T
The420Guy
Guest
Voters in seven states and legislators in an eighth have made an exception
to their state drug laws for patients who use marijuana for medical
purposes. To those states, the Supreme Court of the United States has now
said: You've got your laws, the federal government has its laws, and
Congress has not repealed the ban on sale and distribution of marijuana.
Thus, we now have the specter of a California resident authorized by a
physician and state law to use marijuana - to treat glaucoma or to
counteract the side-effects of chemotherapy - while still being subject to
criminal prosecution by the federal government.
The case, United States vs. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative, presented
a narrow issue: Is there a "medical exception" to the federal statute
outlawing the manufacture or distribution of marijuana? The court's answer: No.
Although all eight justices participating in the case agreed on that narrow
point, Justice John Paul Stevens, joined by two others, parted company with
Justice Clarence Thomas' majority opinion, saying it went too far. Whereas
the federal statute in question outlaws the manufacture and distribution of
marijuana, Stevens said, the question of personal use was not an issue in
the case.
Stevens did not say how one might legitimately obtain a substance whose
manufacture and distribution are outlawed. It is worth noting, however,
that federal authorities in California got a court injunction to halt
distribution of the drug to approved patients rather than charging the
Oakland cooperative with a crime. In a community that overwhelmingly
supported the medical-marijuana initiative, the odds weren't good for
finding jurors who would vote to convict.
While the California ruling does not move the ball forward on the
controversy over decriminalizing marijuana, even for legitimate medical
treatment, it exposes the huge divide between federal officials who write
the laws and a growing body of public opinion that approves medicinal use
of marijuana.
Unlike Supreme Court decisions based on constitutional questions, however,
Congress can easily reverse this decision by passing a simple amendment to
the controlled substances act that recognizes a medical exception for
marijuana.
It should do just that.
Newshawk: Carl Olsen
Pubdate: Wed, 06 Jun 2001
Source: Des Moines Register (IA)
Copyright: 2001 The Des Moines Register.
Contact: letters@news.dmreg.com
Website: The Des Moines Register
Details: MapInc
Bookmark: MapInc (Cannabis - Medicinal)
to their state drug laws for patients who use marijuana for medical
purposes. To those states, the Supreme Court of the United States has now
said: You've got your laws, the federal government has its laws, and
Congress has not repealed the ban on sale and distribution of marijuana.
Thus, we now have the specter of a California resident authorized by a
physician and state law to use marijuana - to treat glaucoma or to
counteract the side-effects of chemotherapy - while still being subject to
criminal prosecution by the federal government.
The case, United States vs. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative, presented
a narrow issue: Is there a "medical exception" to the federal statute
outlawing the manufacture or distribution of marijuana? The court's answer: No.
Although all eight justices participating in the case agreed on that narrow
point, Justice John Paul Stevens, joined by two others, parted company with
Justice Clarence Thomas' majority opinion, saying it went too far. Whereas
the federal statute in question outlaws the manufacture and distribution of
marijuana, Stevens said, the question of personal use was not an issue in
the case.
Stevens did not say how one might legitimately obtain a substance whose
manufacture and distribution are outlawed. It is worth noting, however,
that federal authorities in California got a court injunction to halt
distribution of the drug to approved patients rather than charging the
Oakland cooperative with a crime. In a community that overwhelmingly
supported the medical-marijuana initiative, the odds weren't good for
finding jurors who would vote to convict.
While the California ruling does not move the ball forward on the
controversy over decriminalizing marijuana, even for legitimate medical
treatment, it exposes the huge divide between federal officials who write
the laws and a growing body of public opinion that approves medicinal use
of marijuana.
Unlike Supreme Court decisions based on constitutional questions, however,
Congress can easily reverse this decision by passing a simple amendment to
the controlled substances act that recognizes a medical exception for
marijuana.
It should do just that.
Newshawk: Carl Olsen
Pubdate: Wed, 06 Jun 2001
Source: Des Moines Register (IA)
Copyright: 2001 The Des Moines Register.
Contact: letters@news.dmreg.com
Website: The Des Moines Register
Details: MapInc
Bookmark: MapInc (Cannabis - Medicinal)