T
The420Guy
Guest
The lawsuit filed this week over medical marijuana growing in Santa Cruz
contains some fascinating legal arguments. The issue is far more than the
one often cited - states' rights. That argument has never seemed powerful
to us. Perhaps it's because of memories of the civil rights battles of the
late '50s and early '60s. Back then, segregationists argued that state law
should trump federal law - and that segregation should be allowed because
individual states wanted it.
Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy didn't agree, and two generations later
we praise both men for working to extend federal protection to people of
all races.
The lawsuit filed this week on behalf of medical marijuana users takes on
the federal government, but the issues behind the lawsuit go far beyond a
simple "states' rights" argument.
Santa Clara University law professor Gerald Uelman is one of several
attorneys representing the plaintiffs, and he explained some of the facets
of the case that will make this lawsuit fascinating to follow as it makes
its way through the judicial system.
* The Wo/Men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana does not transport any
products across state lines, and can't involve the federal government's
control of interstate commerce.
* That criminal penalties for WAMM cofounders Michael and Valerie Corral
are illegal because they were deputized by the Santa Cruz City Council.
* Most important, that the drug seizures violate a patient's right to
"control the circumstances of their own deaths."
The medical argument is the strongest one in the lawsuit. Terminal patients
are using marijuana to control pain and in some cases restore their
appetite. Why federal drug agents would expend this much energy to deny
relief to terminal patients is beyond us. Marijuana is probably less
damaging to these patients than a number of other medications that they're
taking.
As Uelman pointed out, terminal patients aren't taking marijuana as
alternative medicine. In fact, the marijuana helps them cope with the pain
and discomfort of such treatment as radiation and chemotherapy.
The federal government has argued that patients could be taken advantage of
by those touting marijuana - or other such so-called treatments as
laetrile. But Uelman pointed out that patients don't use marijuana as a
replacement for any other treatment. And an increasing number of medical
doctors are suggesting that some patients can get relief from a medicinal
form of marijuana.
We understand and support laws that control the use of marijuana by the
general public. Our society really doesn't need one more legal drug.
But to withhold marijuana from patients who are suffering is the worst kind
of folly - it's not only a bad idea, it actually hurts people.
The federal suit will find its way to federal court, and perhaps eventually
on to the Supreme Court. We give credit to both the Santa Cruz City Council
and the county Board of Supervisors for joining in on the lawsuit.
The irony is that some of those involved in this lawsuit won't be around
for its conclusion. Some of them are dying, and are involved only because
they know others will be in their position in the future. In the interest
of reduced suffering, we hope that this lawsuit eventually will wind its
way through the system and give patients in need the access to a drug that
can reduce their suffering.
Pubdate: Thu, 24 Apr 2003
Source: Santa Cruz Sentinel (CA)
Webpage: https://www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/2003/April/24/edit/edit.htm
Copyright: 2003 Santa Cruz Sentinel
Contact: editorial@santa-cruz.com
Website: Santa Cruz Sentinel: Breaking News, Sports, Business, Entertainment & Scotts Valley News
contains some fascinating legal arguments. The issue is far more than the
one often cited - states' rights. That argument has never seemed powerful
to us. Perhaps it's because of memories of the civil rights battles of the
late '50s and early '60s. Back then, segregationists argued that state law
should trump federal law - and that segregation should be allowed because
individual states wanted it.
Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy didn't agree, and two generations later
we praise both men for working to extend federal protection to people of
all races.
The lawsuit filed this week on behalf of medical marijuana users takes on
the federal government, but the issues behind the lawsuit go far beyond a
simple "states' rights" argument.
Santa Clara University law professor Gerald Uelman is one of several
attorneys representing the plaintiffs, and he explained some of the facets
of the case that will make this lawsuit fascinating to follow as it makes
its way through the judicial system.
* The Wo/Men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana does not transport any
products across state lines, and can't involve the federal government's
control of interstate commerce.
* That criminal penalties for WAMM cofounders Michael and Valerie Corral
are illegal because they were deputized by the Santa Cruz City Council.
* Most important, that the drug seizures violate a patient's right to
"control the circumstances of their own deaths."
The medical argument is the strongest one in the lawsuit. Terminal patients
are using marijuana to control pain and in some cases restore their
appetite. Why federal drug agents would expend this much energy to deny
relief to terminal patients is beyond us. Marijuana is probably less
damaging to these patients than a number of other medications that they're
taking.
As Uelman pointed out, terminal patients aren't taking marijuana as
alternative medicine. In fact, the marijuana helps them cope with the pain
and discomfort of such treatment as radiation and chemotherapy.
The federal government has argued that patients could be taken advantage of
by those touting marijuana - or other such so-called treatments as
laetrile. But Uelman pointed out that patients don't use marijuana as a
replacement for any other treatment. And an increasing number of medical
doctors are suggesting that some patients can get relief from a medicinal
form of marijuana.
We understand and support laws that control the use of marijuana by the
general public. Our society really doesn't need one more legal drug.
But to withhold marijuana from patients who are suffering is the worst kind
of folly - it's not only a bad idea, it actually hurts people.
The federal suit will find its way to federal court, and perhaps eventually
on to the Supreme Court. We give credit to both the Santa Cruz City Council
and the county Board of Supervisors for joining in on the lawsuit.
The irony is that some of those involved in this lawsuit won't be around
for its conclusion. Some of them are dying, and are involved only because
they know others will be in their position in the future. In the interest
of reduced suffering, we hope that this lawsuit eventually will wind its
way through the system and give patients in need the access to a drug that
can reduce their suffering.
Pubdate: Thu, 24 Apr 2003
Source: Santa Cruz Sentinel (CA)
Webpage: https://www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/2003/April/24/edit/edit.htm
Copyright: 2003 Santa Cruz Sentinel
Contact: editorial@santa-cruz.com
Website: Santa Cruz Sentinel: Breaking News, Sports, Business, Entertainment & Scotts Valley News
