Pubdate: Tue, 07 Jun 2005
Source: Herald, The (SC)
Copyright: 2005 The Herald
Contact:  http://www.heraldonline.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/369
Author: David Whitney and Claire Cooper, Herald Washington Bureau
Note: The decision is on line in various formats here 
http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZS.html and as a 79 
page .pdf file here http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/03-1454.pdf
Action: Suggested Actions in Response to the Raich Decision 
http://www.mapinc.org/alert/0309.html
Cited: Gonzales v. Raich http://www.angeljustice.org
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topics/Raich (Angel Raich)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Cannabis - Medicinal)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/walters.htm (Walters, John)

JUSTICES RULE MEDICAL USE OF MARIJUANA NOT ABOVE LAW

Court Says Users Face Federal Charges Despite State Laws

WASHINGTON - A medical prescription is not a ticket to legal marijuana in
California, the U.S. Supreme Court said Monday in a 6-3 ruling in
which the justices nonetheless expressed sympathy for those whose
illnesses have been uniquely alleviated by the popular street drug.

In an opinion written by Justice John Paul Stevens, the court held
that laws in California and 10 other states permitting marijuana
cultivation, possession and use by persons with a doctor's
prescription do not trump the federal government's authority under the
Constitution to prosecute sick users on federal drug charges.

The justices said their decision was "made difficult" by the claims of
the two California women who brought the appeal -- Angel McClary Raich
of Oakland and Diane Monson of Oroville. The women said they would
suffer irreparable harm if their supply to legal marijuana dried up
because of the ruling.

But they said the state exemption for medical marijuana was certain to
add to the burgeoning street supply of weed.

"In contrast to most prescriptions for legal drugs, which limit dosage
and duration of the usage, under California's law, the doctor's
permission to recommend marijuana is open-ended," the majority said.

The court's three dissenters complained that the ruling marked an
unconstitutional infringement on states' rights and warned that it
handed Congress broad powers to meddle in state issues.

Proponents of medical marijuana said they doubted the ruling would
have much effect on marijuana prosecutions. The Justice Department,
meanwhile, said it was pleased that the Supreme Court had reaffirmed
the scope of the nation's drug laws but did not elaborate.

John Walters, President Bush's director of national drug control
policy, was more expansive, asserting that it would put an end to
medical marijuana as a political issue.

"Smoking illegal drugs may make some people 'feel better,'" he said.
"However, civilized societies and modern day medical practices
differentiate between inebriation and the safe, supervised delivery of
proven medicine by legitimate doctors."

Even in the majority opinion, however, the high court suggested that
the question of medically permissible marijuana belonged in the
political arena.

Medical marijuana proponents can turn to administrative avenues to
have it reclassified from a banned Schedule I drug to a Schedule II
drug restricted to medical use, the justices said.

"But perhaps even more important than these legal avenues is the
democratic process in which the voices of voters allied with these
(women) may one day be heard in the halls of Congress," it said.

Though a clear blow to medical pot proponents, the ruling appeared
unlikely to have major practical consequence, at least not
immediately.

Most marijuana cases are brought by the states, and there's nothing in
the ruling compelling them to act any differently now. And instead of
overturning California's 1996 Compassionate Use Act, it merely rejects
one of the arguments that medical marijuana users are immunized from
prosecution under the federal Controlled Substance Act.

"Legitimate medical marijuana patients in California must know that
state and federal laws are no different today than they were
yesterday," said California Attorney General Bill Lockyer. Lockyer
said, however, some local law enforcement agencies could be more
aggressive in bringing marijuana cases now.

The Drug Enforcement Administration said it saw no change in its
enforcement priorities.

"Our mission remains the same, to disrupt and dismantle major
traffickers," said DEA spokesman Bill Grant. "We've never targeted the
sick and dying." But Grant said the agency was pleased the Supreme
Court recognized the fact that marijuana is a dangerous drug.

Raich, who has a brain tumor and has credited marijuana with relieving
her misery to the point that she no longer requires use of a
wheelchair, said at a press conference Monday that she will be beating
a path to Congress.

"We're not going away," said Raich. "Just because we did not win this
battle does not mean that we will not win this war."

Monson, who has chronic back spasms, said she was "very disappointed"
with the ruling. "I think it's just a blow to compassion everywhere,"
she said. "But I'm going to ... continue to do what I think is right." 
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake