June 6 - 16, 2005
Mercury News
High
court rules U.S. pot laws trump states
By
Howard Mintz
Leaving scant room for further legal challenges from
medicinal marijuana advocates, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday concluded that
federal drug laws continue to trump the efforts of California and other states
to permit the use of pot for sick and dying patients.
The 6-3 decision means federal law enforcement officials
retain the power to prosecute medicinal marijuana patients like Angel McClary
Raich, the Oakland woman at the center of the Supreme Court fight.
Legal experts do not expect a widespread crackdown on
patients and providers who operate on a small scale and can prove they are
using the drug for medicinal purposes. But patients and cooperatives that
provide the drug with a doctor's prescription run a risk of a knock on the door
from federal drug agents who have been more aggressive in recent years,
including in the Bay Area.
Monday's decision is the second time in four years that the
Supreme Court turned away the arguments of medicinal marijuana patients who say
the federal government is interfering with state laws such as California's
Proposition 215, overwhelmingly passed by voters in 1996.
Federal agents weren't rushing to make arrests after
Monday's ruling. But the Supreme Court has left an uncertain landscape for
medicinal marijuana supporters. The decision does not invalidate medicinal
marijuana laws in 10 states, but leaves tens of thousands of patients relying
on them vulnerable to federal prosecution.
Remote
chances
There also are still court challenges remaining under one
untapped legal theory, including a case involving a Santa Cruz pot cooperative.
But having suffered two losses already, legal experts consider the chances of
cannabis backers eventually prevailing in the Supreme Court remote.
So most experts believe the Supreme Court's ruling makes
Congress the only hope of legalizing pot for patients with illnesses ranging
from glaucoma to cancer and AIDS.
Raich acknowledged the need to shift the debate to Congress,
saying she will testify later this month in support of legislation that would
keep federal prosecutors from charging patients and their providers.
``Even though we lost, it doesn't mean the battle is over,''
said the 39-year-old Raich, a mother of two teenagers who suffers from various
ailments that prompt her to use marijuana throughout the day. ``I still have
some breath in my body.''
Raich said she will ignore the threat of arrest because she
maintains she needs cannabis to survive. San Francisco U.S. Attorney Kevin
Ryan, whose office enforces drug laws from Monterey to the Oregon border,
referred questions to the Justice Department. Justice officials said they were
pleased the decision ``reinforced the scope of federal drug laws,'' but
declined to elaborate on what would happen next.
Focal
point
Northern California has been a focal point in the standoff
between the federal government and state medicinal pot laws. The Clinton
administration went to court in 1998 to shut down pot clubs that had been
operating in the region, leading to the first Supreme Court case. Various
cooperatives have continued to thrive, particularly in San Francisco, where
local officials have recently struggled with ways to regulate dozens that have
opened.
Raich and her husband, Robert, a lawyer who represented her
in the case, were also involved in the 2001 case in which the Supreme Court
ruled against an Oakland cannabis club. In that case, the high court rejected
the argument that there is an exception in federal drug laws for a ``medical
necessity'' defense.
Raich, along with Diane Monson, a Butte County woman whose
home was raided by DEA agents in 2002, brought a new case under a different
legal theory -- that federal drug laws couldn't be applied if the medicinal
marijuana isn't sold or transported across state lines. The 9th U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals sided with the two patients in 2003, but that ruling was
overturned by Monday's decision.
The high court sided with the Bush administration's argument
that Congress has the authority to regulate the drug trade, regardless of state
laws designed to carve an exception for medicinal marijuana.
The Supreme Court majority, in a decision written by Justice
John Paul Stevens, essentially invited Congress to solve the continuing
conflict between federal drug laws and state laws like Proposition 215.
``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,'' the court wrote.
Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day
O'Connor -- who have both battled cancer -- and Clarence Thomas dissented,
arguing that negating state medicinal marijuana laws was an improper use of
federal power. Thomas, a fierce backer of states' rights, wrote that ``this
overreaching stifles an express choice by some states, concerned for the lives
and liberties of their people, to regulate medicinal marijuana differently.''
California Attorney General Bill Lockyer, who intervened on
behalf of Raich and Monson, called on Bush and Congress to reform federal drug
laws, saying that ``taking medicine on the recommendation of a doctor should
not be a crime.''
Lawyers
hopeful
Lawyers for medicinal marijuana patients remain hopeful they
can still press forward in the courts. In a case involving Santa Cruz's
Wo/Men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana, which was raided by drug agents in
2002, lawyers argue that federal powers are outweighed by a patient's
constitutional right to medical treatment that alleviates pain. The Supreme
Court specifically chose not to address the identical due process claim in
Raich's case.
Legal experts, however, say the Supreme Court may have
spoken the last word on medicinal marijuana.
``I think it's probably done,'' said Santa Clara University
law Professor Bradley Joondeph, a former O'Connor law clerk. ``I see very
little likelihood they'll prevail on the due process claim.''
Valerie Corral, WAMM's co-founder, said she'll keep
providing marijuana for her 170-plus members, despite the long odds in the
courts and the prospect of more federal raids. ``We need to keep doing what
we're doing,'' she said Monday.
Contact
Howard Mintz at (408) 286-0236 or hmintz@mercurynews.com.
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/11833591.htm
- Top -
|
