bad news - supreme court outlaws medical marijuana Original Article 9:53 AM PDT, June 6, 2005 latimes.com High Court Permits Prosecution of Medical Marijuana Users By David G. Savage, Times Staff Writer WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court ruled today that federal agents may raid the homes of Californians who use medical marijuana, holding that the strict federal drug laws prevail over the state's liberalized marijuana laws. "If there is any conflict between federal and state law, federal law shall prevail," said Justice John Paul Stevens for the 6-3 majority. The 6-3 decision weakens, but does not overturn, the laws in California and nine other states that permit seriously ill persons to use marijuana to relieve pain or nausea. Under the court's ruling, federal drugs agents, U.S. prosecutors and U.S. judges may arrest, prosecute and punish people who grow or use marijuana, even in such states as California where it is legal. However, state and local police need not assist in these efforts. And because most law enforcement is carried out by state and local officials, the liberalized medical marijuana laws will continue to have practical significance. Nonetheless, today's ruling marks the second major defeat for the medical marijuana movement at the Supreme Court that undercuts the liberalized marijuana laws. The three conservative dissenters also said the ruling had undercut states rights in the process. Four years ago, the high court ruled that federal prosecutors could shut down clinics and co-ops that dispensed marijuana to patients in California. The justices said then that California's move to liberalize the marijuana laws did not affect the federal government's zero-tolerance policy. In the drug control act of 1970, Congress classified marijuana as a dangerous and illegal drug that has no benefits. While many experts dispute this conclusion, Congress has made no move to amend the law. The latest case that reached the high court began when federal agents seized and destroyed marijuana that had been grown at home for use by two northern California women. Angel Raich and Diane Monson had painful ailments that they and their doctors said were relieved only by the use of cannabis. They sued to challenge the authority of federal agents over their home-grown marijuana. Their lawyers relied on the Supreme Court's recent rulings that limited the power of Congress. In 1995, for example, the high court struck down the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act on the theory that gun possession was not commerce and therefore went beyond Congress's authority to regulate interstate commerce. The same is true of marijuana possession, argued Raich's lawyers. Two years ago, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed. The "noncommercial cultivation and possession of cannabis for personal medical purposes" is beyond Congress's power, the appeals courts said. It is "different in kind from drug trafficking." Bush administration lawyers appealed, and the Supreme Court reversed the 9th Circuit today in the case of Gonzales vs. Raich. The justices made clear they were more concerned about the issue of federal versus state power than with the question of the medical uses of marijuana. The court's leading liberals, including Justices Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer, joined the majority that sided with the Bush administration and against the marijuana users. They said Congress sought to "extinguish" the market in marijuana. "One need not a degree in economics to understand why a nationwide exemption for the vast quantity of marijuana locally cultivated for persons use...may have a substantial impact on the interstate market for this extraordinarily popular substance," Stevens said. His opinion does not endorse the strict federal ban on marijuana, but rather says it is a matter for Congress to decide, not the courts. Meanwhile, three of its more conservative members Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas dissented. The Constitution should be read to "protect historical spheres of state sovereignty from excessive federal encroachment," O'Connor said. "This case exemplifies the role of states as laboratories," she added, saying their voters should be given the freedom to set their own laws regarding "the health, safety and welfare of their citizens." http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0606wst-medical-plaintiffs06-ON.html Plaintiffs in medical marijuana case to defy ruling Associated Press Jun. 6, 2007 11:15 AM SAN FRANCISCO - The two plaintiffs in the medical marijuana case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday say they'll defy the ruling and continue to smoke pot, even at the risk of arrest by federal law enforcement authorities. "I'm going to have to be prepared to be arrested," said Diane Monson, who smokes marijuana several times a day to relieve back pain. The Supreme Court ruled that federal authorities may arrest and prosecute people whose doctors recommend marijuana to ease pain, concluding that state laws don't protect users from a federal ban on the drug. The Bush administration had argued that states, even the 10 states with medical marijuana laws, could not defy the federal Controlled Substances Act, which declares marijuana to be not only illegal, but of no medical value. Justice John Paul Stevens, writing the 6-3 decision, said that Congress could change the law to allow medical use of marijuana. Monson, 48, of Oroville, was prescribed marijuana by her doctor in 1997, after standard prescription drugs didn't work or made her sleepy. She is battling degenerative spine disease. "I'm way disappointed. There are so many people that need cannabis," Monson said. Fifty-six percent of California voters approved the nation's first so-called medical marijuana law in 1996, allowing patients to smoke and grow marijuana with a doctor's recommendation. In 2001, the Supreme Court ruled against pot clubs that distributed medical marijuana, saying they cannot do so based on the "medical necessity" of the patient. The ruling forced the Oakland supplier of Angel Raich, the other plaintiff, to close. Raich and Monson, who sued Attorney General John Ashcroft because they feared their supplies of medical marijuana might dry up, said they have no choice but to continue spoking pot. "If I stop using cannabis, unfortunately, I would die," said Raich, who estimates her marijuana intake to be about 9 pounds a year. Raich, 39, suffers from scoliosis, a brain tumor, chronic nausea and other problems. She said she uses marijuana every few waking hours, on the advice of her doctor, who said dozens of other medications were of little help. "This is the only way that I have to combat my suffering and to deal with my illness." Many other cannabis clubs still operate openly in California and other states, but have taken measures - such as not keeping client lists - to protect their customers from arrest. The Drug Enforcement Administration, often working over the objections of local law enforcement, has periodically raided medical marijuana operations and their clients' pot supplies. But such raids have been rare. California Attorney General Bill Lockyer said he was disappointed with the ruling, but not surprised, and that "people shouldn't panic ... there aren't going to be many changes." "Nothing is different today than it was two days ago, in terms of real world impact," Lockyer said. "There's a California law which conflicts with the federal law. Federal law treats heroin and marijuana the same, which is illogical." http://www.texaspanhandleplains.com/newspaper/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=1904&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0 Supreme Court Rules Feds May Prosecute Medical Marijuana Cases WASHINGTON - The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that federal government authorities may prosecute sick people who use marijuana on doctors' orders. The high court ruled Monday that a federal law outlawing marijuana applies to two seriously ill California women whose doctors prescribed marijuana to relieve their chronic pain. The women were abiding by a state law allowing them to grow and use marijuana on medical recommendation. The case was an appeal by the Bush administration of a case it lost in 2003. California and 10 other states allow the medical use of marijuana for the chronically ill. But a U.S. federal law bans marijuana possession. Opponents of medical marijuana use, including the Bush administration, dispute the medical benefits of the drug.