TheOldGuy
Well-Known Member
From Bill Mears
CNN Supreme Court Producer
Tuesday, October 14, 2003 Posted: 12:44 PM EDT (1644 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Supreme Court justices on Tuesday rejected the Bush administration's request to consider whether the federal government can punish doctors for recommending or even discussing the use of marijuana for their patients.
The decision by the High Court cleared the way for state laws allowing ill patients to smoke marijuana if a doctor recommends it.
The dispute pits free speech rights against efforts to stamp out use of the popular, but illegal recreational drug. Some in the medical and legal community argue marijuana has true medical value to ease pain and stimulate appetite.
Marijuana is recognized as a controlled substance by the federal government and its use for recreational purposes is banned in most jurisdictions. The federal Office of National Drug Control Policy labels marijuana, along with other addictive drugs, as having "a high potential for abuse," lacking "accepted safety for use," even "under medical supervision."
Nine states have laws legalizing marijuana for people with physician recommendations or prescriptions: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, Oregon and Washington. And 35 states have passed legislation recognizing marijuana's medicinal value.
California in particular has been at the legal forefront on the issue. A 1996 voter referendum, the Compassionate Use Act, allowed marijuana use by those who receive "the written or oral recommendation or approval of a physician."
Federal law bans marijuana distribution and use under any circumstances.
Tuesday's decision means state laws on the use of medical marijuana will stay in place, at least for the time being, and may encourage other states to pass similar referendums.
Federal health officials had told doctors who recommend or prescribe the substance could risk losing their medical license.
A federal appeals court ruled against the government, saying in its ruling, "physicians must be able to speak frankly and openly to patients." The Justice Department then appealed to the Supreme Court.
In a legal brief to the justices, Solicitor General Theodore Olson said, "The government's efforts ... to warn physicians against conduct that is substantially likely to facilitate and promote the acquisition and use of an unsafe controlled substance having a high potential for abuse and no accepted medical use under federal law do not abridge any First Amendment rights."
Marijuana supporters argue against federal regulation
But supporters of medical marijuana argue sick people should have a range of options available to them. "Patients deserve access to accurate information about medicinal value in treating pain, nausea, wasting ... and other symptoms of life-threatening diseases," said Graham Boyd of the American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing a group of 15 patients and doctors in the case.
There is also a states' rights issue at play. Supporters of the medical marijuana laws argue Washington has no business trying to block the will of voters.
"It has always been, and should continue to be, the state's role to police the medical profession while balancing the First Amendment rights of doctors and patients," said Daniel Abrahamson of the Drug Policy Alliance. "The federal government's intrusion into this system is unwarranted."
Keith Vines, a prosecutor in San Francisco who used marijuana to combat HIV-related illnesses, was among those who challenged a federal policy put in place during the Clinton administration. That policy requires the revocation of federal prescription licenses of doctors who recommend marijuana.
"If the government is zipping them up, and we're not being told about options, that's negligence," Vines said in a report from The Associated Press.
A continuing debate is whether prescribed marijuana actually benefits patients medically.
"There is a difference between feeling better and actually getting better," said Dr. Andrea Barthwell, deputy director at the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy. "There is no scientific evidence that qualifies smoked marijuana to be called medicine. Further, there is no support in the medical literature that marijuana, or indeed any medicine, should be smoked as the preferred form of administration. The harms to health are simply too great."
The case is Walters v. Conant, case no. 03-0040.
CNN Supreme Court Producer
Tuesday, October 14, 2003 Posted: 12:44 PM EDT (1644 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Supreme Court justices on Tuesday rejected the Bush administration's request to consider whether the federal government can punish doctors for recommending or even discussing the use of marijuana for their patients.
The decision by the High Court cleared the way for state laws allowing ill patients to smoke marijuana if a doctor recommends it.
The dispute pits free speech rights against efforts to stamp out use of the popular, but illegal recreational drug. Some in the medical and legal community argue marijuana has true medical value to ease pain and stimulate appetite.
Marijuana is recognized as a controlled substance by the federal government and its use for recreational purposes is banned in most jurisdictions. The federal Office of National Drug Control Policy labels marijuana, along with other addictive drugs, as having "a high potential for abuse," lacking "accepted safety for use," even "under medical supervision."
Nine states have laws legalizing marijuana for people with physician recommendations or prescriptions: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, Oregon and Washington. And 35 states have passed legislation recognizing marijuana's medicinal value.
California in particular has been at the legal forefront on the issue. A 1996 voter referendum, the Compassionate Use Act, allowed marijuana use by those who receive "the written or oral recommendation or approval of a physician."
Federal law bans marijuana distribution and use under any circumstances.
Tuesday's decision means state laws on the use of medical marijuana will stay in place, at least for the time being, and may encourage other states to pass similar referendums.
Federal health officials had told doctors who recommend or prescribe the substance could risk losing their medical license.
A federal appeals court ruled against the government, saying in its ruling, "physicians must be able to speak frankly and openly to patients." The Justice Department then appealed to the Supreme Court.
In a legal brief to the justices, Solicitor General Theodore Olson said, "The government's efforts ... to warn physicians against conduct that is substantially likely to facilitate and promote the acquisition and use of an unsafe controlled substance having a high potential for abuse and no accepted medical use under federal law do not abridge any First Amendment rights."
Marijuana supporters argue against federal regulation
But supporters of medical marijuana argue sick people should have a range of options available to them. "Patients deserve access to accurate information about medicinal value in treating pain, nausea, wasting ... and other symptoms of life-threatening diseases," said Graham Boyd of the American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing a group of 15 patients and doctors in the case.
There is also a states' rights issue at play. Supporters of the medical marijuana laws argue Washington has no business trying to block the will of voters.
"It has always been, and should continue to be, the state's role to police the medical profession while balancing the First Amendment rights of doctors and patients," said Daniel Abrahamson of the Drug Policy Alliance. "The federal government's intrusion into this system is unwarranted."
Keith Vines, a prosecutor in San Francisco who used marijuana to combat HIV-related illnesses, was among those who challenged a federal policy put in place during the Clinton administration. That policy requires the revocation of federal prescription licenses of doctors who recommend marijuana.
"If the government is zipping them up, and we're not being told about options, that's negligence," Vines said in a report from The Associated Press.
A continuing debate is whether prescribed marijuana actually benefits patients medically.
"There is a difference between feeling better and actually getting better," said Dr. Andrea Barthwell, deputy director at the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy. "There is no scientific evidence that qualifies smoked marijuana to be called medicine. Further, there is no support in the medical literature that marijuana, or indeed any medicine, should be smoked as the preferred form of administration. The harms to health are simply too great."
The case is Walters v. Conant, case no. 03-0040.