San Francisco, CA: The federal government may prosecute state-approved medical marijuana patients despite their valid need for the drug, US District Judge Martin J. Jenkins ruled this week in San Francisco. The federal judge’s ruling rejected plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction to prevent the US Justice Department from sanctioning them for cultivating and using marijuana medically.
Plaintiffs in the case, both of whom suffer from a number of severe medical conditions that are alleviated by cannabis, argued that federal officials violate the Fifth, Ninth and Tenth amendments and exceed their authority under the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution by federally prosecuting medical marijuana users in California.
In his ruling, Judge Jenkins expressed sympathy for the plaintiffs, but said that federal law and “the weight of precedent” requires him to rule against them. “Despite the gravity of plaintiffs’ need for medical cannabis, and despite the concrete interest of California to provide it for individuals like them, the Court is constrained from granting their request,” Martin wrote. “While plaintiffs may vehemently disagree with the wisdom of the federal government’s determination that marijuana has no medical efficacy and therefore, that federal law renders it unavailable for prescription to patients, they do not have a fundamental right to obtain and use it for treatment. … The fact that, in this Court’s view, the equitable factors tip in plaintiffs’ favor does not alter the Court’s conclusion.”
Judge Martin also determined that plaintiffs could not successfully mount a medical necessity defense despite their seriously ill health. Martin based his ruling on federal law barring the medical use of the drug and a 2001 US Supreme Court decision prohibiting medical marijuana dispensaries from raising the defense in federal court as a way to avoid prosecution for manufacturing and/or distributing marijuana to seriously ill patients.
“Plaintiffs vigorously contest Congress’ finding that marijuana has no medical application, and the evidence in their declarations is powerful testimony to support their position,” Martin opined. “Nonetheless, … the Court must … follow the dictate of the Supreme Court in its finding that there is no medical necessity defense for any of the prohibitions contained in the CSA (Controlled Substances Act), including even possession for medicinal use.”
NORML Executive Director Keith Stroup called the federal ruling disappointing. “Judge Jenkins clearly understood the seriousness of the plaintiffs’ conditions and the vital role marijuana plays in relieving their symptoms, yet he lacked the courage to overrule existing precedent that denies them the relief to which they are entitled,” he said. Stroup added that he hoped the Ninth Circuit would overrule Judge Jenkins’ decision on appeal, but said, “Ultimately, the solution may lie with Congress, not the courts.”
Plaintiffs in the case filed suit last fall in response to a wave of federal prosecutions against California medical marijuana patients and caregivers. In the past year and a half, federal drug enforcement officials have taken action against approximately 40 medicinal marijuana patients, cooperatives and providers in the state.
For more information, please contact Keith Stroup, NORML Executive Director, at (202) 483-8751 or NORML Legal Committee member David Michael, attorney for the plaintiffs, at (415) 621-4500.