WASHINGTON D.C.: The US Supreme Court ruled 8-0 against the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative and the Cooperative's attempts to help patients live with serious illnesses. "This decision proves that when the federal government claims to be fighting the drug war to protect health there are lying ­ in fact denying medicine to the seriously ill undermines health." 

The Court, in an opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas and joined by 4 other Justices, ruled: "medical necessity is not a defense to manufacturing and distributing marijuana." The majority ruled that Congress had the final word on the matter in the Controlled Substances Act. A concurring opinion by Justice John Paul Stephens, joined by Justices David Souter and Ruth Ann Ginsburg, pointed out that the decision did not eliminate the defense for seriously ill patients who need marijuana as a medicine, but only in cases of distribution and cultivation. 

"The Court's decision will heighten the conflict around medical marijuana. Caregivers for the seriously ill will continue to provide medical marijuana, thus the federal government will have to enforce the law before juries ­ where over 70 percent of the population voted for medical marijuana," noted Kevin B. Zeese, President of Common Sense for Drug Policy. "The federal government is likely to lose when they try and enforce this decision. Only then will they respect the will of the voters and the needs of the seriously ill." 

Zeese went on to note: "An unintended consequence of this decision is likely to be that every marijuana prosecution in states that have voted for medical marijuana will become more difficult. Since juries will not be told whether a defendant is a medical marijuana caregiver or a traditional marijuana distributor many will assume that every marijuana prosecution is a medical prosecution in order to avoid sending a caregiver or seriously ill patient to prison."

A great deal of research on medical marijuana can be accessed via the Common Sense website, at http://www.drugwarfacts.org/medicalm.htm, or at  http://www.csdp.org/news/news/medmar.htm.

_____________________________________________________________________

From: Marijuana Policy Project

Subject: Supreme Court Ruling Does Not Affect State Laws Protecting
Patients

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                     MAY 14, 2001

GOOD NEWS: Supreme Court Ruling on Medical Marijuana Does Not Affect State Laws Protecting Patients 

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled 8-0 in favor of the federal government in U.S. v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative (No. 00-151) -- a case addressing whether or not medical marijuana distributors may offer a "medical necessity" defense in federal court. The Court's ruling DOES NOT OVERTURN STATE LAWS allowing seriously ill people to possess and grow their own medical marijuana. 

This case dealt exclusively with federal law and was essentially limited to distribution issues. The case did not question a state's ability to allow patients to grow, possess, and use medical marijuana under state law.[1] "Although the Supreme Court has ruled that the medical necessity defense cannot be used to avoid a federal conviction for marijuana, a state government may still allow its residents to possess, grow, or distribute medical marijuana," said Chuck Thomas, director of communications for the Marijuana Policy Project, which coordinates efforts to pass medical marijuana bills in state legislatures. MPP also submitted an amicus brief in the Oakland case. 

Nearly 99% of all marijuana arrests in the nation are made by state and local (not federal) officials. Thus, properly worded state laws can effectively protect 99 out of every 100 medical marijuana users who otherwise would have been arrested and prosecuted -- regardless of the Supreme Court's ruling in the Oakland case. 

Since 1996, eight states have removed criminal penalties for patients who use, possess, and grow medical marijuana with their doctors' approval.[2] Even though patients and distributors may be penalized for violating federal marijuana laws, states are not required to have laws that are identical to federal law, nor can the federal government require state law-enforcement officials to enforce federal laws. 

"It remains possible for state legislatures to give seriously ill people legal access to marijuana, despite federal law," said Thomas. "The outcome of the Oakland case does not change our strategy of working with state legislators to remove criminal penalties for legitimate medical marijuana users." 

____________________________________________________________________

California NORML Press Release - May 14, 2001

US Supeme Court Upholds Bankrupt, Obsolescent Policy on Medical Marijuana

May 15th - California NORML denounced the US Supreme Court for upholding "a morally bankrupt and unenforceable policy" in its decision on medical marijuana. 

The Court's essential finding was as follows:  

"There is no medical necessity exemption to the Controlled Substance Act's prohibitions on manufacture and distribution of marijuana." 

The Court thus gave the federal government carte blanche to prosecute growers and distributors, though not necessarily patients. However, it remains to be seen whether the government has the will or capacity to enforce the law.  

The court's decision in no way affects the validity of Prop 215 or other state medical marijuana laws that bar prosecution for personal use or cultivation of medical marijuana under state law. Unfortunately, however, the ruling does seem to preclude states from establishing their own distribution programs, as proposed in Nevada, Maine and elsewhere. 

"It is unfortunate that the Court has chosen to uphold the federal government's bankrupt and obsolescent policy on medical marijuana," said Dale Gieringer of California NORML, one of the original authors of Proposition 215.

"It would be a serious mistake for the federal government to try to close California's cannabis clubs," Gieringer adds.  "The clubs provide a valuable service to their members and their communities. Not only do they provide countless thousands of patients with relief from otherwise intractable illnesses, including chronic pain, muscle spasms, nausea, glaucoma, and appetite loss, but they also promote public safety and order by taking the marijuana traffic out of the hands of street dealers. 

"Any effort to close the clubs will generate widespread resistance and disobedience," Gieringer warned.  " As soon as one club is closed, others will open.  There are now many more patients and clubs in California than when the federal lawsuit began.  The feds will be no more successful in prohibiting medical marijuana clubs than they have been in preventing kids from getting it in schools. 

"The government would be better advised to change its policy, and not waste more law enforcement resources in a misguided and unwinnable prohibitionist campaign to deny medicine to sick people. The federal government lacks the manpower, competence and moral authority to prevent medical use of marijuana. " 

----
Dale Gieringer (415) 563-5858  // canorml@igc.org
2215-R Market St. #278, San Francisco CA 94114

_____________________________________________________________________

Hardliners Eight, Compassion Zero

No Compassion From Conservative Supreme Court:

Will Ashcroft Show His By Rescheduling Marijuana for Medical Purposes?

Medicinal Marijuana Patients Pray That He Does

WASHINGTON, May 14 /PRNewswire/ -- The Supreme Court of The United States (SCOTUS) ruling of 8-0 today in the case of United States v. Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative and Jeffrey Jones, "struck a blow" against medical marijuana  distribution clubs, according to NORML Legal Counsel Donna Shea. 

"The Court today struck a blow," says Shea, "against medical marijuana distribution clubs. It stated that manufacture and distribution of marijuana is not permitted under the Controlled Substance Act because the Act lists marijuana as a "Schedule I" drug. This means under current law, that marijuana has 'no currently accepted medical use,' 'has a high potential for abuse' and 'has a lack of accepted safety for use ... under medical supervision.' Based on our reading of the facts, the Court's decision, and Jus tice Stevens' concurrence, we feel sure the decision is limited to manufacture and distribution of marijuana."

NORML Executive Director Keith Stroup expressed dismay over today's ruling: "NORML's disappointment with this ruling stands more with Congress -- who continue to stubbornly classify marijuana as a Schedule I prohibited drug -- than with the court. Clearly Congress and the Bush administration need to look at rescheduling marijuana so that the states can establish their own legal, medical  marijuana distribution systems to supply medicine to those who need it." 

For further information, or to speak with NORML Legal Counsel Donna Shea or NORML Executive Director Keith Stroup, please contact Nicholas Thimmesch at 202-483-5500.

_____________________________________________________________________

U.S. Supreme Court Sees Through Smokescreen Of Medical Marijuana Advocates, FRC Says WASHINGTON, May 14 /PRNewswire/ -- "The medical marijuana lobby is nothing more than a front for the drug legalization movement," Family Research Council's Vice President for Policy Robert Maginnis said Monday. "Today's unanimous Supreme Court decision is a major strike against legalizers' crusade to skirt federal drug laws."  

On Monday, the United States Supreme Court ruled 8-0 in U.S. v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative that a federal law classifying marijuana as illegal has no exception for ill patients.  Writing for the court, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote, "It is clear from the text of the (Controlled Substances Act) that Congress has made a determination that marijuana has no medical benefits worthy of an exception."  Justice Thomas continued, "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."  FRC filed one of only two friend-of-the-court briefs supporting the federal government's position. 

"Smoking pot is never sound medicine.  Medicalization of marijuana would  result in many negative consequences the federal drug laws are designed to prevent," Mr. Maginnis said.  "Although certain active ingredients in marijuana have been found to have therapeutic effects, doctors should not recommend smoking the drug to receive the benefits.  The negative effects of smoking outweigh the therapeutic components of the drug.  Marijuana's principal active ingredient (THC) is available in a prescribable pill called Marinol; it will soon be available as a suppository, and eventually as an inhaler.  Crude marijuana, however, is a mind-altering and dangerous substance that affects cognition, memory, pain perception and motor coordination.  "Congress had the American public's best interests in mind when it passed the Controlled Substances Act.  It's encouraging to see the Supreme Court has seen through the pot enthusiasts' smokescreen by ruling in favor of the federal government," Mr. Maginnis said.