Pubdate: Fri, 01 Dec 2000
Source: San Diego Union Tribune (CA)
Copyright: 2000 Union-Tribune Publishing Co.
Contact:  PO Box 120191, San Diego, CA, 92112-0191
Fax: (619) 293-1440
Website: http://www.uniontrib.com/
Forum: http://www.uniontrib.com/cgi-bin/WebX
Bookmark: Additional CCUA articles, http://www.mapinc.org/find?115

SMOKE SCREEN

High Court Considers Medicinal Marijuana

Advocates of marijuana legalization were chastened back in September when 
the U.S. Supreme Court barred a cannabis "buyers club" in Oakland from 
distributing marijuana.

Nevertheless, they took solace in the fact that the high court did not go 
so far at the time as to strike down Proposition 215, the California ballot 
measure approved by voters in 1996, which authorized possession and use of 
marijuana use for "medicinal" purposes.

The justices decided this week to resolve, once and for all, whether 
Proposition 215 and similar medical-marijuana laws in eight other states -- 
Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, Maine, Oregon, Washington, Nevada and Colorado -- 
pass constitutional muster.

At issue is whether these recently enacted state laws allowing "medicinal" 
marijuana supersede the long-standing federal Controlled Substances Act, 
which includes marijuana among the drugs whose manufacture and distribution 
are illegal.

It is no secret that the crusade to enact "medicinal" marijuana in 
California and other states is driven by advocates of drug legalization, 
including such deep-pocket supporters as George Soros, the billionaire 
financier.

If they can persuade voters to approve marijuana use for putative medicinal 
purposes, they reason, they can eventually get those same voters to approve 
marijuana for non-medicinal use. And so on, until they succeed in 
legalizing drug use altogether.

The case now before the U.S. Supreme Court dates to 1998, when the Justice 
Department secured an injunction from a federal district court in San 
Francisco barring the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative and other 
similar "medicinal" marijuana clubs from distributing the narcotic.

However, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overruled the district 
court, declaring that medical necessity could be a defense to the charge of 
distributing drugs in violation of the Controlled Substances Act.

Of course, if the 9th Circuit's ruling stands, it would undermine the rule 
of law. For the appellate court has decided, capriciously so, that federal 
law may be disregarded under certain circumstances -- like "medical necessity."

Indeed, it stands to reason that, if federal drug laws can be ignored under 
certain circumstances, then all manner of federal laws might be similarly 
ignored -- including tax laws, gun laws, environmental laws, civil rights 
laws, etc.

If exceptions are to be made to the federal Controlled Substances Act, if 
the possession and use of marijuana is to be legalized for ostensible 
medicinal purposes, then it is up to Congress to amend the law.

Proposition 215 and the other similar state laws represent an attempt by 
marijuana legalization advocates to do an end run around Congress, to 
subvert federal drug law. It is almost certain that the U.S. Supreme Court 
will strike down these state laws as unconstitutional.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jo-D