International Drug Tribune

Pubdate: Sat, 09 Jun 2001
Source: Rapid City Journal (SD)
Website: http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/
Address: PO Box 450, Rapid City SD 57709
Copyright: 2001 The Rapid City Journal
Author: Bob Newland
Note: Newland is a writer/publisher and is a spokesman for the S.D. Cannabis Coalition (currently circulating a petition to place industrial hemp on the 2002 ballot and soon circulating medical cannabis petition to qualify for 2002 election)

SUPREME COURT WROTE LAW IN MEDICAL MARIJUANA CASE

The U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision regarding medical cannabis didn't change anything. It did, however, reveal the nine most powerful public policy manipulators in the world for the pandering dishonest conscienceless politicians they are. While contemplating that characterization and what follows, consider this. The U.S. Supreme Court also once said that runaway slaves had to be returned to their owners, and that U.S. citizens of Japanese ancestry could be legally deprived of property and sent to concentration camps. In 1996, five million California voters (56 per cent) approved the "Compassionate Use Act", allowing people to use cannabis (marijuana) with a doctor's recommendation. The Act also defined "caregivers" who could cultivate cannabis to supply patients' demand. Cooperatives were established to facilitate delivery of the herb to patients. Despite the change in California law, possession and distribution of cannabis are still illegal under federal law (states are not required to enforce federal laws). The feds charged the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Co-op, operated by former Rapid Citian Jeff Jones, with distribution. Jones asked for -- and was denied -- the federal court's permission to use a "medical necessity" defense argument. Jones appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The 9th Circuit agreed with Jones. Federal prosecutors appealed that decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, which heard arguments on March 28. When the Supreme Court released its decision a few weeks ago, it agreed with the lower court that no one may say in federal court, "I grew and gave marijuana to that person because he needed it to stay alive and was too sick to grow his own." We ache for superlatives strong enough to describe the absurdity of the court's reasoning. The court and its defenders shamelessly assert that they're not supposed to "legislate from the bench"; that they were only asked whether there is a "medical necessity defense" under the Controlled Substances Act.

Justice Clarence Thomas said in the unanimous decision: "The Cooperative's contention that a common-law medical necessity defense should be written into the Act is rejected. There is an open question whether federal courts ever have authority to recognize a necessity defense not provided by statute. But that question need not be answered to resolve the issue presented here, for the terms of the Act leave no doubt that the medical necessity defense is unavailable." By similar reasoning, the Court could justify the Nazi "public order" laws. According to Thomas, these same justices could sit there with straight faces, instructing us, "We cannot locate within the Public Order Laws any 'religious freedom' exemption to the requirements that Jews sew yellow stars on their clothing or that Jews are no longer allowed to own businesses." Yes, the Controlled Substances Act states that cannabis has no medical value. When the Supreme Court sees ludicrous, dangerous and unconstitutional assertions written into law, its job is to overturn the law. Instead, this Court affirmed the earth's flatness, and told navigators to adjust their maps. Hundreds of scientific studies confirm the therapeutic value of cannabis. Tens of thousands of patients' own reports confirm cannabis's therapeutic value. In 1988, a Drug Enforcement Agency administrative law judge said, "Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man. It is unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious for the DEA to stand between those sufferers and the benefits of this substance in light of the evidence." The Supreme Court was presented briefs by more than a dozen medical organizations as to cannabis's therapeutic value.

The U.S. government sends 300 marijuana cigarets each month to each of eight patients granted "compassionate use" exemptions from federal law because the government knows they benefit from using marijuana. Knowing all this, the justices lied, saying their hands were tied by Congress. Why? It's "really important" to Congress to protect the Controlled Substances Act. As it becomes more obvious that people gain relief from diseases and pain by using cannabis, then the whole myth of the evil of cannabis comes into question. Cannabis is effective over a wide range of medical conditions currently treated by expensive prescription medicines. The patent drug companies would suffer sales losses, perhaps substantial, as their often-toxic extracts of plant and mineral chemicals are foregone for the relief provided by the inexpensive herb, cannabis. Admitting that cannabis is a healing herb leads to embarassing questions about jailing anyone for using it. Acceptance of any benefit from cannabis leads to its benign cousin, hemp, posing a threat to big oil, big cotton, big lumber, big paper, big crop chemicals, and a dozen more multi-national corporate interests. In January, the South Dakota Cannabis Coalition commissioned a survey to gauge both South Dakotans' level of knowledge of hemp and medical cannabis and their willingness to apply common sense and compassion to the law. The pollsters asked registered voters two questions about medical cannabis use. "If a seriously ill patient has a doctor's approval to use marijuana for medical purposes, do you think that patient should be arrested and sent to prison for using marijuana on his or her doctor's advice?" 481of 505 interviewees (96 per cent) said "No." "Would you favor a change in South Dakota law so that seriously ill people -- with a doctor's approval -- can use medical marijuana legally without fearing the possibility of being arrested?" 410 of 505 (82 per cent) said "Yes." But then, these unwashed voters probably haven't had the benefit of the advice of highly-paid lawyer lobbyists for the multinational corporations, nor their campaign contributions.

•Accedi all'archivio di International Drug Tribune