Pubdate: Mon, 28 Feb 2005
Source: Crimson White, The (Edu, Univ of Alabama)
Copyright: 2005 The Crimson White.
Contact:  http://www.cw.ua.edu/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/2451
Author: Malcolm Ifekauche
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Cannabis - Medicinal)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/decrim.htm (Decrim/Legalization)

LAW PROFESSOR SPEAKS ABOUT MEDICAL POT

Law Prof Argued For Medical Marijuana Before Supreme Court

Law professor Randy E. Barnett talked medical marijuana and arguing before 
the U.S. Supreme Court at the UA School of Law Friday.

Barnett, a Harvard School of Law graduate and former Chicago prosecutor, 
tried felony cases as a criminal prosecutor in Chicago before he began his 
teaching career.

Now a Boston University School of Law professor, Barnett has argued before 
the Supreme Court in Raich v. Ashcroft. In the case, Barnett's clients were 
California medical marijuana users who had their plants seized by the Drug 
Enforcement Agency. The case is still pending.

Barnett said his two clients were using marijuana as prescribed by a doctor 
to help their illnesses. One patient suffered from more than 10 serious 
medical conditions, including life-threatening weight loss, he said.

Barnett said he believed that the marijuana prescribed for the plaintiffs 
served a legitimate medical purpose. "As some of you may have heard, 
cannabis has been known to increase one's appetite," he said.

Raich v. Ashcroft was argued under precedents of two previous Supreme Court 
cases, United States v. Lopez and United States v. Morrison, in which 
commerce was defined in relation to the federal Controlled Substances Act, 
Barnett said.

He said he argued that the Commerce Clause could not be used in his case 
because his clients were growing marijuana plants for their own use, so no 
commerce was involved. Also, "that the cultivation, possession and use of 
marijuana as prescribed by a doctor under the legal authorization of 
California were not in violation of the Controlled Substances Act," he said.

Barnett said he had an unconventional approach to one of the questions that 
would be asked by the Supreme Court. He had to differentiate medical 
marijuana use from the use of other controlled substances such as cocaine 
in relation to the activities' regulation under the U.S. Constitution's 
Commerce Clause.

"We had to avoid the slippery slope," he said. "How do we separate [medical 
marijuana users'] activities from other illegal activities?"

Barnett said he had been dealing with this question for two years. He said 
he discovered his answer two weeks before his scheduled Supreme Court 
appearance in a mock trial at Harvard University.

He argued that because his clients were growing the plants solely for their 
own use, and that because medical marijuana was legal under California 
state law, their case was the exception and benefited the broader good.

Raich v. Ashcroft is not the first step towards the legalization of 
recreation marijuana use, Barnett said. The case is very limited, he said, 
because it only deals with patients using marijuana as prescribed by a 
doctor for personal use within a state where medicinal marijuana is legal.

Barnett concluded with the story about his appearance on "The Ricki Lake 
Show." He said he changed the theme of the show, which centered on people 
who had been wrongfully convicted, when he was asked whether the justice 
system was working.

He said he told the audience that for the justice system to work correctly, 
equal representation is needed on both sides of each case. In cases where 
defendants were wrongfully convicted, he said he told the audience that the 
defense attorneys were usually incompetent, which drew much applause.

"It doesn't matter what I've done in my career," Barnett said. "The first 
thing students ask me is, 'What happened to you' on 'The Ricki Lake Show?'"
- ---
MAP posted-by: Beth