Pubdate: Tue, 07 Jun 2005
Source: Tampa Tribune (FL)
Copyright: 2005, The Tribune Co.
Contact:  http://www.tampatrib.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/446
Note: Limit LTEs to 150 words
Author: David G. Savage, Los Angeles Times
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topics/Raich (Angel Raich)

JUSTICES REJECT USE OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Monday upheld the federal
government's power to seize and destroy marijuana used as medicine by
seriously ill patients, ruling that strict federal drug laws trump
California's liberalized policy on the drug.

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 could enforce its zero-tolerance policy
on marijuana in the 11 states where voters or lawmakers have opted to
legalize marijuana used for medical purposes.

Florida does not have a medical marijuana law.

The court's leading liberals sided with the Bush administration and
its federal drug enforcers, while three of its more conservative
members, including Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, joined the side
of the California marijuana users to limit the federal authority.

The decision weakens but does not overturn state laws that permit
seriously ill people to use marijuana to relieve pain or nausea.

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.
Because most law enforcement is carried out by state and local
officials, the 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 sought to dispel the idea that drug
agents would be unleashed on marijuana-using patients in California
and other states.

"The vast majority of our cases are against those involved in
trafficking, and major cultivation and distribution," Karen P. Tandy,
head of the Drug Enforcement Administration, said Monday. "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, Calif., urged
Congress on Monday to rethink its policy toward marijuana.

"I'm in this battle, literally, for my life," she said after the
ruling. She called on Congress to "stop federal raids on sick and
dying patients. ... I hope for myself, for my children and for other
patients out there that our congressional leaders put compassion
first. Our lives are literally in their hands."

California's law, passed by voters in 1996, allows people to grow,
smoke or obtain marijuana for medical needs with a doctor's
recommendation.

California has been the battleground state for medical marijuana. In
2001, the Supreme Court ruled in a California case that the federal
government could prosecute distributors despite their claim that the
activity was protected by medical necessity.

The case decided Monday focused on patients who grew marijuana at home
for their own use. It tested whether Congress' power to regulate
"commerce among the states" extended to individuals who were not
buying or selling 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
California home three years ago and destroyed her marijuana plants.

Their lawyers argued that homegrown marijuana did not involve
interstate commerce and was beyond the federal government's authority.

The case posed an interesting twist for the justices. In the past, the
liberals have favored broad federal power because it was crucial in
areas such as the minimum-wage law, civil rights enforcement and
environmental protection. The conservatives have favored protection of
states' rights and limits on federal power.

Information from The Associated Press was used in this report 
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake