SmokeDog420
New Member
California Attorney General Bill Lockyer sided with two medical marijuana patients Wednesday in their U.S. Supreme Court battle with the Bush administration, arguing that patients who use locally grown marijuana in states that allow it should be protected from federal drug enforcement.
"The federal government has limited authority to interfere with state legislation enacted for the protection of citizen health, safety and welfare, '' Lockyer's office said in papers filed with the court on behalf of California, Maryland and Washington, three of the 11 states with medical marijuana laws.
His brief noted that the 1970 Controlled Substances Act, which classified marijuana as a dangerous drug with "no currently accepted medical use,'' was passed long before the AIDS epidemic and before large numbers of doctors began recommending pot to counter the effects of therapy for AIDS and cancer.
Interstate Commerce
In light of those developments, the federal ban on marijuana possession should not be interpreted to apply to the state-regulated medicinal use of a drug that is obtained within a state, said Taylor Carey, a special assistant attorney general who wrote Lockyer's brief. Otherwise, Carey argued, enforcement of the law would exceed Congress' constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce.
The court is scheduled to hear arguments Nov. 29 on whether federal authorities can prosecute patients and their caregivers and confiscate their marijuana. The plaintiffs are Angel Raich of Oakland, who suffers from a brain tumor and a wasting disorder, and Diane Monson of Oroville (Butte County), who has severe back pain and muscle spasms.
Both women have doctors' recommendations to use marijuana for their conditions, as required by Proposition 215, a ballot initiative passed by California voters in 1996. Raich's marijuana is provided by her caregivers, and Monson was growing her own until federal agents seized her six plants.
Source: San Francisco Chronicle (CA)
Author: Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
Published: Thursday, October 14, 2004 - Page A - 5
Copyright: 2004 San Francisco Chronicle
Contact: letters@sfchronicle.com
Website: Home
"The federal government has limited authority to interfere with state legislation enacted for the protection of citizen health, safety and welfare, '' Lockyer's office said in papers filed with the court on behalf of California, Maryland and Washington, three of the 11 states with medical marijuana laws.
His brief noted that the 1970 Controlled Substances Act, which classified marijuana as a dangerous drug with "no currently accepted medical use,'' was passed long before the AIDS epidemic and before large numbers of doctors began recommending pot to counter the effects of therapy for AIDS and cancer.
Interstate Commerce
In light of those developments, the federal ban on marijuana possession should not be interpreted to apply to the state-regulated medicinal use of a drug that is obtained within a state, said Taylor Carey, a special assistant attorney general who wrote Lockyer's brief. Otherwise, Carey argued, enforcement of the law would exceed Congress' constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce.
The court is scheduled to hear arguments Nov. 29 on whether federal authorities can prosecute patients and their caregivers and confiscate their marijuana. The plaintiffs are Angel Raich of Oakland, who suffers from a brain tumor and a wasting disorder, and Diane Monson of Oroville (Butte County), who has severe back pain and muscle spasms.
Both women have doctors' recommendations to use marijuana for their conditions, as required by Proposition 215, a ballot initiative passed by California voters in 1996. Raich's marijuana is provided by her caregivers, and Monson was growing her own until federal agents seized her six plants.
Source: San Francisco Chronicle (CA)
Author: Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
Published: Thursday, October 14, 2004 - Page A - 5
Copyright: 2004 San Francisco Chronicle
Contact: letters@sfchronicle.com
Website: Home
