Dopey Decision

Supreme Court overrules medical and public opinion

by Sean Carter, contributor

In a unanimous 8-0 decision, the Supreme Court ruled recently thatmedical marijuana is not exempt from the Controlled Substances Act(CSA).

This case arises out of a three-year dispute between the OaklandCannabis Buyer’s Cooperative (OCBC) and the federal government. OCBCdistributes medicinal marijuana to people suffering from AIDS,cancer, glaucoma and other illnesses. According to some experts,marijuana alleviates pain. It also increases the appetites of thosesuffering from nausea due to chemotherapy.

In 1996, medicinal marijuana was made legal in California with thelandslide passage of Proposition 215. In January 1998, the federalgovernment sued OCBC, claiming that its distribution of marijuana wasillegal under the CSA. In May 1998, US District Court Judge CharlesBreyer issued a preliminary injunction to shut down OCBC.

Nevertheless, OCBC continued distributing marijuana for medicinalpurposes and in September 1999, the 9th Circuit Court of Appealsordered the District Court to modify its injunction to recognizemedical necessity as a valid exemption from the Act.

However, the federal government brought an application for stay beforethe US Supreme Court in August 2000. In a 7-1 decision, the high courtgranted the stay and agreed to hear the government’s appeal.

The high court ruled against OCBC. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote theopinion for the majority. In short, he argues that the CSA “reflects adetermination [by Congress] that marijuana has no medical benefitsworthy of an exemption.” As a result, “courts of equity cannot, intheir discretion, reject the balance that Congress has struck in astatute.” In other words, there is no medical necessity defense formarijuana because “Congress said so!”

With this decision, the Supreme Court is allowing the “collectivewisdom” of Congress to overrule the medical opinions of thousands ofdoctors who believe that marijuana has medicinal qualities.

The majority’s opinion in this case is cruel. Justice Thomas claims“the Court of Appeals erred when it considered relevant the evidencethat some people have serious medical conditions, that these peoplewill suffer serious harm if they are denied cannabis, and that thereis no legal alternative to cannabis for the effective treatment oftheir medical conditions.”

In short, Thomas is saying that the fact that sick people aresuffering and will continue to suffer is irrelevant because “the lawis the law!”

Although all members of the Supreme Court sided with the government,it must be noted that three justices distanced themselves from Thomas’opinion. In a concurring opinion written by Justice Stevens, thesejustices state that they did not reject medical necessity as a defenseto the CSA but rather that this defense was only available to sickpatients and not OCBC, itself.

On its face, this opinion seems somewhat reasonable since the OaklandCannabis Buyers Cooperative cannot claim to need medicinal marijuanafor its own “illnesses.” Also, the opinion suggests that thesejustices might consider medical necessity as a defense in a casebrought against a sick person.

Unfortunately, the Court’s lack of compassion will affect hundreds ofthousands of sick patients. Before this ruling, medical marijuana waslegal in California and seven other states and the District ofColumbia. However, as a result of the court’s decision, medicalmarijuana will be prohibited everywhere except WashingtonDC.