Pubdate: Sat, 26 May 2001
Source: British Medical Journal (UK)
Copyright: 2001 by the British Medical Journal.
Contact:  http://www.bmj.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/60
Author: Deborah Josefson
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/ocbc.htm (Oakland Cannabis Court Case)

US JUDGES RULE AGAINST MEDICAL USE OF MARIJUANA

The US Supreme Court has ruled unanimously against the medical use of
marijuana, finding, by eight to nil, that because it is an illegal
substance in federal law, no exceptions can be made, even for its
medicinal use.

The court rejected the arguments brought by the Oakland Cannabis Buyers'
Cooperative, which argued for compassionate exceptions in medical cases.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that "the Federal Controlled Substances
Act, while authorising the medical use of some drugs that generally
cannot be bought and sold, makes no exception whatever for marijuana."

He added that marijuana had no currently accepted medical use according
to the Controlled Substances Act.

The Supreme Court's decision deals a serious blow to the medical
marijuana movement and pits federal against state laws. It comes at a
time when marijuana is gaining broad acceptance as a medicinal
substance.

The drive to legalise marijuana for medicinal purposes started in 1996,
when Californian voters passed Proposition 215, allowing the possession,
distribution, and consumption of small amounts of marijuana for
medicinal purposes.

Since then, seven other states--Arizona, Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii,
Oregon, Washington, and Nevada--have passed similar initiatives and 30
additional states are considering passing acts relating to
"compassionate use" for cannabis.

Although the federal government finds no medicinal value in marijuana,
patients with AIDS, cancer, multiple sclerosis, and glaucoma--along with
recreational users--are among those said to benefit from the substance;
its pharmaceutical properties act as an appetite stimulant, antiemetic,
and mood enhancer.

In the United States versus the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative,
the justices ruled against the distribution of marijuana for medicinal
purposes because it would violate the 1970 Controlled Substances Act,
which defines marijuana as a schedule I drug. Schedule I drugs are
considered to have addictive potential but no medicinal value. Their
possession, sale, and consumption are illegal under federal statutes.

Although the Supreme Court's decision was unanimous, at least three
judges, Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and David
Souter, expressed reservations and discomfort with the scope of the
decision. They were worried both about depriving vulnerable patients of
a "medical necessity" defence and of the ramifications that the decision
would have with existing state laws.

Justice Stevens wrote that the decision would create an "unfortunate
collision" with states that have chosen to offer legal protection to
patients and their care givers through the legalisation of medical
marijuana.

Justice Stephen Breyer abstained from the vote because his brother,
Judge Charles Breyer, was involved in the Californian case and presided
over the 1999 decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San
Francisco. That court ultimately decided that a medical necessity
defence for marijuana was allowable in cases where the patient was in
"imminent danger." Despite the Supreme Court's ruling, the medical
marijuana battle is likely to continue.

Lawyers for the Oakland Cannabis Club plan to challenge the Supreme
Court's decision on constitutional grounds, with arguments that denying
medical marijuana to ill patients is unconstitutional. It is unclear
what effect the ruling will have on states that have passed medical
marijuana laws as the decision does not explicitly negate initiatives by
voters.

Bill Zimmerman, director of Americans for Medical Rights, a medical
marijuana lobbying group based in Santa Monica, California, said that
the decision would not undermine existing medical marijuana laws and
would not prevent individuals from obtaining the drug as he believes it
applies only to cannabis clubs. Nevada and Maine have pending laws that
will set up state sanctioned medical marijuana distribution centres.

The Supreme Court's decision was unanimous because they were ruling on
the narrow issue of distributing a banned substance, Mr Zimmerman
claimed. Cannabis clubs in California meanwhile plan to continue to
distribute the substance and have the support of law enforcement
officials in that state.

Reacting to the decision, California's attorney general, Bill Lockyer,
called the ruling "unfortunate," finding it sad that the Supreme Court
did not respect California's role as a public policy laboratory and as a
leader in spearheading compassionate use of marijuana.

"I appreciate the fact that federal law trumps state enactments," he
said, "but the responsibility for determining what is necessary to
provide for public health and safety has traditionally been left to the
states," he said.

The fallout from the Supreme Court's decision is yet to come. The
popularity of the compassionate use initiatives may eventually lead to a
congressional act that will change the law to allow the distribution of
marijuana for medical purposes.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Doc-Hawk