Well, the Supreme Court ruled against medical marijuana. I did a report on this very subject a few semesters ago and I knew this would happen. I hate being right all the time. Here's what I got from the NORML newsletter. Careful, it's a big read:
---------------------
June 6, 2005
To: NORML Supporters
From: Allen St. Pierre, Executive Director, NORML
Hello,
Today the United States Supreme Court ruled that federal law continues to
prohibit the use of cannabis?even for the sick, dying and
sense-threatened.
The first Associated Press story related to this morning's breaking news
is found below along with NORML's reply.
As Justice Steven's writings for the court below indicate:
"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."
It is hard to argue with Justice Stevens' point. Per usual, the greatest
gains for cannabis law reform are to be made by achieving legislative
changes in the law rather than looking to the courts for relief. In light
of this, it is imperative that you contact your member of Congress today
and urge him or her to support the States' Rights To Medical Marijuana
Act, which would reschedule marijuana under federal law and protect
patients in states with medical marijuana laws. Please take two minutes
to send your member of Congress a pre-written letter today by visiting:
http://capwiz.com/norml2/mail/oneclick_com...alertid=7531001
Thirty-three years after NORML launched the 'medical marijuana' debate by
suing the federal government to re-schedule cannabis, regrettably that
debate will apparently continue do to this morning's United States Supreme
Court decision.
Challenges to cannabis prohibition laws are principally funded by citizens
who support a change in the status quo regarding cannabis so please
continue to provide the valuable resources, to NORML and other cannabis
law reform groups, which are needed to keep pushing hard for these social
reforms.
Regards,
-Allen F. St. Pierre
Executive Director
NORML
Washington, DC
#########################################
Court Rules Against Pot for Sick People
By GINA HOLLAND
The Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) - Federal authorities may prosecute sick people who smoke
pot on doctors' orders, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, concluding that
state medical marijuana laws don't protect users from a federal ban on the
drug.
The decision is a stinging defeat for marijuana advocates who had
successfully pushed 10 states to allow the drug's use to treat various
illnesses.
Justice John Paul Stevens, writing the 6-3 decision, said that Congress
could change the law to allow medical use of marijuana.
The closely watched case was an appeal by the Bush administration in a
case that it lost in late 2003. At issue was whether the prosecution of
medical marijuana users under the federal Controlled Substances Act was
constitutional.
Under the Constitution, Congress may pass laws regulating a state's
economic activity so long as it involves "interstate commerce'' that
crosses state borders. The California marijuana in question was homegrown,
distributed to patients without charge and without crossing state lines.
Stevens said there are other legal options for patients, "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.''
California's medical marijuana law, passed by voters in 1996, allows
people to grow, smoke or obtain marijuana for medical needs with a
doctor's recommendation. Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada,
Oregon, Vermont and Washington state have laws similar to California.
In those states, doctors generally can give written or oral
recommendations on marijuana to patients with cancer, HIV and other
serious illnesses.
In a dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said that states should be
allowed to set their own rules.
"The states' core police powers have always included authority to define
criminal law and to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their
citizens,'' said O'Connor, who was joined by other states' rights
advocates.
The legal question presented a dilemma for the court's conservatives, who
have pushed to broaden states' rights in recent years, invalidating
federal laws dealing with gun possession near schools and violence against
women on the grounds the activity was too local to justify federal
intrusion.
O'Connor said she would have opposed California's medical marijuana law if
she was a voter or a legislator. But she said the court was overreaching
to endorse "making it a federal crime to grow small amounts of marijuana
in one's own home for one's own medicinal use.''
The case concerned two seriously ill California women, Angel Raich and
Diane Monson. The two had sued then-U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft,
asking for a court order letting them smoke, grow or obtain marijuana
without fear of arrest, home raids or other intrusion by federal
authorities.
Raich, an Oakland woman suffering from ailments including scoliosis, a
brain tumor, chronic nausea, fatigue and pain, smokes marijuana every few
hours. She said she was partly paralyzed until she started smoking pot.
Monson, an accountant who lives near Oroville, Calif., has degenerative
spine disease and grows her own marijuana plants in her backyard.
06/06/05 10:31 EDT
#########################################
NORML press release (6/6/05)
Supreme Court Rules Feds Can Arrest State-Recognized Medical Cannabis
Patients
State Laws Authorizing Physician-Supervised Use Of Marijuana Unaffected By
Ruling
Washington, DC: The US Supreme Court today reversed a Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals decision which found that the federal prosecution of patients
who cultivate and possess marijuana for their own medicinal use is an
unconstitutional exercise of Congress' Commerce Clause authority. As a
result, the court struck down an injunction barring the Justice Department
from arresting the respondents -- California medical cannabis patients
Angel McClary Raich and Diane Monson -- for violating the federal
Controlled Substances Act. Ms. Raich and Ms. Monson had filed suit in
federal court in 2002 seeking to bar the US Justice Department from taking
legal action against them for their state-sanctioned use of medicinal
cannabis.
"While we are disappointed with the Court's decision, the bottom line is
that state and local laws protecting medicinal cannabis patients and their
physicians remain in place and are unaffected by this ruling," NORML
Executive Director Allen St. Pierre said. Eleven states -- Alaska,
California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Montana, Nevada, Oregon,
Vermont and Washington -- have passed laws exempting patients who use
cannabis under a physician's supervision from state criminal penalties.
"With this ruling, Congress and the Justice Department have a choice: They
can choose to waste taxpayers' dollars and undermine states' rights by
arresting and prosecuting seriously ill patients who possess and use
medical cannabis in compliance with state law, or they can choose more
worthwhile priorities, like protecting national security and targeting
violent criminals," St. Pierre said. He added that Congress is expected to
vote later this month on a bipartisan amendment sponsored by Reps. Dana
Rohrabacher (R-CA) and Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) that would prohibit the
federal government from spending taxpayers' dollars to prosecute patients
who comply with their state's medical marijuana laws. Also pending in
Congress is House Bill HR 2087, "the States' Rights to Medical Marijuana
Act," sponsored by Reps. Barney Frank (D-MA), Ron Paul (R-TX), Sam Farr
(D-CA), Rohrabacher, and Hinchey, along with 31 co-sponsors, which would
reclassify marijuana under federal law to properly recognize its medical
utility and enable physicians to legally prescribe it under controlled
circumstances.
"The Court's decision today underscores the need for Congress to amend
federal law to recognize cannabis' therapeutic utility," St. Pierre said."
Throughout our history, the public has looked to state legislatures and
Congress -- not the courts -- to be the architects of public policy. With
80 percent of Americans as well as numerous health organizations,
including the American Nurses Association and the American Public Health
Association, in favor of legalizing the physician-supervised use of
medicinal cannabis, it's time for the federal government to butt out of
doctors' decisions regarding which medicine is the most safe and effective
for their patients."
Respondents co-counsel, NORML Legal Committee member David Michael agreed.
"This decision is a great leap backwards by the Supreme Court, in eroding
the Rehnquist Courtıs Commerce Clause legacy and creating chaos by pitting
the Federal Government against its own citizens and their individual
states," he said. "Where the Supreme Court has failed, it is now up to
Congress to protect the citizens of this country and their states from an
overreaching federal government."
For more information, please contact either Allen St. Pierre or Paul
Armentano at (202) 483-5500. Respondents' co-counsel, NORML Legal
Committee member David Michael is also available for comment at (415)
621-4500.
-----------------------
---------------------
June 6, 2005
To: NORML Supporters
From: Allen St. Pierre, Executive Director, NORML
Hello,
Today the United States Supreme Court ruled that federal law continues to
prohibit the use of cannabis?even for the sick, dying and
sense-threatened.
The first Associated Press story related to this morning's breaking news
is found below along with NORML's reply.
As Justice Steven's writings for the court below indicate:
"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."
It is hard to argue with Justice Stevens' point. Per usual, the greatest
gains for cannabis law reform are to be made by achieving legislative
changes in the law rather than looking to the courts for relief. In light
of this, it is imperative that you contact your member of Congress today
and urge him or her to support the States' Rights To Medical Marijuana
Act, which would reschedule marijuana under federal law and protect
patients in states with medical marijuana laws. Please take two minutes
to send your member of Congress a pre-written letter today by visiting:
http://capwiz.com/norml2/mail/oneclick_com...alertid=7531001
Thirty-three years after NORML launched the 'medical marijuana' debate by
suing the federal government to re-schedule cannabis, regrettably that
debate will apparently continue do to this morning's United States Supreme
Court decision.
Challenges to cannabis prohibition laws are principally funded by citizens
who support a change in the status quo regarding cannabis so please
continue to provide the valuable resources, to NORML and other cannabis
law reform groups, which are needed to keep pushing hard for these social
reforms.
Regards,
-Allen F. St. Pierre
Executive Director
NORML
Washington, DC
#########################################
Court Rules Against Pot for Sick People
By GINA HOLLAND
The Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) - Federal authorities may prosecute sick people who smoke
pot on doctors' orders, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, concluding that
state medical marijuana laws don't protect users from a federal ban on the
drug.
The decision is a stinging defeat for marijuana advocates who had
successfully pushed 10 states to allow the drug's use to treat various
illnesses.
Justice John Paul Stevens, writing the 6-3 decision, said that Congress
could change the law to allow medical use of marijuana.
The closely watched case was an appeal by the Bush administration in a
case that it lost in late 2003. At issue was whether the prosecution of
medical marijuana users under the federal Controlled Substances Act was
constitutional.
Under the Constitution, Congress may pass laws regulating a state's
economic activity so long as it involves "interstate commerce'' that
crosses state borders. The California marijuana in question was homegrown,
distributed to patients without charge and without crossing state lines.
Stevens said there are other legal options for patients, "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.''
California's medical marijuana law, passed by voters in 1996, allows
people to grow, smoke or obtain marijuana for medical needs with a
doctor's recommendation. Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada,
Oregon, Vermont and Washington state have laws similar to California.
In those states, doctors generally can give written or oral
recommendations on marijuana to patients with cancer, HIV and other
serious illnesses.
In a dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said that states should be
allowed to set their own rules.
"The states' core police powers have always included authority to define
criminal law and to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their
citizens,'' said O'Connor, who was joined by other states' rights
advocates.
The legal question presented a dilemma for the court's conservatives, who
have pushed to broaden states' rights in recent years, invalidating
federal laws dealing with gun possession near schools and violence against
women on the grounds the activity was too local to justify federal
intrusion.
O'Connor said she would have opposed California's medical marijuana law if
she was a voter or a legislator. But she said the court was overreaching
to endorse "making it a federal crime to grow small amounts of marijuana
in one's own home for one's own medicinal use.''
The case concerned two seriously ill California women, Angel Raich and
Diane Monson. The two had sued then-U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft,
asking for a court order letting them smoke, grow or obtain marijuana
without fear of arrest, home raids or other intrusion by federal
authorities.
Raich, an Oakland woman suffering from ailments including scoliosis, a
brain tumor, chronic nausea, fatigue and pain, smokes marijuana every few
hours. She said she was partly paralyzed until she started smoking pot.
Monson, an accountant who lives near Oroville, Calif., has degenerative
spine disease and grows her own marijuana plants in her backyard.
06/06/05 10:31 EDT
#########################################
NORML press release (6/6/05)
Supreme Court Rules Feds Can Arrest State-Recognized Medical Cannabis
Patients
State Laws Authorizing Physician-Supervised Use Of Marijuana Unaffected By
Ruling
Washington, DC: The US Supreme Court today reversed a Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals decision which found that the federal prosecution of patients
who cultivate and possess marijuana for their own medicinal use is an
unconstitutional exercise of Congress' Commerce Clause authority. As a
result, the court struck down an injunction barring the Justice Department
from arresting the respondents -- California medical cannabis patients
Angel McClary Raich and Diane Monson -- for violating the federal
Controlled Substances Act. Ms. Raich and Ms. Monson had filed suit in
federal court in 2002 seeking to bar the US Justice Department from taking
legal action against them for their state-sanctioned use of medicinal
cannabis.
"While we are disappointed with the Court's decision, the bottom line is
that state and local laws protecting medicinal cannabis patients and their
physicians remain in place and are unaffected by this ruling," NORML
Executive Director Allen St. Pierre said. Eleven states -- Alaska,
California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Montana, Nevada, Oregon,
Vermont and Washington -- have passed laws exempting patients who use
cannabis under a physician's supervision from state criminal penalties.
"With this ruling, Congress and the Justice Department have a choice: They
can choose to waste taxpayers' dollars and undermine states' rights by
arresting and prosecuting seriously ill patients who possess and use
medical cannabis in compliance with state law, or they can choose more
worthwhile priorities, like protecting national security and targeting
violent criminals," St. Pierre said. He added that Congress is expected to
vote later this month on a bipartisan amendment sponsored by Reps. Dana
Rohrabacher (R-CA) and Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) that would prohibit the
federal government from spending taxpayers' dollars to prosecute patients
who comply with their state's medical marijuana laws. Also pending in
Congress is House Bill HR 2087, "the States' Rights to Medical Marijuana
Act," sponsored by Reps. Barney Frank (D-MA), Ron Paul (R-TX), Sam Farr
(D-CA), Rohrabacher, and Hinchey, along with 31 co-sponsors, which would
reclassify marijuana under federal law to properly recognize its medical
utility and enable physicians to legally prescribe it under controlled
circumstances.
"The Court's decision today underscores the need for Congress to amend
federal law to recognize cannabis' therapeutic utility," St. Pierre said."
Throughout our history, the public has looked to state legislatures and
Congress -- not the courts -- to be the architects of public policy. With
80 percent of Americans as well as numerous health organizations,
including the American Nurses Association and the American Public Health
Association, in favor of legalizing the physician-supervised use of
medicinal cannabis, it's time for the federal government to butt out of
doctors' decisions regarding which medicine is the most safe and effective
for their patients."
Respondents co-counsel, NORML Legal Committee member David Michael agreed.
"This decision is a great leap backwards by the Supreme Court, in eroding
the Rehnquist Courtıs Commerce Clause legacy and creating chaos by pitting
the Federal Government against its own citizens and their individual
states," he said. "Where the Supreme Court has failed, it is now up to
Congress to protect the citizens of this country and their states from an
overreaching federal government."
For more information, please contact either Allen St. Pierre or Paul
Armentano at (202) 483-5500. Respondents' co-counsel, NORML Legal
Committee member David Michael is also available for comment at (415)
621-4500.
-----------------------
why are we evolving backwards in this country? 
) 