Pubdate: Tue, 07 Jun 2005
Source: Ottawa Citizen (CN ON)
Copyright: 2005 The Ottawa Citizen
Contact:  http://www.canada.com/ottawa/ottawacitizen/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/326
Author: Sheldon Alberts, with files from The Associated Press
Cited: Drug Policy Alliance http://www.drugpolicy.org
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)

MEDICAL USERS OF MARIJUANA RISK JAIL IN U.S.

Medical Marijuana Smokers Can Be Prosecuted, Supreme Court Rules

WASHINGTON - Americans who smoke marijuana for medical purposes -
even with a prescription from their doctor - will risk federal
prosecution, following a ruling yesterday by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The decision was a major victory for the White House and a setback to
the legalized marijuana movement, which had succeeded in convincing 10
states to allow the drug to be used by patients suffering from chronic
or severe pain.

"Today's decision marks the end of medical marijuana as a political
issue," said John Walters, the White House's director of national drug
control policy.

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court found federal laws prohibiting
any form of marijuana use supersede legislation in states that permit
prescribing of the drug for "compassionate" purposes.

"If there is any conflict between federal and state law, federal law
shall prevail," Justice Anthony Stevens wrote in the majority opinion.

The case underscores the growing gap in marijuana laws between Canada
and the United States.

The Bush administration has taken a zero-tolerance attitude toward the
drug, and is pressing U.S. high schools to begin random testing for
the drug in students.

"For years, pro-drug groups seeking the legalization of marijuana and
other drugs have preyed on the compassion of Americans to promote
their political agenda," Mr. Walters said. "Smoking illegal drugs may
make some people 'feel better,'" he said, but scientists "have not
determined that smoking a crude plant is safe or effective."

The Canadian government has allowed the use of marijuana for medical
purposes since 2001. Canadians suffering from terminal diseases and
specific symptoms of illnesses such as AIDS, multiple sclerosis,
cancer, arthritis and epilepsy are eligible to use the drug.

Paul Martin's Liberal government is also moving to decriminalize the
possession and use of small amounts of marijuana.

The U.S. court's ruling came after two California women -- Diane
Monson and Angel Raich -- filed a lawsuit after federal agents raided
their homes and seized home-grown marijuana they were prescribed to
treat a variety of illnesses.

"I'm going to have to prepare to be arrested," said Ms. Monson, who
has degenerative spine disease, after the ruling.

Ms. Raich, whose ailments include scoliosis, a brain tumour, chronic
nausea, fatigue and pain, said she smokes marijuana every few hours.

"I'm just going to keep doing what I'm doing," she said. "I don't
really have a choice but to, because if I stop using cannabis, I would
die."

The Supreme Court recognized "strong arguments that (Ms. Monson and
Ms. Raich) will suffer irreparable harm" by the decision, but said it
was bound to uphold the law.

The court relied on an obscure 1942 decision that upheld U.S.
Congress's power to ban wheat grown for home consumption.

"Production of the commodity meant for consumption, be it wheat or
marijuana, has a substantial effect on supply and demand for the
national market for that commodity," Judge Stevens wrote.

Any failure by the federal government to regulate bans on the
possession of marijuana "would leave a gaping hole" in the Controlled
Substance Act, he added.

The U.S. decision is the second consecutive blow to crusaders seeking
to liberalize American marijuana laws. The Supreme Court ruled in 2001
that federal agents had the right to close California clinics that
provided marijuana to patients.

Pro-medical marijuana groups said the court's decision could have a
chilling effect on states, such as Connecticut, that are considering
passing laws permitting marijuana use.

But Dan Abrahamson, director of legal affairs for the New York-based
Drug Policy Alliance, said "states still have the right to pass
legislation that protects the rights of patients to use this
life-saving medicine."

The federal government can choose not to prosecute cases, or "it can
waste taxpayer dollars by going after sick and dying patients," he
said.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said the court's
"overreaching stifles an express choice by some states, concerned for
the lives and liberties of their people, to regulate medical marijuana
differently."

It's estimated the Supreme Court's decision could affect as many as
100,000 patients in the 10 states where marijuana is allowed for
medical purposes.

U.S. Justice Department spokesman John Nowacki would not say whether
prosecutors would pursue cases against individual users. 
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake