Washington, DC: The US Supreme Court could rule as early as next week on whether to uphold 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.
The Ninth Circuit ruled 2-1 in December 2003 that “the intrastate, non-commercial cultivation, possession and use of marijuana for personal medical purposes on the advice of a physician – is, in fact, different in kind from drug trafficking,” and issued an injunction barring the US Justice Department from taking legal action against the appellants, California medical cannabis patients Angel McClary Raich and Diane Monson, for violating the federal Controlled Substances Act. The Justice Department appealed that decision to the Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments in the case last November.
“Either way the Court rules, this decision is essentially a ‘win-win’ for marijuana-law reform advocates,” NORML Executive Director Allen St. Pierre said. “If the Court upholds the Ninth Circuit decision, then it will affirm the notion that the non-commercial, intrastate possession and use of medicinal cannabis is solely a matter of state, not federal law.
“However, if the Court reverses the Ninth Circuit’s opinion, 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. The federal government can choose to continue to waste taxpayers’ dollars and undermine states’ rights by arbitrarily raiding the homes of seriously ill patients who possess and use medical cannabis in compliance with state law, or they can choose more worthwhile priorities, like national security and prosecuting violent criminals.”
St. Pierre said that Congress will likely vote later this month on a bipartisan amendment sponsored by 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 recognize its medical utility and enable physicians to legally prescribe it under controlled circumstances.
“Regardless of which way the Supreme Court rules in this case, it remains pivotal that Congress amend federal law to properly 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.”
For more information, please contact either Allen St. Pierre or NORML Legal Counsel Keith Stroup at (202) 483-5500. Additional background information regarding this case is available online at:
http://angeljustice.org