Dopey Decision

Supreme Court overrules medical and public opinion

by Sean Carter, contributor

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

This case arises out of a three-year dispute between the Oakland Cannabis Buyer’s Cooperative (OCBC) and the federal government. OCBC distributes 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 those suffering from nausea due to chemotherapy.

In 1996, medicinal marijuana was made legal in California with the landslide passage of Proposition 215. In January 1998, the federal government sued OCBC, claiming that its distribution of marijuana was illegal under the CSA. In May 1998, US District Court Judge Charles Breyer issued a preliminary injunction to shut down OCBC.

Nevertheless, OCBC continued distributing marijuana for medicinal purposes and in September 1999, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the District Court to modify its injunction to recognize medical necessity as a valid exemption from the Act.

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

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

With this decision, the Supreme Court is allowing the “collective wisdom” of Congress to overrule the medical opinions of thousands of doctors 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 evidence that some people have serious medical conditions, that these people will suffer serious harm if they are denied cannabis, and that there is no legal alternative to cannabis for the effective treatment of their medical conditions.”

In short, Thomas is saying that the fact that sick people are suffering and will continue to suffer is irrelevant because “the law is 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, these justices state that they did not reject medical necessity as a defense to the CSA but rather that this defense was only available to sick patients and not OCBC, itself.

On its face, this opinion seems somewhat reasonable since the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative cannot claim to need medicinal marijuana for its own “illnesses.” Also, the opinion suggests that these justices might consider medical necessity as a defense in a case brought against a sick person.

Unfortunately, the Court’s lack of compassion will affect hundreds of thousands of sick patients. Before this ruling, medical marijuana was legal in California and seven other states and the District of Columbia. However, as a result of the court’s decision, medical marijuana will be prohibited everywhere except Washington DC.