U.S. Medical Marijuana Patients Await Landmark...

[Ferre]

Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 16:51:24 -0800

From: "D. Paul Stanford" <stanford@crrh.org>

Subject: 002 U.S. Medical Marijuana Patients Await Landmark Ruling

 

by Ann Harrison

20 December 2002

Agence France-Presse

 

*U.S. Medical Marijuana Patients Await Landmark Ruling *

 

San Francisco, Calif. (AFP) Two California medical marijuana patients and

their growers have launched a rare legal offensive challenging the U.S.

government's constitutional authority to control local medical cannabis use.

 

Patients Angel McClary Raich and Diane Monson, along with the two

caregivers who grow Raich's medical marijuana, filed a lawsuit against U.S.

Attorney General John Ashcroft and Drug Enforcement Administration chief

Asa Hutchinson in October. The suit argues that the federal government has

overstepped its constitutional authority by raiding medical marijuana

patients and providers who are operating under California law.

 

On December 17th, the plaintiffs asked U.S. District Court Judge Martin J.

Jenkins for a preliminary injunction to bar the federal government from

halting their use of medical cannabis while their lawsuit is pending. In

one of the most thorough hearings on medical marijuana to date,  Judge

Jenkins declared that the request raised "very interesting and compelling

issues" concerning  the government's constitutional authority to prohibit

medical cannabis.

 

Plaintiffs' attorney Randy Barnett, who teaches law at Boston University,

argued that the  right of patients to ameliorate pain, use their bodies,

and to remain alive, are fundamental liberties protected by the U.S.

Constitution.

 

"Angel would die were it not for cannabis," said attorney Robert Raich, who

is representing his wife in the case. "It cannot be the law of the United

States that a person must face death because of a law Congress passed for

other purposes entirely."

 

During the hearing, Barnett also argued that recent interpretations of the

U.S. Constitution's Commerce Clause reduce federal authority to regulate

activities inside a state - and especially its jurisdiction over medical

cannabis, which in this case did not involve the exchange of money.

 

California is one of eight U.S. states that have voted to approve the

medical use of marijuana, but the federal government considers all

marijuana cultivation, possession and use illegal under the federal

Controlled Substances Act. Justice Department  lawyer Mark T. Quinlivan,

who argued for the government in the hearing, asserted that citizens have

no constitutional right to cannabis because the government still

considers it an unproven medicine.

 

A district court ruling on the patient's request for a preliminary

injunction is expected by mid-January.