was decided. The media sucks, sucks, sucks at reporting legal updates like this.

True. Commerce Clause cases are fun for the whole family.

[Sishir Chang]

Originally posted by MR. MEOWGI

So will a Sate policeman still arrest you if it is legal in your state?

I was listening to an analysis of this and the answer is that state police cannot because this law didn't overthrow the state laws and those remain on the books. The Feds can arrest you though.

[A-Train]

Wasn't marijuana made illegal because big tobacco plantation owners were afraid that it would cut into their tobacco profits? I'm suprised that marijuana isn't legal now, considering the amount of money the big tobacco companies could make by selling it...

[Sishir Chang]

Originally posted by wnes
- To Scalia, this time morality takes a higher priority over individual state's jurisdiction. So much for a self-proclaimed strict constitution interpreter.

I thought Scalia had voted in dissent.

[wnes]

Originally posted by Sishir Chang
I thought Scalia had voted in dissent.

No Scalia voted with the majority. He agreed on the result (striking down marijuana use), however in a separate opinion he stated it is simply wrong (unlawful) to use marijuana. The other justices (the "liberals" plus Kennedy) in the majority viewed it more or less as a procedural issue.

[andymoon]

Originally posted by A-Train
Wasn't marijuana made illegal because big tobacco plantation owners were afraid that it would cut into their tobacco profits? I'm suprised that marijuana isn't legal now, considering the amount of money the big tobacco companies could make by selling it...

Actually, it was initially because of the logging industry that doesn't want to see a totally renewable resource replace trees as the primary source for paper pulp.

These days, you will also see opposition from the petrochemical indistry, since hemp seed oil can be easily refined to run in existing diesel engines, the cotton indistry, since hemp is a much stronger and long last ing source for textiles, and the alcohol/pharmaceutical industries (who formed the Partnership for a Drug Free America LOL) who don't want to see a product that competes with alcohol, Valium, Xanex, Marinol, etc.

[nyquil82]

despite popular belief and media misinterpretation, this was not a decision based on illegal substances. This was a commerce clause, state v. federalism decision and the liberals won (with scalia voting for the drug reason, talk about strange bedfellows). In fact, Souter said this was not the way to get marijuana legalized, he said they should go straight to the FDA.

a significant setback to the pot crowd, but a much larger blow to independant state law making which should anger many republicans.

[gwayneco]

Originally posted by nyquil82
despite popular belief and media misinterpretation, this was not a decision based on illegal substances. This was a commerce clause, state v. federalism decision and the liberals won (with scalia voting for the drug reason, talk about strange bedfellows). In fact, Souter said this was not the way to get marijuana legalized, he said they should go straight to the FDA.

a significant setback to the pot crowd, but a much larger blow to independant state law making which should anger many republicans.

Yep, this case is a real turkey, er, sick chicken.

[serious black]

Does anyone have a link to the opinion?

[111chase111]

Originally posted by JuanValdez
Did people really think the Supreme Court might decide that state law could trump federal law? That wasn't going to happen. If you want legal pot, you'll have to get it from Congress, not the courts. I'm happy with the decision because the Supreme Court recognized that it wasn't their place to legislate on drugs (ironic thread title, considering).

Ding! ding! ding! The Supreme Court did not "outlaw" medical marijuana (as the title of this thread implied). The Supreme Court simply iterpreted the existing law of the land which says that, according to current Federal drug laws, the Federal laws will always trump local laws.

The current laws say you can't use marijuana for medical purposes. If the country wants to allow it then congress can pass a law that allows it.

The Supreme Court does not make laws (duhhh...). They just made a decision interpreting current laws. You want medical marijuana? Write you congress person.

[andymoon]

Court's ruling on marijuana reeks of 'reefer madness'
Diane Monson has suffered for years from degenerative spine disease and painful muscle spasms. On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court told Monson that she can be prosecuted for trying to relieve her own pain.

Three years ago, federal agents barged into her house, seized and destroyed the six marijuana plants Monson was growing at her doctor's suggestion. Monson, an accountant who lives in Oroville, Calif., had been getting relief from the active ingredient in marijuana that no ordinary drug had been able to provide.

It was all legal under the laws of California, one of 10 states that since 1996 have authorized patients to grow or obtain marijuana for medical needs with a doctor's recommendation. But the high court ruled that Congress' blanket ban on marijuana trumps the states' compassionate desire to create a limited exception for medicinal reasons.

Monson and Angel Raich are the latest collateral damage in Washington's indiscriminate war on drugs. Raich, an Oakland mother of two, is subject to severe, debilitating pain from an inoperable brain tumor and more than a dozen other ailments. Her desperate measures, seeking relief in using marijuana grown for her at no cost by her two caregivers, caused her to join Monson's court case three years ago — and now could make her also liable to federal prosecution.

The Court's 6-3 decision was a stretched interpretation of the clause in the Constitution that gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce.

Under Monday's ruling, growing marijuana at home for medicinal purposes, with no money changing hands, is somehow now a form of interstate commerce. It makes you wonder what the majority was smoking. As Justice Clarence Thomas said in his dissenting opinion, "If Congress can regulate this ... under the commerce clause, then it can regulate virtually anything."

That warning ought to be a rallying cry for conservative members of Congress elected under the banner of small government and respect for states rights. Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the court's majority, told Monson, Raich and anyone in a similar fix that their recourse is to get Congress to change the 1970 federal law that bans possession or distribution of marijuana.

Given the "reefer madness" in Washington that has led to an overemphasis on marijuana prosecutions in the war on drugs, the prospects for early congressional action seem remote. In the meantime, surely federal prosecutors and drug-control agents have better things to do than to swoop down on critically ill people who are abiding by state law and haul them off to court.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-06-06-marijuana-edit_x.htm

[andymoon]

Fallout of marijuana verdict
This week's high-court ruling nudges legislators into the thick of medical-use debate.
By Brad Knickerbocker | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
ASHLAND, ORE. – The US Supreme Court's decision this week asserting federal control over marijuana used for medical purposes would seem to bring that controversial practice to a halt. Uncle Sam - not the states - has the last word here, the court ruled.

But the 6-to-3 ruling may have raised more questions than it answered - and not just in the 10 states where medical marijuana has been legally used to treat the pain and nausea of certain illnesses.

For example, will the federal Controlled Substances Act now be enforced more rigorously?

Advocates on both sides of the issue say they do not expect to see US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents breaking down the doors and ripping up the plants of medical-marijuana users, especially if state and local cops - not obliged to help federal agencies prosecute people following state law - don't take part. Just a tiny fraction of the 750,000 pot busts made each year in the US are by DEA agents.

Will the ruling curb the number of states that allow medical marijuana? (The 10 that do are California, Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Washington, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont, and Maine.)

Polls show most Americans support medicinal use, including those opposed to general legalization of the drug.

For example, in a poll conducted last December for the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), 72 percent of respondents aged 45 or older agreed that "adults should be allowed to legally use marijuana for medical purposes if a physician recommends it."

This can be seen as part of the general public belief that individuals - not government - should be in charge of their medical care, including end-of-life care as was at issue in the Terri Schiavo case.

That support is behind the push in several states to legalize the use of medical marijuana, provided a physician recommends it. The Connecticut Senate, for one, is considering a bill that would license medical doctors to certify the use of marijuana for certain debilitating conditions; patients would be allowed to grow up to four plants for personal use.

This week's court decision puts added pressure on Congress to deal with the issue. In writing the court's majority opinion, Associate Justice John Paul Stevens "stressed the need for medical marijuana patients to use the democratic process, putting the ball in Congress's court," says Rob Kampia, executive director of the Marijuana Policy Project in Washington, D.C.

"This is especially important now because next week, the US House of Representatives will vote on an amendment that would prevent the federal government from spending funds to interfere with state medical-marijuana laws," says Mr. Kampia, whose organization provided major funding for the case brought by two California women.

Another question raised by this week's ruling: What lies ahead for Oregon's unique physician-assisted suicide law? The US Justice Department says that law also violates the Controlled Substances Act, and the Supreme Court has agreed to take up the case this fall.

This week's decision also affects a broader debate on the drug. Some advocates had seen medicinal use as a vehicle for building support for marijuana legalization. The Bush administration firmly opposes such a move, and few lawmakers see political advantage in the debate.

But a report out last week estimates that replacing marijuana prohibition with a taxation and regulation system - as exists for alcohol - would produce combined savings and tax revenues of between $10 billion and $14 billion per year.

The report, by Jeffrey Miron, visiting professor of economics at Harvard University, has been endorsed by more than 500 economists, including well-known conservative Milton Friedman of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.

In an open letter to President Bush, Congress, governors, and state legislatures, the economists call for "an open and honest debate," one they believe "will favor a regime in which marijuana is legal but taxed and regulated like other goods." Such a discussion "will force advocates of current policy to show that prohibition has benefits sufficient to justify the cost to taxpayers, foregone tax revenues, and numerous ancillary consequences that result from marijuana prohibition."

Still, there's no doubt that this week's ruling is affecting - at least for now - existing state programs and the more than 100,000 people they serve.

Oregon, for example, is temporarily halting issuance of medical-marijuana registration cards.

"We need to proceed cautiously until we understand the ramifications of this ruling," says state public health officer Grant Higginson, a physician who oversees the state's medical-marijuana program. "We have contacted the state attorney general to ask for a formal legal opinion."

While advocates of such programs view the ruling as a temporary setback, those who oppose them are encouraged.

Calvina Fay, executive director of the Drug Free America Foundation in St. Petersburg, Fla., calls it "an important victory for sound drug policy." Ms. Fay contends that many people falsely claim some medical problem in order to obtain the drug for recreational use.

Several medical organizations have advocated the use of marijuana for medical purposes. But the administration remains adamantly opposed, and it recently launched a new antimarijuana publicity campaign.

"Our national medical system relies on proven scientific research, not popular opinion," says White House drug czar John Walters. "To date, science and research have not determined that smoking a crude plant is safe or effective."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0608/p03s01-usju.html

[andymoon]

Patients who use marijuana fear worst if forced to stop
By Joan Biskupic, Wendy Koch and John Ritter, USA TODAY
Erin Hildebrandt moved her family from Maryland to Oregon last June for one reason: She wanted to live in a state where she could use marijuana legally.
Diane Monson, of Oroville, Calif., smokes marijuana to relieve back pain caused by a degenerative disease of the spine.
By Max Whittaker, AP

Hildebrandt has Crohn's disease, a chronic inflammation of the digestive tract that gives her nausea. The 34-year-old mother of five underwent surgeries and tried various treatments, but nothing worked until she tried marijuana.

Now, she's a registered marijuana user in Oregon, one of 10 states that has allowed patients who suffer from debilitating illnesses to use the drug as a pain reliever. "Medical marijuana gave me back my life," she said. "I don't do drugs. ... I'm just a mom."

But the Supreme Court's ruling Monday that state medical marijuana laws do not protect Hildebrandt and thousands of other medical-marijuana users from federal prosecution has her fearing the worst. "I moved here to be a law-abiding citizen, and I'm not sure that I am anymore," said Hildebrandt, who lives in Lafayette, about 30 miles southwest of Portland. "I'm afraid I'll have the DEA (Drug Enforcement Administration) at my door. Yesterday, I would have told so much more (about the treatment). Now, I'm afraid."

Her remarks reflected the concern Monday of medical-marijuana users who said the court's 6-3 decision had left them with a difficult choice: Break the law in order to take a drug that makes life tolerable, or give up marijuana and be miserable. (Related story: Court rejects medical marijuana)

The California patients behind the dispute that was decided by the court, Diane Monson and Angel Raich, were defiant Monday but hopeful that somehow a Republican-led Congress would approve a federal medical-marijuana law — even though it has shown no inclination of doing so. (Related story: Pot studies difficult to organize, analyze)

"I'm going to have to be prepared to be arrested," said Monson, 48, of Oroville, Calif., suggesting that she would continue to smoke marijuana to ease back pain caused by a degenerative disease of the spine.

Raich, 39, of Oakland, called on Congress to show compassion for those who have found marijuana uniquely effective in relieving their pain. "Now is the time for Congress to step in to help us sick, disabled and dying patients," said Raich, who has an inoperable brain tumor and a seizure disorder. "Something will be done if it takes every last breath in my body."

In Washington, the message was: Don't look for action anytime soon.

U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., a co-sponsor of a bill that would gives Congress' blessing for states to make their own medical-marijuana laws, said the Supreme Court has "now made it clear that this is up to Congress. If Congress wants to do this, it can."

But Frank and other members of Congress suggested that even in a generation of lawmakers who came of age as marijuana became popular among youths, few are willing to go on record as voting for a bill to allow pot smoking.

"I think support is strong" for a federal medical-marijuana bill, said U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas. "But people are still frightened a little bit by the politics of it. If you had a secret vote in Congress, I'll bet 80% would vote for it."

After taking several hours to digest the ruling, officials in California and other states with similar medical-marijuana laws — Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington state — said they doubted that the decision would lead the U.S. Justice Department to significantly crack down on individual users of medical marijuana, including those who grow the leaf for their own use.

"People shouldn't panic. There aren't going to be many changes," California Attorney General Bill Lockyer said. "Nothing is different today than it was two days ago, in terms of real-world impact."

In Oregon, officials said they would temporarily stop issuing medical marijuana cards to sick people. The cards allow patients with prescriptions to possess the drug. "We want to proceed cautiously until we understand the ramifications of this ruling," said Grant Higginson, a public health officer who oversees Oregon's medical marijuana program.

Thousands of registered users

The Drug Policy Alliance, a group in Oakland that supports more lenient drug laws, estimated that there are more than 113,000 registered users of marijuana in the 10 medical-marijuana states, with more than 100,000 in California alone.

Marijuana is the most commonly used illicit drug in the USA. About 95 million Americans age 12 and older have used marijuana or hashish in their lifetime, according to the 2002 National Survey on Drug Use and Health. About 15 million people use marijuana regularly, the survey found.

The Bush administration has made marijuana a priority in its war on drugs, casting it as an entry-level drug with no scientifically proven benefits that leads many users to try more dangerous ones such as cocaine and heroin. But DEA Administrator Karen Tandy said after the ruling that the administration's focus would remain on major growers and traffickers.

John Walters, the White House's anti-drug czar, said that those who flagrantly flout federal law will be punished, but he agreed with Tandy's emphasis on major traffickers.

"I don't think anybody makes a career out of arresting and punishing low-level users," he said.

The high court's ruling Monday came four years after it ruled that federal anti-drug laws could be used to shut down cannabis cooperatives that sell marijuana for medical purposes. The cooperative at issue in the case was set up in California after the voters there in 1996 passed the nation's first medical-marijuana law.

Federal enforcement of that ruling has been sporadic, however, and dozens of clubs continue to dispense marijuana to patients.

Several California cities, including San Francisco, Oakland, Huntington Beach and Modesto, have cracked down on marijuana co-ops and dispensaries recently. Oakland limited the number of clubs last year, and San Francisco in April put a moratorium on new clubs while the city's Board of Supervisors decides how to regulate the more than 40 facilities in the city.

Monday's case dealt with whether federal law could be used against those who possess or grow marijuana in small amounts, for their personal use. Such prosecutions are rare but are not unheard of: In August 2002, federal agents seized six plants from Monson's home and destroyed them in an incident that led to her involvement in Monday's case.

Writing for the court's majority Monday, Justice John Paul Stevens called the California dispute a "troubling" case because of the legal and ethical dilemmas faced by Monson, Raich and other medical-marijuana users.

"The case is made difficult by strong arguments that (Raich and Monson) will suffer irreparable harm because ... marijuana does have valid therapeutic purposes," Stevens wrote. "The question before us, however, is ... whether Congress' power to regulate interstate markets ... (covers) drugs produced and consumed locally."

Stevens also cited the government's argument that medical marijuana laws could inspire abuses such as unwarranted prescriptions that could lead to interstate drug trafficking violations.

"One need not have a degree in economics," Stevens wrote, "to understand why a nationwide exemption for the vast quantity of marijuana (or other drugs) locally cultivated for personal use (which presumably would include use by friends, neighbors and family members) may have a substantial impact on the interstate market for this extraordinarily popular substance."

Relying on a 1942 ruling that permitted government restrictions on local wheat farming, the majority said Congress may regulate purely intrastate activities — such as the personal growing of marijuana — if it finds that failing to regulate them would harm the U.S. government's ability to regulate the commodity.

Stevens was joined in the majority by Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.

Dissenting were two conservatives, Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Clarence Thomas, and Sandra Day O'Connor, who is usually at the political center of the divided court. The dissenters said states should have the right to set their own course in dealing with medical marijuana.

O'Connor said the majority was giving the federal government far too much authority. "The government has made no showing in fact that the possession and use of homegrown marijuana for medical purposes, in California or elsewhere, has a substantial effect on interstate commerce," she said.

'A war on patients'

Despite predictions by California's Lockyer and others that the ruling's impact on the vast majority of marijuana-using patients would be minimal, advocates for medical marijuana called the ruling a huge disappointment.

"In the war on drugs, we have had a war on patients," said Sandra Johnson, a lawyer and ethicist at Saint Louis University. "This is a tremendous setback. ... Untreated pain is a public health issue."

Randi Webster, a co-founder of the San Francisco Patients Co-op on the edge of the city's Haight-Ashburydistrict, said she wasn't surprised by the ruling. "The first thing I thought was, what a crying shame that once again politics is taking the place of compassion," she said.

"We're very disappointed," said Sandee Burbank, director of the non-profit Mothers Against Misuse and Abuse, known as MAMA, in Oregon. "It's going to make it harder for doctors and patients to have access (to medical marijuana) because of the fear."

She says her group, which provides information about the benefits and risks of medical marijuana, will work harder to push Congress to resolve the issue.

"My phone's been ringing off the hook," she says, describing patients who are afraid that U.S. officials will take their plants away. In Oregon, she said, many medical marijuana users grow their own plants. More than 10,000 residents have had permission from the state to do so.

In Washington, Walters, the anti-drug czar, saw the ruling as a rejection of the idea that marijuana is a proven pain reliever.

"The medical marijuana farce is done," he said. " I don't doubt that some people feel better when they use marijuana, but that's not modern science. That's snake oil."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-06-06-marijuana-cover_x.htm