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.
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.
Eddie Cheba
could i get an ummmmmm...... roasted chicken ceasar salad please w/ some parmesean on the side
made2smoke
i say we have a huge festival bigger then any festival ever in the history of mankind and at that festival we will over power this bull shit. This festival will be huge i mean like woodstock times 3 who is in on this? ill start lookin for a big enough area of land but i need lots of help on this shit
Randy High
The Supreme court has ruled in favor of the Black market system.
I point out that their ruleing doesn't change the scope of demand for marijuana it only limits the producers who will supply the medical and illegal markets. Thus the winners are the growers who take the risks. As a medical person I now support, as does the Federal government, the black market system.
llIndigoll
It's all about the Benjamins.
Pappy
Well there IS a ray of light shinning from all this. Check out this new info I just got in an email.
Dear NORML Member,
In response to this week's Supreme Court ruling granting the Justice Department the authority to prosecute state-authorized medicinal cannabis patients for violating the federal Controlled Substances Act, members of the US House of Representatives may vote as early as next week on an amendment to bar the US Department of Justice (DOJ) from prosecuting patients who use medical cannabis in compliance with state laws.
This important bi-partisan provision, scheduled to be introduced next week by Reps. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) and Dana Rohrabacher (R-NY) as an amendment to the 2005 Justice Department appropriations bill, would prohibit the DOJ and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) from spending taxpayers' dollars for the purpose of pursuing "any criminal or civil penalty or remedy against any person for the production, distribution, or use of marijuana for medicinal purposes in a state that authorizes that production, distribution, or use."
Writing for the Court's majority, Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens said that he longs for the day when medicinal cannabis advocates "may be heard in the halls of Congress." The 2005 Hinchey/Rohrabacher medical marijuana amendment does just that -- giving Congress the opportunity to go on record to protect and support the health and safety of patients who use cannabis therapeutically in compliance with the laws of their state. A vote on the amendment is expected as early as next Wednesday, so members of Congress urgently need to hear overwhelming support from their constituents. Please call and/or e-mail your member of the US House Representatives today and ask them to vote "yes" in favor of the Hinchey/Rohrabacher medical marijuana amendment. A pre-written letter is available here: http://capwiz.com/norml2/mail/oneclick_compose/?alertid=7309441
Sincerely, Allen St. Pierre NORML Executive Director
llIndigoll
^^word^^
Randy High
I have sent an email.
72% of americans 45 and older approve of medical marijuana.
I'd say I want to know what under 45 think too.
pothead88
im with you Made2smoke
smotpoker
well i'm under 45 by 24 years, and i say let the people grow their own medicine. Its alot better than paying the pharmacutical companies out the ass for their marinol.
hell i support an overall decrim. of mj, much like with nicotine and alcohol
