Angels vs- Evil
California Women
Lose Case Against Federal Bullies
Visit: http://www.raichaction.org/ and http://www.angeljustice.org
Please contact senators and reps and Tell them to support HR
2087 State's right to medical marijuana act. Here is MPP's press release from May 4, 2005 on the latest bill.
http://www.mpp.org/releases/nr20050504.html
Pdf and html versions of the syllabus, majority opinion, and
dissents of the decision are now
online here:
http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZS.html
and the official version should be here at some point:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04slipopinion.html
SUGGESTED ACTIONS IN
RESPONSE TO THE RAICH DECISION
*********************PLEASE
COPY AND DISTRIBUTE*************************
DrugSense FOCUS Alert #309 - Monday, 6 June 2005
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that state medical marijuana laws don't protect users from a federal ban on the drug - allowing federal authorities to prosecute sick people for their use of medical cannabis, even if on the advice of their doctors.
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
In its majority opinion against Raich and Monson (page 6), the Supreme Court issued a significant word of warning about the wisdom of current federal laws:
"The case is made difficult by respondents' strong arguments that they will suffer irreparable harm because, despite a congressional finding to the contrary, marijuana does have valid therapeutic purposes. The question before us, however, is not whether it is wise to enforce the statute in these circumstances; rather, it is whether Congress' power to regulate interstate markets for medicinal substances encompasses the portions of those markets that are supplied with drugs produced and consumed locally."
**********************************************************************
Organizations are calling for you to act and providing detailed advice on the best ways to respond. Please see:
http://actioncenter.drugpolicy.org/action/index.asp?step=2&item=25197
http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=6550
**********************************************************************
Here are a few points to consider:
The single most important thing to understand is that state and local laws on the books protecting medical cannabis patients and their doctors will continue to stand and are not at all affected by this ruling.
As you can see from this split decision, the Court has ruled on very technical legal grounds, particularly on medical cannabis as a commerce issue. However, we are heartened that the Court was clear in recognizing the medical necessity for seriously ill patients like Angel.
The Attorney General and the federal government now have a choice: They can choose to continue wasting taxpayers' dollars raiding the homes of sick and dying patients-- suffering from diseases like cancer, chronic pain, leukemia, multiple sclerosis and AIDS--who are abiding by state and local laws, or they can choose more worthwhile priorities, like national security or arresting terrorists. The federal government should not compound the suffering of sick and dying patients.
The federal government actually makes only 1% of all marijuana related arrests in the country. While 99% protection from arrest isn't perfect, it is still substantial. It is more urgent than ever before for states to act to protect patients from arrests and harassment.
**********************************************************************
The press will have a field day with this story - and will likely make factual errors in their reporting which will enhance your chances of being published if you write letters. Expect many targets for letters to the editor in the days ahead.
Please check this link frequently, watching for news clippings with a "Pubdate" of Mon, 06 Jun 2005 or later, to help you find targets for your letters:
http://www.mapinc.org/topics/Raich
**********************************************************************
Thanks for your effort and support.
It's not what others do it's what YOU do
**********************************************************************
Additional suggestions for writing LTEs are at our Media Activism Center:
http://www.mapinc.org/resource/
Or contact MAP Media Activism Facilitator Steve Heath for personal tips on how to write LTEs that get printed.
**********************************************************************
PLEASE SEND US A COPY OF YOUR LETTER
Please post a copy of your letter or report your action to the sent letter list (sentlte@mapinc.org) if you are subscribed, or by E-mailing a copy directly to heath@mapinc.org if you are not subscribed. Your letter will then be forwarded to the list so others can learn from your efforts.
Subscribing to the Sent LTE list (sentlte@mapinc.org) will help you to review other sent LTEs and perhaps come up with new ideas or approaches as well as keeping others aware of your important writing efforts.
To subscribe to the Sent LTE mailing list see
http://www.mapinc.org/lists/index.htm#form
**********************************************************************
Prepared by: Stephen Heath, MAP Media Activism Facilitator
From: Rick Bayer [mailto:ricbayer@comcast.net]
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 3:43 PM
Cc: Grant Higginson, MD; Senator Bill Morrisette
Subject: California A.G Lockyer's statement re: Raich case
Oregon DoJ
Attention: Hardy Myers, Attorney General
Dear: Mr. Myers:
I was told today that the Oregon Medical Marijuana Program (OMMP) was no longer issuing permit cards until receiving advice from the Oregon AG office. I was a chief petitioner of Oregon's Medical Marijuana Law in 1998 and see no reason to stop issuing permits because of Raich decision.
The California AG has issued a press release today to calm down concerned Californians so I forwarded that below. Can we in Oregon have a press release from our AG?
Excessive delay of a calming opinion from the Oregon AG's office will only continue to frighten patients, cause fewer to register, and will increase the number of unregistered growers. This will make more work for Law Enforcement (LE) at a greater expense to taxpayers as these unregistered sick people are busted and processed. The human misery in totally unnecessary.
As we all know, 99% of marijuana arrests are by state and local authorities - not the feds. The OMMP is very important for patients with debilitating conditions and most Oregonians have no problems with the OMMP (about 70 to 80% of Oregonians like our medical marijuana act in the last polling).
It is the best interest of all stakeholders (patients, doctors, politicians, administrators, and LE too) to encourage registration and compliance. Please allow OMMP to start re-issuing cards and please put out a press release in a manner that will calm patients. The news media have spooked some people and although I have spoken to media all day, something from the Oregon AG's office will help. As the California AG proved, this is not an impossible task. Please contact me if I can provide any assistance. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Richard E. Bayer, MD
6800 SW Canyon Drive
Portland, OR 97225
(503) 292-1035 voice
(503) 297-0754 fax
cc: Grant Higginson, MD, Oregon DHS OMMP Director
cc: Senator Bill Morrisette, Oregon Senate
=======================
Don't let Oregon shut
down medical marijuana program
Although the U.S. Supreme Court ruled earlier today that federal authorities can continue prosecuting medical marijuana patients, Oregon's medical marijuana law is still intact. But you wouldn't know that from the alarming, inaccurate statement of one Oregon official. Grant Higginson, M.D. the public health officer who oversees the Oregon Medical Marijuana Program (OMMP) incorrectly concluded that the Court's ruling invalidates state medical marijuana laws, and he has decided to stop issuing medical marijuana registration cards.
We need you to do three things, right now, to set the record straight.
The Marijuana Policy Project vehemently opposes Higginson's decision to break Oregon's law by unilaterally deciding to withhold medical marijuana ID cards from legitimate patients. In fact, if Higginson refuses to follow state law and continue issuing ID cards to legitimate patients, MPP will immediately sue him in state court. Meanwhile, we need you to do your part.
So please call Dr. Higginson, Attorney General Myers, and write to your local papers today.
Higginson said that Oregon will continue to receive and process applications, but he explained, "We need to proceed cautiously until we understand the ramifications of this ruling." Higginson has contacted the attorney general to ask for a formal legal opinion on how the ruling affects OMMP. Unfortunately, Dr. Higginson does not yet understand that the Court's decision does not invalidate Oregon's law in any way.
The attorneys general of California, Nevada, and Montana have already said that their states' medical marijuana laws are unaffected by today's Supreme Court ruling, and the attorneys general of the six other medical marijuana states have also not challenged their states' policies. Please visit http://www.ag.ca.gov/newsalerts/2005/05-040.htm to read California Attorney General Bill Lockyer's statement on the legitimacy of his state's medical marijuana law, and his commitment to uphold it.
Oregon's law reflects the will of the people, since voters
in Oregon passed it. And the law maintains its legality in the face of the
Supreme Court's disappointing decision. Please take action today to ensure that
Oregon state officials understand this fact, and please pass this message along to your
friends and family in Oregon, so that they may act too. Thank you for
supporting the Marijuana Policy Project.
NEWS RELEASE
Attorney General Bill Lockyer
California Department of Justice www.ag.ca.gov
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Teresa Schilling
June 6, 2005 05-041 (916) 324-5500
ATTORNEY GENERAL
LOCKYER ISSUES STATEMENT ON US
SUPREME COURT'S
MEDICAL MARIJUANA RULING
(SACRAMENTO) - Attorney General Bill Lockyer today issued the following statement on today's ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in Gonzales v. Raich, which holds that federal laws prohibiting the use of medical marijuana remain in effect regardless of state laws that permit its use:
"Today's ruling does not overturn California law permitting the use of medical marijuana, but it does uphold a federal regulatory scheme that contradicts the will of California voters and limits the right of states to provide appropriate medical care for its citizens. Although I am disappointed in the outcome of today's decision, legitimate medical marijuana patients in California must know that state and federal laws are no different today than they were yesterday.
"Californians spoke overwhelmingly in favor of medical marijuana by passing Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Initiative, and that law still stands in our state. Unfortunately, federal law continues to criminalize the use of physician-recommended marijuana medicine. This conflict between state and federal law means that seriously ill Californians will continue to run the risk of arrest and prosecution under federal law when they grow or use marijuana as medicine.
"Today's ruling shows the vast philosophical difference between the federal government and Californians on the rights of patients to have access to the medicine they need to survive and lead healthier lives. Taking medicine on the recommendation of a doctor for a legitimate illness should not be a crime.
"There is something very wrong with a federal law that treats medical marijuana the same as heroin. The United States Congress and the President have the power to reform and modernize federal law in order to bring relief to medical patients and still punish those who illegally traffic in substances. Patients, physicians and the public that support medicinal marijuana should tell their Congressional Representatives and Senators to take a fresh look at the federal laws that ban its use."
####
Calif. AG: Don't Panic Over Pot
Ruling
By KIM CURTIS
.c The Associated Press
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - Oregon stopped issuing medical marijuana cards after
Monday's Supreme Court ruling, but people could apparently still get pot with a
doctor's prescription there and in nine other states. And nobody in law
enforcement appeared eager to make headlines arresting ailing patients.
``People shouldn't panic. There aren't going to be many changes,'' California
Attorney General Bill Lockyer said. ``Nothing is different today than it was
two days ago, in terms of real-world impact.''
The high court ruled 6-3 that people who smoke marijuana because their doctors
recommend it to ease pain can be prosecuted for violating federal drug laws.
The ruling does not strike down medical marijuana laws in California, Alaska,
Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont or Washington state.
State and local authorities in most of those states said they have no interest
in arresting people who smoke pot for medical reasons.
It remains to be seen whether the federal Drug Enforcement Administration is
planning a crackdown. The Justice Department was not commenting.
In Oregon, state officials said they would temporarily stop issuing medical
marijuana cards to sick people.
``We want to proceed cautiously until we understand the ramifications of this
ruling,'' said Grant Higginson, a public health officer who oversees Oregon's
medical marijuana program.
Medical marijuana dispensaries have proliferated despite a 2001 Supreme Court
ruling that rejected the ``medical necessity'' defense in marijuana cases.
Paul Armentano of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws
said arrests of ailing patients have been rare, but the government has arrested
more than 60 people in medical marijuana raids since September 2001.
Most of those arrests have been in California - the first state to allow
medical marijuana, in 1996. On Monday, Gov. Arnold Schwarznegger, who has
previously supported use of pot by sick people, said only: ``It is now up to
Congress to provide clarity.''
Still, the ruling makes Valerie Corral nervous. Corral operates a 150-plant pot
farm in Santa Cruz County, providing marijuana for free to about 165 seriously
ill members. Her farm was raided by the DEA in 2002. The high court's decision
``leaves us protecting ourselves from a government that should be protecting
us,'' she said.
It was ``business as usual'' at the San Francisco health department,
spokeswoman Eileen Shields said. The county issues medical marijuana
identification cards, valid for two years, to residents with a doctor's
prescription. Currently, 8,200 residents have the cards.
In Colorado, where 668 people hold certificates that let them use and grow
marijuana for pain relief under a constitutional amendment voters approved in
2000, federal prosecutors will continue to focus on large drug rings, but if
investigators come across marijuana in the possession of certified state users,
they will seize it - just as they have always done, said Jeff Dorschner, a U.S.
Attorney's spokesman.
In Montana, the 119 residents who paid $200 to get on the state's confidential
registry won't face state prosecution, said state Attorney General Mike
McGrath. He said the state is not obligated to help federal authorities
prosecute people following state law.
In Nevada, medicinal pot users are already warned that the state law offers no
protections from federal prosecution, Attorney General Brian Sandoval said.
Dear
Oregon,
The important thing to remember about this bad result is that nothing will change in Oregon. The Feds have not been leaving us mostly alone because of fear that they were powerless, but for some other reason.
And the most powerful lesson is to be found in this quote from Justice Stevens:
Stevens said there are other legal options for patients, "but perhaps even more important than these legal avenues is the democratic process, in which the voices of voters allied with these respondents may one day be heard in the halls of Congress."
I submit that we are well underway in the process of having our voices heard-the combined efforts of mmj states will be the voices heard in Congress. Oregon will be showing the way again.
Our effort to bring about rescheduling will continue through this session and then into the inter-session at the pharmacy board. Rescheduling would radically change the sentencing structure for mj crimes.
So we do not like to lose something like this, but it will spur us on the win the rest. Use this impetus to speak polite fire at the 2693 hearing!
Laird Funk
This setback is an opportunity to educate.
I just read the Supreme Court ruling in Raich v. Gonzales. opinion and the message is quite clear. These quotes from the Opinion of the Court summarize the ruling:
"The question presented in this case is whether the power vested in Congress by Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution...includes the power to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana in compliance with California law."
"The case is made difficult by respondents' strong arguments that they will suffer irreperable harm because, despite a congressional finding to the contrary, marijuana does have valid therapeutic purposes."
"Well settled law controls our answer. The CSA is a valid exercise of federal power, even as applied to the troubling facts of this case."
"We do note, however, the presence of another avenue of relief. As the Solicitor General confirmed during oral argument, the statute authorizes procedures for the reclassification of Schedule I drugs. BUT PERHAPS EVEN MORE IMPORTANT THAN THESE LEGAL AVENUES IS THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS, IN WHICH THE VOICES OF VOTERS ALLIED WITH THESE RESPONDENTS MAY ONE DAY BE HEARD IN THE HALLS OF CONGRESS." (my EMPHASIS)
We need to pursue all avenues of rescheduling marijuana and we need to get Congress to change the federal law. Starting locally we need to all contact our Congress people and use this decision to urge them to act. We need a long term plan to get this job done working with all the national organizations.
We need to maximize this opportunity to focus on the issue.
John Sajo
For immediate release
For more information
contact:
Steven S. Epstein, Esq.
The Supreme Court's decision
is not the end of the fight
The
decision of the Supreme Court concluding that the federal marijuana
prohibition does not violate the Commerce Clause as applied to Angel Raich
and Diane Monson is not the end of the political fight.
Support
for legalizing the medical use of marijuana has never been greater.
Just
this past May Republicans Ron Paul (TX) and Dana Rohrbacher (CA) and Democrats
Barney Frank (MA) and Sam Farr (CA), reintroduced the States' Rights to
Medical Marijuana Act. This bill, assigned bill number HR 2087, has
been introduced in each of the last several sessions of Congress, and has
gained increased support and co-sponsorship each time around.
HR
2087 bill would reverse today's decision. It proposes rescheduling
marijuana under federal law so those states that wish to legalize the
medical use of marijuana under state law could do so without federal
interference. If this bill were approved by Congress, federal prosecution
of patients who qualify for medical use under state law would end, and
states could actually provide medical marijuana to patients who
qualify under state law.
Last
session 5 of Massachusetts' 10 representatives signed on as
sponsors. They were Rep. Barney Frank (D, MA-4); Michael Capuano
(D, MA-8); William Delahunt (D, MA-10); John Olver (D, MA-1); and, James
P. McGovern (D, MA-3). The five who did not were Richard Neil (D
MA-2); Marty Meehan (D MA-5); John Tierney (D MA-6); John Markey (D MA-7);
and, Stephen Lynch (D MA-9).
Even though they did not sign on, except for Mr. Lynch, the other members of
the Massachusetts delegation have twice voted in favor of
prohibiting the Justice Department from spending funds to interfere with the
implementation of state medical marijuana laws. House Roll
Call No. 420, 108th Congress, 1st Session and House Roll Call No. 334,
108th Congress, 2nd Session.
Tomorrow a 1:00 PM the Judiciary Committee of the legislature will be
considering a bill that would amend Massachusetts' Controlled Substance
Thereapuetic Act (G.L. c. 94D) to make it like that in the ten states whose
citizens are now fair game for federal prosecution.
On Wednesday at noon, their
will be small demonstrations outside many U.S. Representatives local offices.
<end>
Massachusetts Cannabis
Reform Coalition\NORML
A State Affiliate of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws
Proud Sponsor of Freedom Rally XVI, Sept. 17, 2005 on the Boston Common
P.O. Box 0266, Georgetown, MA 01833-0366
781-944-2266 - http://www.masscann.org/
"We shall by and by want a world of hemp more for our own
consumption."
John Adams as Humphrey Ploughjogger, 1763
NORML People, no doubt most of you have heard of the US Supreme Court decision 6-3 in favor of the government, (O'Conner, Renquist, and Thomas dissenting) in that medical marijuana is illegal under Federal Law.
As your leader, I was on WJR, WWJ, Detroit News, National Radio, Metro Times, etc. today, so pardon me for not posting something earlier.
I told the media that this is a very sad day, with so many problems confronting this country from terrorists, hard core criminals and seriously dysfunctional persons, that Federal resources will continue to be used to persecute sick persons who need this medicine, under a doctors care.
In reality, state and local laws are what they are. That is, some protection for the sick is better then nothing. Local laws in Detroit and Ann Arbor still stand, as they do in California, Oregon, Nevada, Maine and 7 other states which are with us.
Local and State Police as appropriate, are agents of the state and local authorities. They are not federal agents. Voter power is where it's at. Medical marijuana was passed in California in 1996, and that law was always in conflict with federal law. When Bush/Ashcroft decided to continue to arrest medical mj patients, a lawsuit was filed against the government and the people won in the 9th Circuit Federal Court. So, for two years, the Feds. could not arrest sick people in the western USA states that passed these laws.
Unfortunately, they can now start doing so again
My friends, some protection from federal tyranny is better then nothing.
I hope our activists in Ferndale, Flint and Traverse City will continue the fight and not lose heart.
My suggestion as head of Michigan NORML, is that we proceed as planned with ballot initiatives in Ferndale, Flint and Traverse City.
Tim Beck
Executive Director, MI-NORML
First National Building
660 Woodward Ave., Ste. 1141
Detroit, MI 48226
(313) 881-8995
June 6, 2005
To: NORML Supporters
From: Allen St. Pierre, Executive Director, NORML
Hello,
Today the United States Supreme Court ruled that federal law continues to prohibit the use of cannabis?even for the sick, dying and sense-threatened.
The first Associated Press story related to this morning's breaking news is found below along with NORML's reply.
As Justice Steven's writings for the court below indicate: "Perhaps even more important than these legal avenues is the democratic process, in which the voices of voters allied with these respondents may one day be heard in the halls of Congress."
It is hard to argue with Justice Stevens' point. Per usual, the greatest gains for cannabis law reform are to be made by achieving legislative changes in the law rather than looking to the courts for relief. In light of this, it is imperative that you contact your member of Congress today and urge him or her to support the States' Rights To Medical Marijuana Act, which would reschedule marijuana under federal law and protect patients in states with medical marijuana laws. Please take two minutes to send your member of Congress a pre-written letter today by visiting:
http://capwiz.com/norml2/mail/oneclick_compose/?alertid=7531001
Thirty-three years after NORML launched the 'medical marijuana' debate by suing the federal government to re-schedule cannabis, regrettably that debate will apparently continue do to this morning's United States Supreme Court decision.
Challenges to cannabis prohibition laws are principally funded by citizens who support a change in the status quo regarding cannabis so please continue to provide the valuable resources, to NORML and other cannabis law reform groups, which are needed to keep pushing hard for these social reforms.
Regards,
-Allen F. St. Pierre
Executive Director
NORML
Washington, DC
#########################################
Court Rules Against Pot for Sick People
By GINA HOLLAND
The Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) - Federal authorities may prosecute sick people who smoke pot on doctors' orders, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, concluding that state medical marijuana laws don't protect users from a federal ban on the drug.
The decision is a stinging defeat for marijuana advocates who had successfully pushed 10 states to allow the drug's use to treat various illnesses.
Justice John Paul Stevens, writing the 6-3 decision, said that Congress could change the law to allow medical use of marijuana.
The closely watched case was an appeal by the Bush administration in a case that it lost in late 2003. At issue was whether the prosecution of medical marijuana users under the federal Controlled Substances Act was constitutional.
Under the Constitution, Congress may pass laws regulating a state's economic activity so long as it involves "interstate commerce'' that crosses state borders. The California marijuana in question was homegrown, distributed to patients without charge and without crossing state lines.
Stevens said there are other legal options for patients, "but perhaps even more important than these legal avenues is the democratic process, in which the voices of voters allied with these respondents may one day be heard in the halls of Congress.''
California's medical marijuana law, passed by voters in 1996, allows people to grow, smoke or obtain marijuana for medical needs with a doctor's recommendation. Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington state have laws similar to California.
In those states, doctors generally can give written or oral recommendations on marijuana to patients with cancer, HIV and other serious illnesses.
In a dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said that states should be allowed to set their own rules.
"The states' core police powers have always included authority to define criminal law and to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens,'' said O'Connor, who was joined by other states' rights advocates.
The legal question presented a dilemma for the court's conservatives, who have pushed to broaden states' rights in recent years, invalidating federal laws dealing with gun possession near schools and violence against women on the grounds the activity was too local to justify federal intrusion.
O'Connor said she would have opposed California's medical marijuana law if she was a voter or a legislator. But she said the court was overreaching to endorse "making it a federal crime to grow small amounts of marijuana in one's own home for one's own medicinal use.''
The case concerned two seriously ill California women, Angel Raich and Diane Monson. The two had sued then-U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft, asking for a court order letting them smoke, grow or obtain marijuana without fear of arrest, home raids or other intrusion by federal authorities.
Raich, an Oakland woman suffering from ailments including scoliosis, a brain tumor, chronic nausea, fatigue and pain, smokes marijuana every few hours. She said she was partly paralyzed until she started smoking pot. Monson, an accountant who lives near Oroville, Calif., has degenerative spine disease and grows her own marijuana plants in her backyard.
06/06/05 10:31 EDT
#########################################
NORML press release (6/6/05)
Supreme Court Rules Feds Can Arrest State-Recognized Medical Cannabis Patients
State Laws Authorizing Physician-Supervised Use Of Marijuana Unaffected By Ruling
Washington, DC: The US Supreme Court today reversed a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision which found that the federal prosecution of patients who cultivate and possess marijuana for their own medicinal use is an unconstitutional exercise of Congress' Commerce Clause authority. As a result, the court struck down an injunction barring the Justice Department from arresting the respondents -- California medical cannabis patients Angel McClary Raich and Diane Monson -- for violating the federal Controlled Substances Act. Ms. Raich and Ms. Monson had filed suit in federal court in 2002 seeking to bar the US Justice Department from taking legal action against them for their state-sanctioned use of medicinal cannabis.
"While we are disappointed with the Court's decision, the bottom line is that state and local laws protecting medicinal cannabis patients and their physicians remain in place and are unaffected by this ruling," NORML Executive Director Allen St. Pierre said. Eleven states -- Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington -- have passed laws exempting patients who use cannabis under a physician's supervision from state criminal penalties.
"With this ruling, Congress and the Justice Department have a choice: They can choose to waste taxpayers' dollars and undermine states' rights by arresting and prosecuting seriously ill patients who possess and use medical cannabis in compliance with state law, or they can choose more worthwhile priorities, like protecting national security and targeting violent criminals," St. Pierre said. He added that Congress is expected to vote later this month on a bipartisan amendment sponsored by Reps. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) and Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) that would prohibit the federal government from spending taxpayers' dollars to prosecute patients who comply with their state's medical marijuana laws. Also pending in Congress is House Bill HR 2087, "the States' Rights to Medical Marijuana Act," sponsored by Reps. Barney Frank (D-MA), Ron Paul (R-TX), Sam Farr (D-CA), Rohrabacher, and Hinchey, along with 31 co-sponsors, which would reclassify marijuana under federal law to properly recognize its medical utility and enable physicians to legally prescribe it under controlled circumstances.
"The Court's decision today underscores the need for Congress to amend federal law to recognize cannabis' therapeutic utility," St. Pierre said." Throughout our history, the public has looked to state legislatures and Congress -- not the courts -- to be the architects of public policy. With 80 percent of Americans as well as numerous health organizations, including the American Nurses Association and the American Public Health Association, in favor of legalizing the physician-supervised use of medicinal cannabis, it's time for the federal government to butt out of doctors' decisions regarding which medicine is the most safe and effective for their patients."
Respondents co-counsel, NORML Legal Committee member David Michael agreed. "This decision is a great leap backwards by the Supreme Court, in eroding the Rehnquist Court№s Commerce Clause legacy and creating chaos by pitting the Federal Government against its own citizens and their individual states," he said. "Where the Supreme Court has failed, it is now up to Congress to protect the citizens of this country and their states from an overreaching federal government."
For more information, please contact either Allen St. Pierre or Paul Armentano at (202) 483-5500. Respondents' co-counsel, NORML Legal Committee member David Michael is also available for comment at (415) 621-4500.
####################
Check out the newly redesigned NORML store, complete with brand new retro NORML shirts, hats, mugs, and more! Until June 14, get $5 off orders of $50 or more. Coupon Code: GRDAD05 > * visit: http://www.cafeshops.com/norml
NORML Media Watch
NORML was featured prominently in several media outlets this week, including The Cincinnate Enquirer, The Columbia Missourian, and The Pasadena Star News. To read these articles or about other NORML media appearances, check out "NORML in the Media" at:
http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=5481
Donate today to NORML's long-standing efforts to end pot prohibition!
https://secure.norml.org/join/
Sign up for NORML's monthly pledge program today!
https://secure.norml.org/join/pledge.html
####################
Newshawk: Please Write LTEs www.mapinc.org/alert/0309.html
Pubdate: Tue, 07 Jun 2005
Source: New York Times (NY)
Copyright: 2005 The New York Times Company
Contact: letters@nytimes.com
Website: http://www.nytimes.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/298
Author: Dean E. Murphy
Note: Mindy Sink contributed reporting from Denver for this article.
Cited: Drug Policy Alliance http://www.drugpolicy.org
Cited: Drug Enforcement Administration http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/
Cited: Drug Free America Foundation http://www.dfaf.org/
Cited: Californians for Drug Free Youth http://www.cadfy.org/
Cited: Oregon Medical Marijuana Program http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/ommp/
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topics/Raich
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Cannabis - Medicinal)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/people/Epis (Bryan Epis)
DRUG'S USERS SAY RULING WON'T END THEIR EFFORTS
OAKLAND, Calif. - Advocates of medicinal uses of marijuana suffered a legal setback on Monday in the United States Supreme Court, but there was little panic or despair amid the tears of disappointment.
"Just because we lost this little battle does not mean that the war is over," Angel McClary Raich, one of the marijuana users whose case was before the Supreme Court, said at a news conference here. She added: "We're just sick. We're not criminals."
Though some advocates worried that the ruling might embolden opponents of medical marijuana, as a practical matter, there are very few federal prosecutions of medical marijuana users nationwide.
An unpublished survey this year by the Drug Policy Alliance, a group that advocates the legalization of medical marijuana, found that there were fewer than 20 federal prosecutions of medical marijuana users or growers since 1996, when California passed the first medical marijuana law, said Daniel N. Abrahamson, the group's director of legal affairs in Oakland.
All but a handful of the prosecutions, Mr. Abrahamson said, involved cases in which the users were accused of growing up to 1,000 plants or more. "They are selectively choosing big-fish cases, and are not sending a message to the average patient growing a few plants in the backyard," Mr. Abrahamson said.
William L. Grant, a spokesman for the Drug Enforcement Administration, said that the emphasis had been to focus on "major trafficking organizations and attempt to disrupt and dismantle them from top to bottom, including their financial networks."
Asked about the effect of the Supreme Court ruling on the federal enforcement, Mr. Grant said, "Our mission is going to remain the same."
In a 6-to-3 decision, the justices ruled that the federal authorities might prosecute sick people who used marijuana under their doctors' supervision, even in states that allowed the medicinal uses. Eleven states have state laws allowing some uses of medicinal marijuana, even though federal law outlaws the drug.
Opponents of the medical marijuana laws said they were hopeful that the court ruling would put a damper on efforts by advocacy groups to get similar laws passed in other states. Calvina Fay, executive director of the Drug Free America Foundation, said the laws were dangerous because they treated marijuana like drugs approved for use by the federal government.
"We don't want truly sick and dying people to be scammed into thinking they are being medically treated by smoking pot," Ms. Fay said. "We believe that people who are truly sick need good, legitimate medicine."
John Redman, director of Californians for Drug Free Youth, a drug abuse prevention group based in San Diego, said marijuana rivaled alcohol as a source of problems among young people who sought substance abuse treatment. He said the medical marijuana dispensaries across the state - there are an estimated 80 of them in California - were rife with problems.
"You have unfettered access to a potentially harmful drug, and that is a problem," Mr. Redman said.
Reaction among the state authorities to the court ruling was mostly muted.
The authorities in Oregon stopped issuing marijuana registration cards for new patients, though the 10,000 patients already registered with the state can still receive marijuana under state law with a doctor's recommendation.
"We need to proceed cautiously until we understand the ramifications of this ruling," Dr. Grant Higginson, who oversees the Oregon Medical Marijuana Program, said in a statement. Oregon officials described the move as temporary, and said that the state attorney general had been asked to issue an opinion as guidance.
The attorney general in Montana, Mike McGrath, said that he stood by that state's medical marijuana law and that the federal authorities "will be on their own" if they tried to prosecute patients registered under the state law.
"I think it's going to be up to the Bush administration to make a decision as to how it's going to deal with theses cases as a matter of policy," Mr. McGrath, a Democrat, said.
Bill Lockyer, the California attorney general, said the ruling left patients vulnerable to federal prosecution and illustrated "the vast philosophical difference between the federal government and Californians on the rights of patients to have access to the medicine they need to survive and lead healthier lives."
California was the first state to legalize the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes, when voters approved Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Initiative, in 1996. The state is believed to have the vast majority of the estimated 115,000 registered medical marijuana users nationwide.
"There is something very wrong with a federal law that treats medical marijuana the same as heroin," Mr. Lockyer, a Democrat, said in a statement.
Ms. Raich, who suffers from multiple illnesses, including chronic wasting syndrome, said she believed that she was alive because of her medicinal use of marijuana. At a tearful news conference, she said that she intended to continue using the drug, which she takes every two hours, including when she has surgery.
"We are not being disobedient," she said. "We are just using this medicine because it saves our lives."
Other users said they were frightened by the prospect of federal agents' arriving at their doorstep and might give it up.
Dana May, 47, a father of three in Aurora, Colo., has already had his home raided by state and federal officials for growing marijuana for himself and two other people with medical conditions. Mr. May, who has been on disability for 10 years because of reflex sympathetic dystrophy, described his pain as nightmarish. But his fear of the authorities, he said, would put an end to his marijuana growing.
"It's sad," Mr. May said. "The first thing that went through my mind when I heard about the ruling was, 'I hope I don't get suicidal again.' "
In at least one case in California, the ruling could make the difference between freedom and imprisonment. Bryan J. Epis was freed from prison last year by a federal appeals court after serving two years of a 10-year sentence for growing marijuana plants for medicinal purposes at his home in Chico.
Mr. Epis, 38, was freed pending the outcome of the Supreme Court case. He will now have to go back to court and request a permanent reduction in his sentence.
"Yeah, I'm nervous," Mr. Epis said.
Justices deal blow to medical
marijuana
U.S. government may prosecute users,
top court rules
WASHINGTON
- Federal authorities may prosecute sick people who smoke pot on doctors'
orders, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, concluding that state medical marijuana
laws don't protect users from a federal ban on the drug.
The
decision is a stinging defeat for marijuana advocates who had successfully
pushed 10 states to allow the drug's use to treat various illnesses.
Justice
John Paul Stevens, writing the 6-3 decision, said that Congress could change
the law to allow medical use of marijuana.
The
closely watched case was an appeal by the Bush administration in a case that it
lost in late 2003. At issue was whether the prosecution of medical marijuana
users under the federal Controlled Substances Act was constitutional.
Under
the Constitution, Congress may pass laws regulating a state's economic activity
so long as it involves "interstate commerce" that crosses state
borders. The California marijuana in question was homegrown, distributed to
patients without charge and without crossing state lines.
Stevens
said there are other legal options for patients, "but perhaps even more
important than these legal avenues is the democratic process, in which the
voices of voters allied with these respondents may one day be heard in the
halls of Congress."
California's
medical marijuana law, passed by voters in 1996, allows people to grow, smoke
or obtain marijuana for medical needs with a doctor's recommendation.
Alaska,
Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington state
have laws similar to California.
In
those states, doctors generally can give written or oral recommendations on
marijuana to patients with cancer, HIV and other serious illnesses.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8118123/
Court Rules Against Pot for Sick
People
By GINA HOLLAND
.c The Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) - Federal authorities may prosecute sick people who smoke pot
on doctors' orders, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, concluding that state
medical marijuana laws don't protect users from a federal ban on the drug.
The decision is a stinging defeat for marijuana advocates who had successfully
pushed 10 states to allow the drug's use to treat various illnesses.
Justice John Paul Stevens, writing the 6-3 decision, said that Congress could
change the law to allow medical use of marijuana.
The closely watched case was an appeal by the Bush administration in a case
that it lost in late 2003. At issue was whether the prosecution of medical
marijuana users under the federal Controlled Substances Act was constitutional.
Under the Constitution, Congress may pass laws regulating a state's economic
activity so long as it involves ``interstate commerce'' that crosses state
borders. The California marijuana in question was homegrown, distributed to
patients without charge and without crossing state lines.
Stevens said there are other legal options for patients, ``but perhaps even
more important than these legal avenues is the democratic process, in which the
voices of voters allied with these respondents may one day be heard in the
halls of Congress.''
California's medical marijuana law, passed by voters in 1996, allows people to
grow, smoke or obtain marijuana for medical needs with a doctor's
recommendation. Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon,
Vermont and Washington state have laws similar to California.
In those states, doctors generally can give written or oral recommendations on
marijuana to patients with cancer, HIV and other serious illnesses.
In a dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said that states should be allowed to
set their own rules.
``The states' core police powers have always included authority to define
criminal law and to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their
citizens,'' said O'Connor, who was joined by other states' rights advocates.
The legal question presented a dilemma for the court's conservatives, who have
pushed to broaden states' rights in recent years, invalidating federal laws
dealing with gun possession near schools and violence against women on the
grounds the activity was too local to justify federal intrusion.
O'Connor said she would have opposed California's medical marijuana law if she
was a voter or a legislator. But she said the court was overreaching to endorse
``making it a federal crime to grow small amounts of marijuana in one's own
home for one's own medicinal use.''
The case concerned two seriously ill California women, Angel Raich and Diane
Monson. The two had sued then-U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft, asking for a
court order letting them smoke, grow or obtain marijuana without fear of
arrest, home raids or other intrusion by federal authorities.
Raich, an Oakland woman suffering from ailments including scoliosis, a brain
tumor, chronic nausea, fatigue and pain, smokes marijuana every few hours. She
said she was partly paralyzed until she started smoking pot. Monson, an
accountant who lives near Oroville, Calif., has degenerative spine disease and
grows her own marijuana plants in her backyard.
Court Ruling to Affect Cancer
Patients
By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID
.c The Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) - Helping patients control pain and the nausea from cancer
chemotherapy have been among the leading uses of medical marijuana. Such
patients are likely to be affected by the Supreme Court's decision Monday
allowing federal prosecution of sick people who use the drug, regardless of
state laws.
Marijuana has been used as a medical treatment for thousands of years,
according to the Mayo Clinic. In recent years, marijuana and its chemical
components have been studied in relation to illnesses ranging from cancer to
glaucoma to multiple sclerosis.
The Institute of Medicine, a National Academy of Sciences component, reported
in 1999 that ``marijuana's active components are potentially effective in
treating pain, nausea, the anorexia of AIDS wasting, and other symptoms, and
should be tested rigorously in clinical trials.''
There are scores of chemical compounds in the leaves, stem and seeds of the
marijuana plant.
Drawing the most attention, the Mayo Clinic says, is THC, or
delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, the part mainly responsible for the drug's mental
effects and which may also help treat nausea and vomiting. A manufactured
version, called Dronabinol or Marinol is used to treat nausea, though not all
patients can keep it down.
In addition, the components cannabinol and cannabidol, which cause fewer mental
effects but have some of THC's properties, have undergone study.
In the body, THC and other cannabinoids attach to two types of receptors on
cells. CB1 receptors, found in the brain areas that control body movement,
memory and vomiting, and CB2 receptors found on small numbers of cells
elsewhere in the body, mainly in the immune system.
Some medical problems that have been studied for treatment with marijuana
include:
* Glaucoma. This disease is associated with increased fluid pressure within the
eye and can lead to vision loss and blindness.
The National Eye Institute reports that studies in the 1970s and 1980s showed
marijuana lowered pressure within the eye when used orally, by injection or by
smoking. However, the research indicated marijuana was no more effective than
other drugs on the market.
* Cancer. Anticancer drugs can cause nausea and vomiting and marijuana has been
studied as a means to reduce this side-effect, particularly Marinol, which is
available by prescription.
The National Cancer Institute recommends other available anti-nausea drugs as
first line therapy, but says its ``scientists believe that synthetic THC may be
appropriate for some cancer patients who have chemotherapy-induced nausea and
vomiting that cannot be controlled by other antiemetic means.''
* Multiple Sclerosis. Some researchers believe marijuana may be useful in
treating the pain of multiple sclerosis as well as protecting the nerves from
damage, but results from studies have been mixed.
The National Multiple Sclerosis Society says, ``There have been a large number
of anecdotal reports from individuals who state that smoking marijuana has
relieved some of their MS symptoms, including spasticity and pain. Studies
completed thus far, however, have not provided convincing evidence that
marijuana benefits people with MS.''
* AIDS. Loss of appetite often occurs in AIDS patients and marijuana has been
used as a stimulant to improve their eating.
The National Association of People with AIDS reports that in addition to
appetite stimulation it is also useful for managing side effects of drugs such
as nausea.
On the Net:
Mayo Clinic: http://www.mayoclinic.com
Institute
of Medicine: http://www.iom.edu
National
Eye Institute: http://www.nei.nih.gov
National
Cancer Institute: http://www.nci.nih.gov
National
Multiple Sclerosis Society: http://www.nmss.org
National
Association of People With AIDS: http://www.napwa.org
Newshawk: Please See http://www.mapinc.org/alert/0309.html
Pubdate: Tue, 07 Jun 2005
Source: Washington Post (DC)
Page: A01 - Front Page
Copyright: 2005 The Washington Post Company
Contact: letters@washpost.com
Website: http://www.washingtonpost.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/491
Author: Charles Lane, Washington Post Staff Writer
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topics/Raich
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Cannabis - Medicinal)
A DEFEAT FOR USERS OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA
State Laws Are Not Defense, Justices Rule
The Supreme Court dealt a blow to the medical marijuana movement yesterday, ruling that the federal government can still ban possession of the drug in states that have eliminated sanctions for its use in treating symptoms of illness.
By a vote of 6 to 3, the court ruled that Congress's constitutional authority to regulate the interstate market in drugs, licit or illicit, extends to small, homegrown quantities of doctor-recommended marijuana consumed under California's Compassionate Use Act, which was adopted by an overwhelming majority of voters in 1996.
The ruling does not overturn laws in California and 10 other states, mostly in the West, that permit medical use of marijuana. In 2003, Maryland reduced the maximum fine for medical users of less than an ounce of the drug to $100.
But the ruling does mean that those who try to use marijuana as a medical treatment risk legal action by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration or other federal agencies and that the state laws provide no defense.
Writing for the court majority, Justice John Paul Stevens said the case was "troubling" because of users' claims that they needed marijuana to alleviate physical pain and suffering. But he concluded that the court had no choice but to uphold Congress's "firmly established" power to regulate "purely local activities . . . that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce."
Echoing an argument advanced by the Bush administration, Stevens expressed concern that "unscrupulous physicians" might exploit the broadly worded California law to divert marijuana into the market for recreational drugs.
The Bush administration, which has been emphasizing marijuana enforcement in its anti-drug strategy, hailed the ruling.
"Today's decision marks the end of medical marijuana as a political issue," said John P. Walters, President Bush's director of national drug control policy. "Our nation has the highest standards and most sophisticated institutions in the world for determining the safety and effectiveness of medication. Our national medical system relies on proven scientific research, not popular opinion."
But California Attorney General Bill Lockyer said that "seriously ill Californians will continue to run the risk of arrest and prosecution under federal law when they grow and or they use marijuana as medicine."
The ruling, he said, "shows the vast philosophical difference between the federal government and Californians on the rights of patients to have access to the medicine they need to survive and lead healthier lives."
Supporters of medical marijuana, noting that Stevens wrote that "the voices of voters allied with these respondents may one day be heard in the halls of Congress," said the fight over federal drug policy will shift to a new battleground.
"The decision highlights the opportunity we have to go to Congress and change these laws," said Robert Raich, a lawyer whose wife, Angel Raich, was one of two women who had sued to block enforcement of federal marijuana laws against them.
A House bill that would forbid the use of federal funds to prosecute medical marijuana use in states that permit it was defeated overwhelmingly last year but will be voted on again soon, advocates of medical marijuana said.
Yesterday's Supreme Court decision represented a victory for the court's supporters of federal power over its proponents of states' rights.
In two cases in the past decade, the court limited Congress's power to make laws in the name of regulating interstate commerce, saying that it had begun to intrude upon local affairs. Backers of medical marijuana had hoped to apply those precedents in this case, Gonzales v. Raich, No. 03-1454.
But Stevens concluded that the court was still bound by a 1942 Supreme Court decision that defined interstate commerce broadly to include, under certain circumstances, even subsistence wheat farming.
Much modern government regulation exists because of this broad definition of interstate commerce, which permitted the court to uphold, as exercises of Congress's commerce clause power, laws including New Deal farm controls and the ban on racial segregation in hotels and restaurants.
Stevens was joined by the court's three other consistent supporters of federal power, Justices David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer. He also picked up the votes of two justices, Antonin Scalia and Anthony M. Kennedy, who usually support states' rights.
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas dissented.
Writing for the three, O'Connor noted that she "would not have voted for the medical marijuana initiative" in California, but she chided the majority for stifling "an express choice by some States, concerned for the lives and liberties of their people, to regulate medical marijuana differently."
In a separate dissent, Thomas added that if "the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives and potluck suppers throughout the 50 states."
The two California women who sued to block federal marijuana enforcement in California are Diane Monson, who was prescribed marijuana for lower-back pain, and Raich, who said that she must take the drug at least every two hours or else she will lose her appetite and die from a "wasting syndrome" whose medical cause is unknown.
"I don't know how to explain it," she said yesterday. "I just can't swallow without cannabis."
Monson's home was raided and her marijuana plants seized by federal agents in 2002; Raich says she receives the drug free from caregivers and joined Monson's lawsuit because she fears that her marijuana could be seized. Neither woman has been criminally charged. Raich's suppliers are also in the case, as John Does One and Two.
***************
Newshawk: http://www.cannabisnews.com
Pubdate: Tue, 7 Jun 2005
Source: Washington Post (DC)
Page: A08
Copyright: 2005 The Washington Post Company
Contact: letters@washpost.com
Website: http://www.washingtonpost.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/491
Author: Evelyn Nieves, Washington Post Staff Writer
See: http://www.angeljustice.org and http://www.raichaction.org
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topics/Raich
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Cannabis - Medicinal)
USER OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA SAYS SHE'LL CONTINUE TO FIGHT
OAKLAND, Calif. -Of course she would never stop using marijuana, Angel Raich told reporters over and over again. "If I stopped," she said, "I would die."
Raich's belief that medical cannabis keeps her alive is what spurred her to fight the federal government's ban on marijuana. So on Monday, she was disappointed -- "a little in shock" -- that the Supreme Court had ruled that the government can still ban possession of marijuana even in states that have legalized its medical use. But she will press on, she said, to change federal law.
"We have a lot of fight left," she said as she was whisked away from a news conference on the steps of Oakland City Hall to her house, where a camera crew was waiting for her. She had back-to-back interviews all day, taking breaks to ingest marijuana through a pipe or vaporizer every two hours or so.
She told reporters during a morning telephone conference that she had taken medical marijuana before and during the meeting. "I don't like using it," she said, adding: "It doesn't make me high."
Instead, for Raich, 39, a mother of two teenagers who says she has been suffering from a litany of disabling ailments since she was a teenager herself, medical cannabis has worked where scores of other prescribed drugs have failed. Marijuana makes her hungry, she said, which fights a wasting syndrome that would otherwise steal her appetite. It relieves pain, she said, from progressive scoliosis, endometriosis and tumors in her uterus. Raich even believes it has something to do with arresting the growth of an inoperable brain tumor.
She is convinced that her use of medical marijuana, which began in 1997 after she had been using a wheelchair for two years, made her strong enough to stand up and learn to walk again. She said doctors could find no other explanation.
The drug that she says soothes her has also made her an activist. In 2002, with the help of her husband, Robert Raich, a lawyer she met when he was