Pubdate: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 Source: Decatur Daily (AL) Copyright: 2004 The Decatur Daily Contact: http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/index.shtml Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/696 Note: Compiled From Wire Reports Note: the brief, along with all the other court documents, are archived at http://www.angeljustice.org/article.php?list=type&type=11 Cited: Raich v. Ashcroft http://www.angeljustice.org Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Cannabis - Medicinal) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/people/Angel+Raich (Angel Raich) STATE GOES TO BAT FOR POT Alabama Disagrees With California on Marijuana, but Not States' Rights, As High Court Takes Up Issue WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court questioned whether state medical marijuana laws might be abused by people who aren't really sick as it debated on Monday whether the federal government can prosecute patients who smoke pot on doctors' orders. The stakes are high on both the government level - California and 10 other states have passed medical marijuana laws since 1996 - and the personal. There are also shades of paradox. Tough-on-crime Alabama, where a third conviction of simple marijuana possession can carry a life term, joined Louisiana and Mississippi in filing briefs in the case, arguing that the issue is a matter of states' rights, and the federal government should not meddle in it. "We take this stuff seriously, and we happen to believe as a matter of (drug) policy that the Californians are wrong, and the feds are right," Kevin C. Newsom, Alabama's solicitor general, told The Baltimore Sun in a recent interview. "But we're here to articulate the state's long-term interest - and the state's long-term interest is in Congress' powers being maintained within appropriate boundaries." Alabama filed a friend of the court brief on behalf of two California women, Angel McClary Raich and Diane Monson, who won a court injunction last year blocking the federal government from prosecuting people who use, grow or possess marijuana for medical reasons in accordance with California's 1996 ballot initiative, the Compassionate Use Act. Raich, an Oakland, Calif., mother of two, said she tried dozens of prescription medicines to ease the pain of a brain tumor and other illnesses before she turned to marijuana. She and Monson filed a lawsuit to protect their access to the drug after federal agents confiscated marijuana plants from Monson's yard. Their attorney, Randy Barnett of Boston, told the justices that his clients are law-abiding citizens who need marijuana to survive. Marijuana may have some negative side effects, he said, but seriously sick people are willing to take the chance because the drug helps them more than traditional medicines. The justices refused three years ago to protect distributors of medical marijuana from federal anti-drug charges. They are confronting a more personal issue this time - the power of federal agents to go after sick people who use homegrown cannabis with their doctors' permission and their states' approval. A defeat for the two California women might undermine laws passed by 11 states and discourage other states from approving their own. A loss for the government, on the other hand, could jeopardize federal oversight of illegal drugs and raise questions in other areas such as product safety and environmental activities. A Bush administration lawyer told the justices they would be encouraging people to use potentially harmful marijuana if they were to side with the women. "If they're right, then I think their analysis would extend to recreational use of marijuana, as well as medical use of marijuana, and would extend to every state in the nation, not just those states that made it lawful," said Paul Clement, acting solicitor general. - --- MAP posted-by: Richard Lake