Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments on Oakland Cannabis Buyers Co-op Case, State Medical Marijuana Laws Will Stand Regardless 3/30/01

Drug War Chronicle, recent top items


recent blog posts "In the Trenches" activist feed


The controversy over medical marijuana made its first -- but undoubtedly not its last -- appearance before the nation's highest court on Wednesday, as justices heard lawyers for the government square off against attorneys representing California medical marijuana distributors. Some ill-informed media coverage notwithstanding, the Supreme Court will decide only whether federal law allows a "medical necessity" defense in federal civil actions against medical marijuana distributors. The case does not present the court with the opportunity to rule on the legality of medical marijuana laws on the books in eight states.

As medical marijuana supporters and opponents argued outside the marble edifice, inside the Supreme Court, lawyers for the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative attempted to persuade skeptical justices both that marijuana is medicine and that medical marijuana distributors have a medical necessity defense against federal prosecution.

Justices Ginsburg, Rehnquist and Scalia evinced some interest in marijuana as medicine, with Ginsburg asking about sick patients and inquiring, "Am I wrong in thinking there has been quite a bit of this going on?"

Scalia said the choice to use medical marijuana was an "easy gamble" for patients. "A jury versus the grim reaper, I'll take the jury any day," he commented.

But while court-watchers cautioned against drawing conclusions on the justices' thinking from the oral arguments, it seemed apparent that co-op lawyers Robert Raich and Gerald Uelmen were facing an unsympathetic audience.

Justice Kennedy challenged Uelman on the extent of the exception for medical marijuana use, arguing that to allow it would amount to a "huge rewrite of the statute." Justice O'Connor weighed in with her opinion that the US appeals court ruling granting the exception "appeared to create a blanket exception to the Controlled Substances Act."

The federal government, bolstered by last week's ruling in the Gettman-High Times marijuana rescheduling petition with the Drug Enforcement Administration (see related story below), argued that there are no legitimate medical uses for marijuana and warned that a favorable ruling would lead to the creation of "marijuana pharmacies."

The Supreme Court is expected to issue its verdict by June.

While advocates are loath to predict the outcome, some are preparing for a negative ruling.

Jeff Jones, founder of the Oakland Co-op, was upbeat. "I think we got our day in court and we're eagerly awaiting the wisdom of the high court in their ruling," he told DRCNet. "While we didn't really get the discussion of the 9th and 10th amendment issues of a limited and enumerated federal power, the federal government is still up against the wall. If they don't get a complete victory, they will have a hard time bottling this up. And even in the worst case, we are prepared to take proactive action to ensure the rights of California medical marijuana patients."

Jones also pointed out that the state's medical marijuana law was not at risk. "Given the Solicitor General's statement that they are not seeking to preempt our state law, we've already one," said the clean-cut, conservatively suited Oaklander. "Patients will simply grow it themselves. Last time I checked it's still against federal law, but if they're unwilling to come into California and kick down doors to arrest patients, then they have an effectively unenforceable law. And even if they do, good luck finding a jury to convict."

Jones' seemed to be the consensus opinion among activists.

"We'll be no worse off than we were before in the event of a negative ruling," the Marijuana Policy Project's Rob Kampia told DRCNet. "We never worked in state legislatures under the assumption that it was somehow legal under federal law, or that medical necessity defenses could be used in federal court, or that pot could be distributed," said Kampia.

"If the court rules against us, we'll simply continue our strategy of changing state laws," he added. "It won't change our strategy or behavior."

Kevin Zeese of Common Sense for Drug Policy perhaps best summed up the collective wisdom of the reform movement when, at a panel on medical marijuana at the libertarian Cato Institute earlier in the week, he told the audience, "No matter what the Supreme Court does, the medical marijuana movement has won. There is no way the federal government can put this genie back in the bottle."

-- END --
Link to Drug War Facts
Please make a generous donation to support Drug War Chronicle in 2007!          

PERMISSION to reprint or redistribute any or all of the contents of Drug War Chronicle (formerly The Week Online with DRCNet is hereby granted. We ask that any use of these materials include proper credit and, where appropriate, a link to one or more of our web sites. If your publication customarily pays for publication, DRCNet requests checks payable to the organization. If your publication does not pay for materials, you are free to use the materials gratis. In all cases, we request notification for our records, including physical copies where material has appeared in print. Contact: the Drug Reform Coordination Network, P.O. Box 18402, Washington, DC 20036, (202) 293-8340 (voice), (202) 293-8344 (fax), e-mail [email protected]. Thank you.

Articles of a purely educational nature in Drug War Chronicle appear courtesy of the DRCNet Foundation, unless otherwise noted.

Issue #179, 3/30/01 Editorial: Medical Marijuana Patients Shouldn't Have to Go to the Supreme Court | Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments on Oakland Cannabis Buyers Co-op Case, State Medical Marijuana Laws Will Stand Regardless | Interview: Alan Bock on Medical Marijuana in California | Eyes on the Prize: European Drug Reformers Call for Legalization, Target Global Prohibition Regime -- Brussels Confab Focuses on UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs | Mexico: Chihuahua Governor Adds Voice to Legalization Chorus, Extends Rhetorical Hand Across Border to Gov. Johnson | In California, the Medical Marijuana Struggle Grinds On | DEA Denies Marijuana Rescheduling Petition -- Petitioners Promise Appeal, Question Timing | Kampia vs. the Inquisition: House Republicans Rake Reformer Over the Coals | High School Drug Tests Barred Again, This Time in Oklahoma -- Divided US Circuit Court Decisions Herald Eventual Supreme Court Resolution | November Coalition Label Campaign | Kentucky Governor Signs Industrial Hemp Bill | Hemp and Medical Marijuana Initiatives Gear-Up in South Dakota, State Legislature is Hopeless | Calling All Spanish Speakers: Volunteers Needed to Proof "DRCNet en Español" | Harm Reduction Coalition's Latest Communication Now Available, Newsletter Provides Insights, Questions | The Reformer's Calendar | Errata
Mail this article to a friend
Send us feedback on this article
This issue -- main page
This issue -- single-file printer version
Drug War Chronicle -- main page
Chronicle archives
Subscribe now!
Out from the Shadows HEA Drug Provision Drug War Chronicle Perry Fund DRCNet en EspaŮol Speakeasy Blogs About Us Home
Why Legalization? NJ Racial Profiling Archive Subscribe Donate DRCNet em PortuguÍs Latest News Drug Library Search
special friends links: SSDP - Flex Your Rights - IAL - Drug War Facts the Drug Reform Coordination Network (DRCNet)
1623 Connecticut Ave., NW, 3rd Floor, Washington DC 20009 Phone (202) 293-8340 Fax (202) 293-8344 [email protected]