High Court Bars Medical Marijuana in Calif.

W A S H I N G T O N, Aug. 29, 2000 -- The Supreme Court today barreddistribution of marijuana to people in California whose doctorsrecommend it for medicinal purposes.

The court, voting 7-1 to grant an emergency Clintonadministration request, postponed the effect of federal courtrulings that would have allowed a California club to distribute theillegal drug for medicinal use.

Government lawyers had sought emergency help from Justice SandraDay O’Connor, who referred the request to the full court.

Only Justice John Paul Stevens dissented. He said the government“has failed to demonstrate that the denial of necessary medicineto seriously ill and dying patients will advance the publicinterest or that the failure to enjoin the distribution of suchmedicine will impair the orderly enforcement of federal criminalstatutes.”

Justice Stephen G. Breyer disqualified himself from the case.His brother, Charles, a federal trial judge in San Francisco,previously had barred distribution of marijuana only to have hisdecision reversed by a federal appeals court.

Latest Chapter in Marijuana DebateThe highest court’s action, which came in a brief order, was thelatest development in a conflict between federal narcotics laws anda 1996 California voters’ initiative known as Proposition 215.

The state initiative allows seriously ill patients to grow anduse marijuana for pain relief, with a doctor’s recommendation,without state penalties. But federal law says marijuana has nomedical purposes and cannot be administered safely under medicalsupervision.

Initiatives similar to California’s have been passed in Alaska,Arizona, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, Oregon and Washington state.

In the California case, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appealsruled that “medical necessity” is a “legally cognizabledefense” to a charge of distributing drugs in violation of afederal law, the Controlled Substances Act.

Because of that ruling, Judge Charles Breyer said the OaklandCannabis Buyers’ Cooperative could provide marijuana to peoplefacing imminent harm from serious medical conditions and for whomlegal alternatives to marijuana do not work or cause intolerableside effects.

Undermining the War on Drugs?Justice Department lawyers called the 9th Circuit Court’s“unprecedented ruling” a dangerous one because it created“incentives for drug manufacturers and distributors to invoke theasserted needs of others as a justification for their drugtrafficking.”

The government’s emergency request said allowing suchdistribution of marijuana would “promote disrespect and disregardfor an act of Congress that is central to combating illicit drugtrafficking and use by giving a judicial stamp of approval to theopen and notorious distribution of (illegal) substances topotentially thousands of users without any of the strict controlsrequired” by federal law.

In response, lawyers for the marijuana club argued that thegovernment’s emergency request be rejected. “The government hasprovided no evidence that states … that have passed medicalcannabis laws have any difficulty prosecuting violations of theirdrug statutes,” they said.

The case is U.S. v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative, A-145.