Pubdate: Sat, 19 May 2001
Source: Keene Sentinel (NH)
Copyright: 2001 Keene Publishing Corporation
Contact:  http://www.keenesentinel.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/223
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/ocbc.htm (Oakland Cannabis Court Case)

THE SUPREME COURT RULES ON MEDICAL MARIJUANA

Except in the matter of late-term abortions, most members of Congress 
don't often presume to practice medicine. But this week the Supreme 
Court ruled 8-0 that they may do so if they please. The court 
determined that a congressional decision, made back during the Nixon 
administration, prohibits anyone from possessing or distributing 
marijuana, even if the drug is intended to relieve the terrible pain 
and nausea associated with treatment for cancer and AIDS.

It's not likely that Congress intended to make life miserable for 
seriously ill people when it voted to place marijuana on the list of 
federally controlled substances back in 1970. There was no evidence 
at that time that the drug was anything but hallucinogenic. In the 
intervening years, however, many doctors, researchers and medical 
associations have determined that something in marijuana provides 
palliative relief for certain agonizing therapies. That's why eight 
states have passed laws that exempt people from prosecution for 
obtaining marijuana for the seriously ill.

Monday's ruling didn't invalidate those laws, but it will allow the 
federal government to prosecute anyone who gives marijuana to the 
sick and the dying. If the government feels particularly vicious, it 
might even prosecute the patients themselves. President Bush's 
nominee for drug czar has suggested taking prescription privileges 
away from doctors who recommend marijuana for their patients. Way to 
go.

The decision, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, is a telling 
perversion of what conservatives like to call "strict 
constructionism," illustrating the high court's recent determination 
to twist reason and the Constitution so they conform to the justices' 
personal and political convictions. One might imagine that strict 
constructionists would defer to the conservative principle of state's 
rights in a case such as this, or find as it has in several recent 
cases that Congress had overstepped its constitutional authority. But 
this is about the devil's weed, so federal law had to prevail.

Follow Thomas's reasoning. The fact that Congress prohibited 
marijuana use in 1970, he wrote, "reflects a determination that 
marijuana has no medical benefits. Indeed, for the purposes of the 
Controlled Substances Act, marijuana has no currently accepted 
medical use at all." To drive home his brutal point, Thomas added in 
a footnote: "The very point of our holding is that there is no 
medical necessity exception to the prohibitions at issue even when 
the patient is seriously ill and lacks alternative avenues for 
relief."

In other words, anyone bent double with intractable pain should take 
two aspirin -- and don't call Justice Thomas in the morning.

Thomas's reasoning was so extreme that only the court's conservative 
wing joined in it. Justice Stephen Breyer recused himself, because 
his brother had been involved in the case as a federal judge. 
Although Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter and Ruth Bader 
Ginsburg went along with the outcome with regard to the widespread 
distribution of the drug, they expressed uncertainty as to whether 
seriously ill patients should be prevented from using it on their own 
when "there is no alternative means of avoiding starvation or 
extraordinary suffering."

No one is certain what effect this ruling will have, except that it 
will unnecessarily complicate the lives of people who are deathly 
ill. But even for those who believe the ruling is correct on legal 
grounds, a simple solution is possible. If, as the court says, 
Congress is to be the source of all wisdom about medical matters in 
this country, then Congress could amend its 1970 decision to allow 
the domestic cultivation and distribution of marijuana to seriously 
ill patients under strict medical control. In the weeks to come, we 
will see if anyone in Washington has the courage and compassion to 
propose that reasonable remedy.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Josh Sutcliffe