From: tuco@frontiernet.net   
      
   Medicinal pot before high court   
      
      
   By Steve Miller   
   THE WASHINGTON TIMES   
      
      
   The Supreme Court next week will hear the case of an ailing woman's battle   
   with the federal government over her possessing marijuana to treat herself,   
   in a decision that could determine the direction of the medicinal pot   
   movement.   
       The case, to be heard Nov. 29, stems from the 2002 seizure by federal   
   agents of marijuana plants grown by a California woman who claimed the weed   
   was for medicinal purposes, which is legal under state law.   
       Diana Monson, a patient who was prescribed the marijuana to alleviate   
   back-spasm pain, and another medicinal patient, Angel McClary Raich, sued   
   the federal government. They claimed their growing and use of the drug was   
   not covered under the federal Controlled Substances Act.   
       The two won a preliminary injunction last year in the 9th U.S. Circuit   
   Court of Appeals, which found their cultivation and use of marijuana to be   
   noncommercial and outside federal jurisdiction.   
       As voters in more states have approved measures to allow marijuana   
   cultivation and use for medicinal purposes, the federal government has moved   
   to arrest people engaging in that activity. Ten states have   
   medicinal-marijuana provisions. Montana most recently joined the list with   
   voter approval earlier this month.   
       "A decision that upholds the Ninth Circuit Court would allow individuals   
   to grow their own cannabis in states that allow it," said Randy Barnett, a   
   professor of constitutional law at the Boston University School of Law, who   
   will argue the case for Miss Raich and Miss Monson.   
       "But more than that, this case is about federalism and that idea that   
   this application of the Controlled Substances Act is an overreach of the   
   federal government," Mr. Barnett said. "The state has authorized the use of   
   marijuana for medical purposes. I am representing two clients who are   
   suffering. This is not a case connected to the war on drugs, because my   
   clients are not taking part in trafficking or using recreational drugs."   
       In its appeal to the Supreme Court, the federal government argues that   
   its actions were true to the law, saying that "Congress's conclusions that   
   the local manufacture, distribution, and possession of drugs, including   
   marijuana, are significantly linked to the commerce in drugs regulated under   
   the statute and that comprehensive regulation of that local activity is   
   essential to effectuate control of the interstate drug market."   
       Further, it added: "The [Controlled Substances Act] constitutionally   
   regulates the commercial market in marijuana, which is international and   
   interstate in scope."   
       A spokesman for the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy,   
   which sets drug policy for the administration, declined to comment on the   
   pending case.   
       In a report published this month, though, the office said movements to   
   legalize marijuana for medicinal use "are led not by medical professionals   
   or patients-rights groups, but by pro-drug donors and organizations in a   
   cynical attempt to exploit the suffering of sick people."   
       The most outspoken supporters of medicinal marijuana are well-organized   
   pro-pot lobbies, including the National Organization for the Reform of   
   Marijuana Laws and the Marijuana Policy Project.   
       "There is simply no constituency in this country for arresting and   
   jailing people with cancer, AIDS, [multiple sclerosis] or other illnesses   
   who find relief from medical marijuana," said Bruce Mirken, a spokesman for   
   the Marijuana Policy Project. "So, whatever the Supreme Court does, the Bush   
   administration is on the losing side of history."   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)