Pubdate: Tue, 07 Jun 2005
Source: Pawtucket Times (RI)
Copyright: 2005 The Pawtucket Times
Contact:  http://www.pawtuckettimes.com
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1286
Source: Pawtucket Times (RI)
Author: Jim Baron
Cited: Gonzales v. Raich ( www.angeljustice.org/ )
Cited: Marijuana Policy Project ( www.mpp.org )
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Cannabis - Medicinal)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topics/Raich (Angel Raich)

BILL ON MEDICAL WEED COULD GO TO SEED

PROVIDENCE - If legislation to allow sick and dying people to use
marijuana as medicine became law, "marijuana farms could sprout up
anywhere in Rhode Island" and state efforts to stop children from
using pot "and other narcotics" might be "seriously undercut," so Gov.
Donald Carcieri would veto the bill in its current form, his spokesman
said Monday.

The Carcieri administration made its stance known on the day before a
scheduled Senate vote on the medical marijuana bill and on the same
day the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the right of the federal government
to enforce federal anti-marijuana statutes in states that have adopted
laws permitting the medical use of marijuana.

Press Secretary Jeff Neal said the bill has a number of "troubling
loopholes." For one, he said, "it would allow any adult in Rhode
Island to grow and distribute large amounts of marijuana. There are
few restrictions on who would be able to produce and distribute and
where that would be allowed."

Neal pointed to Monday's high court ruling -- which said that state
medical marijuana laws do not shield patients from federal prosecution
- -- as one of Carcieri's reasons for opposing the measure currently
being considered by the General Assembly.

"By passing a state law," Neal explained, "we would be putting Rhode
Islanders in danger of federal prosecution" by giving them "a false
sense of security."

To the contrary, Sen. Rhoda Perry, sponsor of the medical marijuana
bill up for a vote in the Senate today, said the Supreme Court
decision "provides a persuasive and compelling rationale to pass
legislation to protect people who are dying and gravely ill under
state law" if they choose to use marijuana on the recommendation of
their doctor.

Perry noted that 99 percent of marijuana arrests nationwide are made
under state laws, which she said is the reason why other states such
as Connecticut and New York are also "on the verge" of passing medical
marijuana legislation.

Rep. Thomas Slater, who is the sponsor of a medical marijuana bill
currently awaiting a vote in the House Health, Education and Welfare
Committee, said the Supreme Court ruling merely maintains the status
quo.

"Federal authorities have the right to prosecute under federal law, we
knew that," Slater said Monday. "That has nothing to do with a state's
ability to pass medical marijuana laws."

Besides, Slater said, "what are the chances of (federal authorities)
coming in on someone on their dying bed? The chances are kind of slim."

Krissy Oechslin, assistant director of communications for the
Washington D.C.-based Marijuana Policy Project, which has helped lobby
for the Rhode Island law, agreed.

"If the Justice Department takes this as a free pass to arrest people
with cancer, it will backfire on them," Oechslin told The Times. "It
would be an unfounded step of logic to take this ruling and use it to
not pass the law. It's just more reason to pass it."

Oechslin noted that the court ruling doesn't stop states from passing
medical marijuana laws and does not overturn those already in existence.

According to the Associated Press, Justice John Paul Stevens, an
85-year-old cancer survivor, said in his 6-3 opinion that the court
was not passing judgment on the potential medical benefits of
marijuana, and he noted "the troubling facts" in the case. However, he
said the Constitution allows federal regulation of homegrown marijuana
as interstate commerce.

While there are other legal options for patients, Stevens wrote,
"perhaps even more important than these legal avenues is the
democratic process, in which the voices of voters allied with these
(two California women who brought the case) may one day be heard in
the halls of Congress."

But even supporters say it is unlikely Congress would pass a law
allowing physicians to prescribe marijuana.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, also a cancer
survivor, said, "the Court has endorsed making it a federal crime to
grow small amounts of marijuana in one's own home for one's own
medicinal use. This overreaching stifles an express choice by some
States, concerned for the lives and liberties of their people, to
regulate medical marijuana differently. If I were a California
citizen, I would not have voted for the medical marijuana ballot
initiative; if I were a California legislator I would not have
supported the Compassionate Use Act. But whatever the wisdom of
California's experiment with medical marijuana, the federalism
principles that have driven our Commerce Clause cases require that
room for experiment be protected in this case.

Her dissent was joined in part by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who
is currently battling cancer, and Justice Clarence Thomas. In his own
dissenting opinion, Thomas said, "If Congress can regulate this under
the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything -- and
the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.

Perry admitted she found it "absolutely amazing" that she was on the
same side of the issue as consistently conservative jurists as
Rehnquist and Thomas. "That might be the bigger story," she said,
referring to the different ways the issue cuts ideologically.

Could the Supreme Court decision affect today's Senate
vote?

"Anything can affect a vote, especially if it is misunderstood," Perry
said. She said floor debate will be geared to "make sure all members
understand what the ruling does."

Slater, who predicted Carcieri would veto the bill before the
governor's announcement was made, said the bill will likely pass in
both houses. As for a veto, he said, "I could be overturned, we'll see
how the vote comes out in the Senate."
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake