Pubdate: Tue, 07 Jun 2005 Source: Charlotte Observer (NC) Copyright: 2005 The Charlotte Observer Contact: http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/ Author: David G. Savage, Los Angeles Times Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Cannabis - Medicinal) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topics/Raich (Angel Raich) MEDICAL MARIJUANA ILLEGAL, COURT RULES Justices: Federal Ban Outweighs State Laws WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Monday upheld the federal government's power to seize and destroy marijuana that is used as medicine by seriously ill patients, ruling that strict federal drug laws trump California's liberalized policy on pot. The Constitution makes the laws of the United States the "supreme law of the land," and "if there is any conflict between federal and state law, federal law shall prevail," Justice John Paul Stevens said for the court. It is up to Congress, he said, to change the law. The 6-3 decision did not seek to resolve the dispute over whether marijuana may be good medicine. Instead, the justices focused on whether the federal government can enforce its zero-tolerance policy on marijuana in the 10 states -- most of them in the West -- where voters or lawmakers have opted to legalize marijuana used for medical purposes. There is no provision in N.C. or S.C. law that allows the use of marijuana for medical reasons. The court's leading liberals -- Justices Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer -- sided with the Bush administration and its federal drug enforcers, along with two conservative justices -- Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy. Three other conservatives -- Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas -- joined the side of the California marijuana users to limit federal authority. The case focused on patients who grew marijuana at home for their own use. It tested whether Congress' power to regulate "commerce among the states" extends to individuals who were not buying or selling marijuana. Federal drug agents, prosecutors and judges may arrest, try and punish those who grow or use marijuana, the high court said, even in states that have laws legalizing it. However, state and local police need not assist in those efforts. And since most law enforcement is carried out by state and local officials, medical marijuana laws should continue to have practical significance. California Attorney General Bill Lockyer said the ruling "shows the vast philosophical difference between the federal government and Californians on the rights of patients. ... Taking medicine on the recommendation of a doctor for a legitimate illness should not be a crime." Federal law-enforcement officials downplayed the idea that drug agents would be unleashed on marijuana-using patients. "The vast majority of our cases are against those involved in trafficking, and major cultivation and distribution," said Karen Tandy, head of the Drug Enforcement Administration. "I don't see any significant changes in DEA enforcement strategies after today's decision. We don't target sick and dying people." The case before the court was brought by two ill California women, one of whom had her personal marijuana confiscated by federal agents. Angel Raich, a brain-tumor patient from Oakland, urged Congress on Monday to rethink its policy toward marijuana. Raich sued to defend her personal use of marijuana as medicine. She suffers from serious medical conditions, including an inoperable brain tumor, chronic back pain and muscle spasms. She and her doctor said cannabis is uniquely effective in relieving her pain. She sued along with Diane Monson after DEA agents raided Monson's Butte County, Calif., home three years ago and destroyed her marijuana plants. Their lawyers argued that homegrown marijuana did not involve interstate commerce and so was beyond the authority of the federal government. The six-member majority said Congress has the authority to police the market in marijuana. "One need not have a degree in economics to understand why a nationwide exemption for the vast quantity of marijuana (or other drugs) locally cultivated for personal use ... may have a substantial impact on the interstate market for this extraordinarily popular substance," Stevens wrote. The court's majority made clear it was not endorsing the federal policy on marijuana. "The voices of voters allied with (these two women) may one day be heard in the halls of Congress," Stevens wrote. Other Actions Also Monday, the court: . Held 6-3 that foreign cruise lines sailing in U.S. waters must provide better access for disabled passengers. . Ruled in favor of the federal government in a dispute with Alaska over ownership of submerged lands in the Glacier Bay area. . Refused to consider reinstating a lawsuit that accuses federal officials of discriminating against male athletes in enforcing equal opportunities for women. - --- MAP posted-by: Richard Lake