• E-mail
• Print
• Comment
• Font Size
• Digg
• del.icio.us
• Discuss article

High Court Rules Against Medical Use of Marijuana

Posted on: Wednesday, 8 June 2005, 09:00 CDT

From staff and wire reports

WASHINGTON Terminally ill patients who smoke marijuana to alleviate pain can be prosecuted for violating federal drug laws, even if their own state laws allow them to use marijuana for medical purposes, the Supreme Court ruled Monday.

In a 6-3 decision, the court ruled that federal drug laws, which say marijuana has no medical value, trump statutes in 11 states that either allow terminally ill patients to use the drug or limit penalties for doing so.

Although the ruling does not overturn the state laws, it means that patients who use marijuana for medical reasons could be arrested and prosecuted under the federal Controlled Substances Act.

Virginia is not among the 11 states that allow terminally ill patients to use the drug or limit penalties against them. However, a medical marijuana law was approved by the Virginia General Assembly and signed into law in 1979. But the law, which allows physicians to prescribe marijuana for glaucoma and cancer patients, is merely symbolic since a federal law prohibits doctors from prescribing marijuana.

Angel Raich, 39, the California woman at the center of the case who uses marijuana to alleviate chronic pain, said Monday she still would use the drug and that she expected others in her situation to do so. She and other advocates said they would intensify efforts to lobby Congress to change federal drug laws .

If I stop using cannabis, unfortunately, I would die, said Raich, who suffers from wasting disease and joint pain.

The decision, written by Justice John Paul Stevens, acknowledged the troubling facts of the case and Raichs strong arguments that she will suffer irreparable harm without the benefits of marijuana.

But the issue before the court was whether Congress had power to regulate medical marijuana, not whether it is wise to enforce the statute in these circumstances, Stevens wrote.

In ruling against the terminally ill patients, the court strongly reaffirmed a broad scope of congressional power to regulate interstate commerce even of products that are grown and consumed in the same state.

Moreover, the court said if it had ruled that Congress could not outlaw medical marijuana, such a decision would surely have extended to homegrown marijuana used for recreational purposes as well.

The case was one of the most closely watched of the term, not only because of the practical implications in states with medical marijuana laws but also because it involved deciding the extent of congressional power.

The decision produced an unusual line-up of liberal and conservative justices and makes clear that the court sees real limits to rulings in the last decade that have sharply curtailed Congress power at it relates to the states.

This is a case simply about the reach of federal power, said Randy Barnett, a law professor at Boston University School of Law who argued the case for Raich and another terminally ill California woman, Diane Monson.

Advocates for medical marijuana emphasized Monday that the state laws remained in effect and that the prospect of federal enforcement was fairly remote. Allen Hopper, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Unions Drug Law Reform Project, noted that the federal government handles only about 1 percent of marijuana prosecutions.

Robert Raich, a lawyer and Raichs husband, said advocates would urge Congress to change the law to reflect marijuanas medicinal value.

The balance of power between Congress and the states is an issue that has captivated this court in recent years and sharply divided the justices. In a series of opinions dating back more than a decade, the justices have generally divided 5-4, with the five conservatives in the majority, to put limits on Congress power to pass laws governing many areas of American life.

In Mondays case, two of those five, Justices Anthony Kennedy and Antonin Scalia, sided with their more liberal colleagues to uphold Congress power to regulate medical marijuana use. Scalia wrote a separate opinion, in which he concurred with the outcome and said he saw the case as a straightforward one.

In his opinion for the majority, Stevens strongly reaffirmed a 1942 case on the scope of congressional power under the commerce clause.

That case, which said Congress could regulate a farmers wheat production that was grown solely for his familys use, was considered by critics as the most extreme validation of congressional power under the commerce clause.

The court said that the similarities between the wheat case and the medical marijuana issue were striking. While neither product was produced for sale, the court said, Congress still could regulate them because of its interest in protecting or policing interstate markets in the products.

In both cases, the regulation is squarely within Congress commerce power because production of the commodity meant for home consumption, be it wheat or marijuana, has a substantial effect on supply and demand in the national market for the commodity, Stevens wrote for the court.

Justice Sandra Day OConnor , joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas, wrote a sharp dissent in which she accused the majority of trivializing past decisions that have curbed the scope of federal power.

OConnor said the decision stifles an express choice by some states, concerned for the lives and liberties of their people, to regulate medical marijuana differently.

The 11 states that allow medical marijuana usage or limit the penalty for such use are California, Maryland, Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington.

The marijuana case came about after federal agents seized six marijuana plants from the backyard of Monson, who is 47 and suffering from spine disease. She, Raich and two of Raichs caregivers sued to block the federal government from enforcing the federal drug laws against them.

This story was compiled from reports by the Chicago Tribune, The New York Times and The Virginian-Pilot staff.

Source: Virginian - Pilot

More News in this Category