US court: Government can bar medical marijuana use
(Agencies)
Updated: 2005-06-07 08:36

The US federal government has the power to prevent sick patients from smoking home-grown marijuana that a doctor recommended to relieve chronic pain, a divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday in a setback for the medical marijuana movement.

The 6-3 ruling means the federal government can enforce a federal law prohibiting the cultivation, possession and use of medical marijuana even in the 10 states where it is legal under state law.

Justice John Paul Stevens said for the court majority that the federal law, the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, was a valid exercise of federal power by the U.S. Congress "even as applied to the troubling facts of this case" involving two seriously ill California women.

Cancer patient Christopher Campbell sits on the side of his bed in his home Monday, June 6, 2005, in Portland, Ore. Campbell who has a medical marijuana card, said he will not cease using the drug to quell his pain and improve his appetite. 'It's not going to stop me, that's for sure,' said Campbell, 58, who suffers from lymphoma and has had his spleen, and portions of his pancreas and stomach removed. [AP]

Angel Raich has an inoperable brain tumor and other medical problems while Diane Monson suffers from severe back pain. Their doctors recommended marijuana for their pain.

"Just because we did not win this battle does not mean that we will not still have the opportunity to win this war," Raich said in Oakland, California. She urged Congress to change the law to allow medical use of marijuana.

"If I were to stop using cannabis unfortunately I would die," the 39-year-old Raich told reporters. "This is the only way I have to combat my suffering."

Stevens said the question before the court was not whether it was wise to enforce the federal law in these circumstances, but only whether Congress has the power to adopt such a law.

He said the democratic process might be more important than the legal challenges and added that supporters of medical marijuana "may one day be heard in the halls of Congress."

Robert Raich embraces his wife, Angel, Monday, June 6, 2005, at a news conference in Oakland, Calif. Angel Raich is one of two persons that 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. The Supreme Court ruled Monday, that federal authorities may prosecute sick people whose doctors prescribe marijuana to ease pain, concluding that state laws don't protect users from a federal ban on the drug. [AP]

The ruling was a victory for the Bush administration. It estimated as many as 100,000 Californians would use marijuana for medical purposes if the Supreme Court ruled for the two women.

A POLITICAL ISSUE

John Walters, the White House drug czar, said in a statement, "Today's decision marks the end of medical marijuana as a political issue."

Supporters of medical marijuana disagreed.

"The power of state governments to enact and enforce state medical marijuana laws is not affected by the Supreme Court's ruling," said Allen Hopper of the American Civil Liberties Union's Drug Law Reform Project.

Dan Abrahamson of the Drug Policy Alliance said, "The federal government still has a choice -- it can waste taxpayer dollars by going after sick and dying patients or go after individuals who pose a real danger to society."

Barbara Bergman, president-elect of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, said, "If our Constitution means anything, it should mean that the 'war on drugs' cannot be made to be a war on the quality of life of chronically or terminally ill Americans."

But Stevens agreed with the government's argument that an exception for medical marijuana would leave a "gaping hole" in the federal drug law.

He said federal law prevailed over the California law, which voters approved in 1996. Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington have similar laws.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas dissented. They said states should be free to set their own laws.

Close

Today's Top News     Top World News
New rules to help private businesses         Banking industry opening continues         Yuan to be convertible gradually: vice premier         China said weighing bids on nuke plants         No corruption found in Games preparation         Shanghai Maglev train may fly on London line	US, North Korean officials meet in New York       Pakistan turns over terror suspect to U.S.       Iran to urge OPEC to trim overproduction       DPRK refutes human trafficking charges by US       Former Kashmiri guerrilla recalls path to peace       37 killed after Nepal bus hits land mine