Font size:
+

European Division of WFRtDS

Interested in more news on the Right to Die? ERGO circulates on a regular basis an electronic newslist with news from around the world.

Click here for the subscription page.

Supreme Court rules against marijuana use for patients

Thursday, August 20, 1970

Monday, May 14, 2001

Supreme Court rules against marijuana use for patients
By Larry Margasak

The Associated Press

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court handed medical marijuana users a major defeat today, ruling that a federal law classifying the drug as illegal has no exception for ill patients.

The 8-0 decision was a major disappointment to many sufferers of AIDS, cancer, multiple sclerosis and other illnesses. They have said the drug helped enormously in combatting the devastating effects of their diseases.

Justice Stephen Breyer did not participate in the marijuana decision because his brother, a federal judge, initially presided over the case.

"In the case of the Controlled Substances Act, the statute reflects a determination that marijuana has no medical benefits worthy of an exception (outside the confines of a government-approved research project)," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the unanimous court.

Thomas noted the act states marijuana has "no currently accepted medical use."

The federal government triggered the case in 1998, seeking an injunction against the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative and five other marijuana distributors.

U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, brother of the justice, sided with the government. All the clubs except the Oakland group eventually closed down, and the Oakland club turned to registering potential marijuana recipients while it awaited a final ruling.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the lower court, ruling that medical necessity is a legal defense. Charles Breyer followed up by issuing strict guidelines for making that claim.

Voters in Arizona, Alaska, California, Colorado, Maine, Nevada, Oregon and Washington also have approved ballot initiatives allowing the use of medical marijuana. In Hawaii, the legislature passed a similar law and the governor signed it last year.

The cooperative argued that a drug may not yet have achieved general acceptance as a medical treatment, but may still have medical benefits to a particular patient or class of patients.

Thomas said the argument cannot overcome the intent of Congress in approving the statute.

"It is clear from the text of the act that Congress has made a determination that marijuana has no medical benefits worthy of an exception," Thomas wrote.

"Unwilling to view this omission as an accident, and unable in any event to override a legislative determination manifest in a statute, we reject the cooperative's argument."

Advocates of medical marijuana say the drug can ease side effects from chemotherapy, save nauseated AIDS patients from wasting away or even allow multiple sclerosis sufferers to rise from a wheelchair and walk.

There is no definitive science that the drug works, or works better than conventional, legal alternatives.

Several states are considering medical marijuana laws, and Congress may revisit the issue this year. A measure to counteract laws like California's died in the House last year.

Thomas was joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia and Anthony M. Kennedy. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a concurring opinion, joined by Justices David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.



-------------------------
Original items posted to "Nothing But the News" RTD Mailing List may not be reposted or forwarded to any other forum or individual. Copyright is held by the Original Source. This is sent to you as a PRIVATE email. Recipients found violating this policy will be removed from the list
--

Sign up for our monthly Website Update