Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Supremes Uphold Status Quo

By Ann Harrison, AlterNet. Posted June 7, 2005.


Medical marijuana patients say they are bloodied but unbowed by yesterday's Supreme Court ruling that the federal government can continue to override state laws permitting medical cannabis use.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

In Special Coverage

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
My Depression -- or Ours?
Tom Engelhardt

Democracy and Elections:
GOP Attacks on ACORN Are Based on the Fear of 1.3 Million New Voters

DrugReporter:
As the Violence Soars, Mexico Signals It's Had Enough of America's Stupid War on Drugs
Silja J.A. Talvi

Election 2008:
Too Much Presidential Power -- We've Got to Address the 'Unitary Executive' Question
Dana Nelson

Environment:
Dear Mr. Next President -- Food, Food, Food
Michael Pollan

ForeignPolicy:
Obama Talks Tough About Afghanistan; Here's What He's Really in For
Anand Gopal

Health and Wellness:
McCain's Medicare Cuts Would Mean Hidden Tax Increases for Millions of Americans

Hurricane Katrina:
From the Bayou to Baghdad: Mission Not Accomplished
Amy Goodman

Immigration:
Mexico Braces for Economic Blow; Immigration Adds to Complexity of the Issue
Diego Cevallos

Media and Technology:
John McCain Sows the Seeds of Hatred
Rory O'Connor

Movie Mix:
The "Battle in Seattle" and Beyond
Stuart Townsend

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
Our Next President Will Transform the Supreme Court
Ellen Goodman

Rights and Liberties:
Former McCain Supporter: McCain Is "Unleashing the Monster of American Prejudice"
Amy Goodman

Sex and Relationships:
Why Everyone Loves Hot, Smart Older Women
Vanessa Richmond

War on Iraq:
In Biggest Oil Sale Ever, Iraqi Government to Put 40 Billion Barrels of Reserves Up For Grabs
Terry Macalister, Nicholas Watt

Water:
Can the People Who Live in Coastal Towns Ever Be Safe From Hurricanes?
Lizzy Ratner

More stories by Ann Harrison

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that federal authorities have the power to prosecute medical cannabis patients. Medical cannabis patient Angel Raich says she has no plans to stop using marijuana under California law and will take her fight to Congress.

"Just because the Supreme Court today has ruled against me does not mean that the war on patients should begin," said Raich at an emotional press conference. "It means that it is time for the federal government to have some compassion and have some heart and please use common sense and not use taxpayer dollars to come in and lock us up."

Raich, together with fellow patient Diane Monson sought a court order preventing the federal government from arresting them and two caregivers who grow Raich's medical cannabis. The action stemmed from a raid on Monson's property by federal authorities who seized the cannabis she grew to treat her chronic pain condition.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals granted the women an injunction against prosecution, but the U.S. government appealed the case, Gonzales v. Raich, to the Supreme Court. The justices ruled in a 6-to-3 decision that the federal government can enforce federal drug laws through its power to regulate interstate commerce under the Commerce Clause.

Angel Raich's husband, Robert Raich, who served as one of the attorneys in her case, viewed the decision as a narrow ruling that did not address questions of due process or medical necessity raised in the closely watched case. He emphasized that that the decision will not impact state medical marijuana laws in Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington and Vermont that protect patients from arrest by state and local authorities. Raich noted that federal agencies make only 1 percent of the nation's 750,000 marijuana arrests every year.

"This case had much to gain to protect patients under federal law but nothing to lose because state law is in effect and it preserves the status quo," Robert Raich said. "The federal government will claim as it always has that medical cannabis is not recognized under the federal law, but it is legal for patients under state law, so we have not changed the state versus federal conflict here."

Raich charged that it was irresponsible for Congress to ignore medical evidence and prohibit seriously ill patients from using cannabis under federal law, and that other courts could consider the due process and medical necessity arguments. The justices agreed that the issue must now be taken up by Congress. "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," wrote Justice John Paul Stevens in the last paragraph of his majority opinion.

Angel Raich, who says she would die without cannabis to ease her numerous medical conditions, said she will soon undergo surgery to treat an early stage of cervical cancer and must continue to use medical cannabis because she cannot tolerate other painkillers. She says she even considered leaving the country, but her two children ultimately encouraged her to stay and keep fighting for the rights of cannabis patients.

"I don't like using cannabis; I use it because I have to to stay alive. I promised my kids I would be here for them," said Raich. "I would like to follow the law but I can't because the law is unjust. I will continue to fight if it takes the last breath in my body."

Raich says she will travel to Washington D.C. later this month to urge Congress to pass an amendment to an appropriations bill that bars the Drug Enforcement Administration from using its funds to raid and arrest medical cannabis patients. The U.S. House of Representatives is expected to vote on the Hinchey-Rohrabacher medical marijuana amendment next week.

Raich noted that she lobbied members of Congress earlier this year with talk show host Montel Williams, who uses medical cannabis to ease the symptoms of his multiple sclerosis. But Raich says many members of Congress would not meet with her and that people in positions of power must get more involved in pressuring Congress to reform marijuana laws. "I am here to talk on behalf of constituents and they are not taking my calls," Raich said. "Why? I want to know."


Digg!

Ann Harrison is a freelance reporter working in the Bay Area.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
What Else Did You Expect?
Posted by: Silent_Snake86 on Jun 7, 2005 1:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is disappointing, but not surprising.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

WHAT JUDICIAL ACTIVISM?
Posted by: LMNOP on Jun 7, 2005 1:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm certain that the Republicans will soon be railing against the Supreme Court's judicial activism in interpreting the interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution to mean that the feds have the right to prevent a sick and dying patient from growing (but not selling or transporting interstate) medical marijuana prescribed by a physician for self use. Not!

Apparently justices Scalia and Kennedy (there’s a couple of oxymorons for you) who are usually reliable supporters of states rights felt that this was a good time not to do so. Thanks for your inconsistency and prejudice, boys. After all, who knows what’s best for our bodies, medical science and physicians, or a federal government with a demonstrated penchant for junk science?

The reassurances from the DEA that they are only interested in large-scale operations and not individual users is worth about as much as anything else that comes from this government. Bupkis. Remember, the case brought before the Supremes was based on two such individuals who were privately growing and consuming medical marijuana for the treatment of their illnesses.

Nor is there any comfort in the fact that feds account for only one percent of the three quarters of a million citizens arrested for marijuana each year. There is always money for such things as the expansion of the War On Sick People, especially since without adding thousands of new storm troopers to make these arrests, it will be difficult to fill all those nice new federal prisons being built principally to incarcerate nonviolent drug ‘offenders’.

Now there is one more way for Americans to make the ultimate sacrifice and to die for their country. Die from an undertreated lethal illness in federal lock-up.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: WHAT JUDICIAL ACTIVISM? Posted by: VAGreen
» RE: WHAT JUDICIAL ACTIVISM? Posted by: WhatNow?
» RE: Wait a minute! Posted by: Rototoko
» RE: WHAT JUDICIAL ACTIVISM? Posted by: doneman2000
» RE: WHAT JUDICIAL ACTIVISM? Posted by: Rod in 83706
What would happen to inflation if
Posted by: owlbear1 on Jun 7, 2005 3:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
all the cash that went into marijuana sales was to suddenly start going out into the money supply at full value instead of being de-valued during laundering?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What would happen to inflation if Posted by: Brother Artemis
Drug lords take note!
Posted by: ggmurray on Jun 7, 2005 4:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The pharmaceutical industry in America should get a grip. Think of the dollars that can be made from legally managing the growing, harvesting, and promotion of the leaves and flowers of the cannabis plant. It's all natural, helps ease pain, and is better for you than alcohol and many other legal drugs. With a little lobbying from this interest group, medical marijuana would become a non-issue.
If the Supreme Court can't honestly face this issue, maybe the corporate lobbies can.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Drug lords take note! Posted by: churchofone
JINGOIST
Posted by: jingoist on Jun 7, 2005 4:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You potheads have a real dilemma on your hands. On the one hand you want to be able to "toke up", on the other your kind has empowered the courts to have a final say in such matters. For what it's worth no court should have this much power in your personal life, but this is a beast of YOUR OWN making. Go back to the commerce clause and FDR. My suggestion is more consistency and adherance to the actual words of the CONSTITUTION!! JINGOIST P.S. Read "Men In Black"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: JINGOIST Posted by: Scott
» RE: JINGOIST Posted by: jingoist
» RE: JINGOIST Posted by: jeffrey7
» RE: JINGOIST Posted by: jingoist
» RE: JINGOIST (you're the beast!) Posted by: Iamnotafruittree
» RE: JINGOIST Posted by: lamar
» RE: JINGOIST Posted by: jingoist
» RE: JINGOIST Posted by: cbishopp
» Us Potheads Posted by: AdamSelene40
» RE: Us Potheads Posted by: jingoist
» RE: JINGOIST< small world> Posted by: RoguebotV
» RE: JINGOIST< small world> Posted by: jingoist
God's law or Man's???
Posted by: Scott on Jun 7, 2005 5:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is one of those cases where Americans may be forced to choose between who they will follow. God and stay alive, if LIFE is important? or Man if they want to be good christians and die? This is another example of our descend to the level of becoming a dictatorship under the wrong people. These activists judges up there need to all be replaced. To chose the rights and powers of a federal system over the rights of the citiizens and the states to be a part of that federal system shows how far we have descended from the "truth held by our forefathers"...... This is a sad day for Americans and the American system! I'm only 60, but I suspect I'll live long enough to see the states done away with and a federal centered Dictator living in the White House!! The question remaining is, will it be G. W. or one of the other right-wing fundie who are using the activitists judges on the benches to take away our rights as Americans!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Supreme ? Court
Posted by: jeffrey7 on Jun 7, 2005 6:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So the Grand Gathering of Seated Orifices has once again proven themselves to be the lapdog of the Rulership. What's new indeed! Look at human history.Every rulership that needed it's position propped up has had a court to do it's biddimg.This country is no diffrent,this court is just as PW'ed.
Get it right folks, 'The courts protect the whim and dictate of the rulership and have no interest in backing average citizens'. That's why we were guarrenteed liberty by birthright.All five definitions of it in 'Black's Law Dictionary',the system's Bible, are OURS and they have no power over that Liberty.Read those definitions and then LIVE them That's OUR POWER OVER THEM.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Marijuana vs Morphine
Posted by: rburnham on Jun 7, 2005 11:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Marijuana is not medicine!" So I guess morphine isn't either since it's an opiate?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Marijuana vs Morphine Posted by: churchofone
"State's Rights?"
Posted by: monkeywrench on Jun 7, 2005 12:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I just love the way that conservatives, on the Supreme Court and elsewhere, toot their horns for "state's rights," until they find a state law they don't agree with – then, "state's rights" gets thrown out the window.

We're supposed to be a nation of laws, not men – or capricious decisions by a political, Bush-supporting Supreme Court.

Also, "Jingoist" should read the Constitution more carefully – or, at all, especially the 10th Amendment, concerning the powers reserved to the states within their borders, except as delineated in the Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution does it empower the federal government to interfere with commerce totally within a state, as is the case with marijuana grown for medical use.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: "State's Rights?" Posted by: jingoist
» RE: "State's Rights?" Posted by: nanobubble
» RE: "State's Rights?" Posted by: jingoist
Time to break down the EVIL EMPIRE
Posted by: paschn@comcast.net on Jun 7, 2005 5:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pretty obvious what the root reason is for their decision when you consider the swine allow narcotics to be sold for pain control,......they can control it. Why even struggle with the whores any longer? Simply petition your "leaders" in your respective states to put forth bills to leave the union?...It's too fouled up to save...and atleast 51% of the sheeple obviously like it that way. Then the Dogs can screw whatever states are still left in their union....and those that left can pass IRONCLAD constitutions BANNING their "leaders" from dropping to their knees to feed before the Corporations.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Time to break down the EVIL EMPIRE Posted by: Brother Artemis
adp3d
Posted by: adp3d on Jun 7, 2005 11:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wonder what things are going to be like when the next Terri Schiavo-like case involves medical cannabis?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

SEED AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: RoguebotV on Jun 8, 2005 9:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That's right, clean your weed, hold onto the seeds, then throw them out the car window along any road in America!
That simple.....;>
Too much ditch weed to get rid of to raid the good producers.
Sooner or later they will get the idea that we don't care that they don't want us to use weed.
Worked for Alcohol didn't it?
Pass it on......;>

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ty Babe
Posted by: hotlipsin61 on Jun 8, 2005 11:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Court's decision was no surprise. The ruling was purely political. After all, how many people have died from cannabis compared to cigarettes? Did you get that statement, Supreme Court?
Anyone in favor of moving to Canada or to the Netherlands? The U.S. is stuck in the 1950s.....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sacrament
Posted by: Brother Artemis on Jun 9, 2005 9:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are two main points that I would first like to make. One, there are over a hundred religious groups that believe that cannabis (certain forms) is a sacrament, given to man by God. And the second point is that religion was the repiository of medical knowlege till fairly recently, when it morphed into a business thing. For instance, the Vedas provide a recipe for medical bhang (a liguid decoction of cannabis). Zoroastrian fire-pits are lined with pertified cannabis seeds and the dried liquids found in buried amphoras has been analysed and found to be cannabis, cannabis and ephedra, or cannabis and opium.

My own religion, American Parsi, follows the Haoma Yasht and accepts the facts presented there, "Haoma comes to one of Good Mind, to bring a Better Mind, with which to commune woth the Best Mind (Vahishta Mainyu=Ahura Mazda)." We also believe that if the Parthians had beaten the Romans, we would all be using Haoma rather than alcohol, and our communities would all be safer, more secure and happier.

This is not meant to proselitize. I would just like to point out that, for instance, in NY, it takes six or seven people (depending on the program) to form a congregation (whether you call it a church, temple, synagogue or other name) that have at least 1 (one!) common belief and they meet together regularly to profess this belief, (at least once a year!). There are Jewish, Christian, Muslim and Hindu congregations that agree with this point, as well as, ecumenical religions. Don't convert, just have like-minded celebrants armed with their particular religious view of God's Holy Gift, form their own congregation. If your religion knows the value of this Sacred Herb, and you feel commanded to follow Wisdom of your own religion, well, this is America isn't it. What do you think the Supreme Court might have to say about religious liberty in this day and age?

(By the way, if you need some historical background, try reading Brother Artemis' "Burn a Bone To The Baby Baba", posted on the dailykos Christmnas Eve 2004. Or leave me a return message and I'll try to help you get any historical or pharmacological stuff to get you started. If you would like to know more about the American Parsi Temples (est. 1971) you can also leave me a comment and/or an e-mail address, and I'll do what I can to help you join with us, if God so moves you. Yatha ahu vairyo.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Politics trumps medicines
Posted by: surfreality on Jun 9, 2005 4:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is not about medicine anymore. It is all about politics and the culture wars. The NY Times quoted Drug Czar John Walters as saying that Americans deserve medicine that is "effective,safe and free from pro-drug politics..." Granted, we should judge our medicines on their safety and effectiveness. I fail to see how politics is helpful in deciding wether or not marijuana is effective in treating people suffering from wasting syndrome or for those who seek relief from chemotherapy. Anyone who has had any experience with pot knows it makes you hungry. It makes me sad that the culture wars have prevented people who need an effective appetite stimulate from getting it because the medicine is politically incorrect.
Interpreting the commerce clause in this manner does indeed, as Justice Thomas argues, give the Feds a virtual blank check to impose their authority in any arena of our lives. So much for smaller government conservativism! What a sham! Republicans ordered the busts, prosecuted the cases and appealed their initial loss in district court to the so called conservative Supreme Court where they have finally prevailed. Now we know where Bush's Justice Dept.'s priorities lie; the culture war trumps medicine and it trumps states rights. Good talking points for future debates...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]