Pubdate: Wed, 01 Dec 2004
Source: Denver Post (CO)
Copyright: 2004 The Denver Post Corp
Contact:  http://www.denverpost.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/122
Author: Al Knight
Note: Al Knight of Fairplay is a former member of The Post's editorial-page
Related: Raich - A LTE Writing Opportunity 
http://www.mapinc.org/alert/0297.html
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)

HIGH COURT WEIGHS THE HEALING POWERS OF POT

Angel Raich, a California woman who says she has 10 serious medical
conditions - including an inoperable brain tumor - has quickly become
the most famous pot-smoker in America.

Raich, who says she smokes marijuana every two hours, is the chief
plaintiff in an important case now before the U.S. Supreme Court. At
issue is whether her continued use of marijuana, authorized under a
1996 California law, is beyond the reach of the federal government.

The answer to that question will also determine the fate of medicinal
marijuana statutes in 11 states, including Colorado.

The legal issue before the court is really not about the alleged
"healing powers" of smoked marijuana. It doesn't much matter that
Raich has said that smoking marijuana has "stabilized" her brain
tumor. What matters is whether Congress was within its authority in
1970 when it included marijuana on the list of controlled substances.
In doing so, Congress specifically found it had a "high potential for
abuse" and had "no currently accepted medical use in treatment."

That finding was part of the federal Comprehensive Drug Abuse
Prevention and Control Act, a statute that declared "importation,
manufacture, distribution and possession and improper use of
controlled substances have a substantial and detrimental effect on the
health and general welfare of the American people" and that intrastate
distribution cannot be differentiated from interstate distribution. In
other words, Congress found that control of marijuana can be achieved
only with federal regulation.

That notion was directly challenged in 1996 when California voters
approved what amounts to a statewide exception to federal regulation.
The California law, like the laws later passed in other states,
provides a narrow medical exception for marijuana use. The California
law says that when a doctor recommends the drug, it may be used to
treat cancer, AIDS, chronic pain, spasticity, glaucoma, arthritis,
migraine "or any other illness for which marijuana provides relief."

The authors of that statute were quite clever. They didn't limit the
conditions that would qualify for medical marijuana use. Nor did they
say what medical benefit the drug was expected to provide. It was
enough if the patient said it provided "relief."

Imagine, for a moment, if that loose standard were to be adopted by
the Food and Drug Administration. Not only would snake oil be back in
circulation, so would healing water.

No wonder the 1996 law has found its way into court twice. The first
case was decided in 2001 when a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court ruled
that the federal government could indeed prosecute California
marijuana distributors who had claimed their activity was protected by
"medical necessity."

The second case developed a year later, when Raich and her
co-plaintiff asked the federal courts for an injunction protecting
them from any federal raids on their supply of marijuana.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the most reversed circuit in
America, ruled in their favor last year, holding that the controlled
substances act was "unconstitutional" as applied in their case.

The court was greatly impressed by the fact that the plaintiffs said
their marijuana was grown using "only soil, water, nutrients, growing
equipment, supplies and lumber originating from or manufactured within
California."

These and other factors, the court said, carved out an exception to
federal regulation. In coming to this conclusion, the court ignored a
whole line of its own cases in which it had upheld the power of the
federal government to regulate marijuana and other drug trade.

Thus, it's hard to believe - no, make that impossible to believe -
that the Supreme Court is going to accept the lower court's ruling.

Although it was 35 years ago that Congress found no accepted medical
use for marijuana, today the American Medical Association continues to
oppose medicinal marijuana laws, as do a number of associations
devoted to treatment of specific diseases.

If Congress was acting within its authority in making that
determination, and it surely was, California's law will soon be put
out of commission, along with others like it adopted elsewhere.

The initiative process may be a wonderful thing, but as the pending
marijuana case again proves, it hasn't always produced wonderful or
logical results. 
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake