A Major Disaster For Marijuana
Prohibition in Oakland
– Federal Appeals Court Rules For Medical Necessity Defense
September 13, 1999 (Marijuananews note: I
walked into the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative this morning just as Jeff Jones was
being told about this ruling. It was exciting to be there at such a time. Jeff is a
remarkable young man who is at the center of this particular battle, and this is indeed
something to celebrate.
See
Portrait
of Jeff Jones In San Francisco Chronicle Shows Why Marijuana Prohibition
Can’t Survive Honest Journalism
Today’s ruling reverses Judge Breyer’s decision, which he acknowledged was
likely to cause human suffering.
See
Oakland Club Closed; Likely
To Cause "Human Suffering," Admits Judge -- Just Not Enough;
City Council To Consider Distribution 2 Articles
While this applies only in the 9th Circuit, it is still a major tactical and
strategic defeat for the prohibitionists, and could influence rulings in other areas,
especially regarding the Class Action in Philadelphia, where the government has tried to
stonewall.
Of course, it is also certain to be taken to the Supreme Court. In the meantime, this
will have a major impact on the marijuana resistance movement where it is strongest in
California, and in the other areas of the Northwest under the 9th circuit.
First, because Northern California, Oregon, Washington State and Alaska have large
medical cannabis political movements and a supporting industry of growers and providers,
this is not just a "theoretical" right. This decision has a very real and
immediate significance for real people in a way that such a ruling in another area might
not have without such an active movement.
Second, it is a strategic disaster for prohibitionism in that it involves a Federal
medical necessity defense for patients and suppliers. It will be
interesting to see how this impacts the judge’s ruling on this defense in the
McCormick/McWilliams case.
See
Judge Rules
Against Defense On All Major Motions In McCormick/McWilliams Case;
Ruling On Medical Necessity Defense Scheduled For October.
Selective Prosecution and Unequal Injustice.
Special To MarijuanaNews
Also, this ruling comes after the Institute of Medicine Report supporting the medical use
of marijuana.
See
Prohibitionism
After the IOM Report; Analysis by Richard Cowan
Repeat After Me: No Medicine Is Smoked! No Medicine Is Smoked! No Medicine Is Smoked!
That’s It. You Are Now Qualified To Start Your Very Own Government Funded Anti-Drug
Group!
While the Federal government has consistently lied about the results of the report, and it
is – at best – mediocre, it did explicitly state, "There
is no clear alternative for people suffering from chronic conditions that might be
relieved by smoking marijuana, such as pain or AIDS wasting."
That is the definition of a medical necessity defense by the Drug Czar’s own
Committee!
The IOM report also undermined the claims that there are other government interests
pertaining to marijuana prohibition that would be harmed by medical marijuana. After all,
there are many other prohibited substances that are available for medical use.
My congratulations to Jeff Jones, the OCBC’s attorney
Robert Raich, and to the medical cannabis movement in the 9th Circuit.)
See
Appeal by Oakland
Club Raises Important Constitutional Issues -- Op-ed and Article
and links
September 13, 1999
Court Boosts California Medical Marijuana Clubs
By Andrew Quinn
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - A federal appeals court gave fresh hope Monday to
California's embattled medical marijuana clubs, saying a judge should not have granted a
Clinton administration request to shut them down without regard for the sick people they
served.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ordered U.S. District Court Judge Charles Breyer to
review his October 1998 decision, which shut the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative
(OCBC) for violating federal anti-drug laws.
In a 3-0 decision, the appeals court said Breyer had not given
proper weight to the possibility that marijuana was an indispensable treatment for people
served by the club -- including patients with AIDS and cancer -- and thus potentially
protected by the "medical necessity'' defense.
The appeals court order did not vacate Breyer's injunction against the Oakland club,
which was closed by federal marshals last October. But it did suggest Breyer amend the
injunction to allow medical marijuana clubs to resume service for patients who can prove
that cannabis is a medical necessity for treating their illnesses.
Medical necessity, as defined by earlier court cases, means that patients have found
every legal alternative to marijuana ineffective in treating their conditions and that
they would suffer imminent harm without access to the drug.
The decision opened a fresh chapter in California's medical marijuana saga, which began
in 1996 when state voters approved medical use of the drug and then quickly moved to the
courts as the federal government sought to block implementation of the new state law.
In its decision, the appeals court held that the Oakland club had
demonstrated "there is a class of people with serious medical conditions for whom the
use of cannabis is necessary in order to treat or alleviate those conditions or their
symptoms; who will suffer serious harm if they are denied cannabis; and for whom there is
no legal alternative.''
"The government, by contrast, has yet to identify any interest it may have in
blocking the distribution of cannabis to those with medical needs, relying exclusively on
its general interest in enforcing its statutes,'' the court said.
Jeff Jones, OCBC's director, said the appeals court decision represented the first step
back toward legitimacy for California's cannabis clubs, which were chased underground by
federal legal challenges.
"I feel we are going to need to work out some details with the district court
before anything can happen,'' Jones said.
"We are asking, more or less, the district court to allow
our dispensary to remain open to medical necessity cases ... somebody that is dying from
cancer, from HIV ... should be protected by their constitutional right to protect
themselves.''
Robert Raich, a lawyer for the OCBC, said Monday's court decision could have an impact
far beyond California, noting that some six other states covered by
the 9th Circuit have followed California's lead and passed some form of ballot measure
aimed at legalizing medical marijuana use.
"I think we will have an opportunity, for the first time, to provide medical
cannabis to a class of patients legally under federal law,'' Raich said.
Supported