A case that began in the summer of 2002 with the seizure and
destruction of six marijuana plants has exploded into one that will
have nationwide implications for patients using cannabis for
medicinal purposes.
The Supreme Court will rule on the federal government’s
legal ability to regulate the growth and use of marijuana for
personal medical purposes within this academic year.
The decision will not effect either state or federal laws
regulating recreational marijuana use.
The case will be heard on Nov. 29 and the decision is scheduled
to be released some time this Spring.
The Court will consider the constitutionality of the case and
decide how far the federal government can regulate intrastate
marijuana use.
But the case is also part of a larger discussion about the
merits and ethics of using marijuana for purported medical
benefits.
Many people suffering from various types of severe and chronic
conditions, such as cancer and chronic pain, use cannabis for pain
relief.
Many medical professionals, including UCLA researchers and drug
enforcement agents, however, emphasize the destructive effects
marijuana may have on health and the quality of life over any
possible pain relief it may provide.
The women behind the case
Angel Raich and Diane Monson, two women who use marijuana to
treat severe medical conditions, will speak to the Supreme Court on
behalf of all people in the U.S. who use the drug for medicinal
purposes. Diane Monson, whose marijuana plants were seized in the
summer of 2002, uses cannabis to treat a severe back condition from
which she has suffered since 1989.
“I use medical cannabis with the recommendation of my
physicians for the treatment of my severe chronic back pain and
spasms. … Without cannabis, these spasms would be torturous and
unbearable, no matter whatever other medications were
available,” Monson wrote in her declaration to the 9th
Circuit of Appeals in October 2002.
Raich, too, uses cannabis to treat medical conditions that she
said have been unaffected by all other medications she has
tried.
At only 98 pounds, Raich suffers from an inoperable brain tumor,
seizure disorder, life-threatening wasting syndrome and other
serious conditions. She said cannabis is the only medication that
has successfully allowed her to lead a somewhat normal and active
life without intolerable side effects.
“I would be dead without it. I would literally be dead
without it, without cannabis,” Raich said.
“The case is really about one thing and one thing only. It
really is about whether the federal government has the right to
tell someone when they can live and when they can die,” she
said.
The physical effects of marijuana use
Raich, Monson and others extol the benefits of marijuana to
treat serious medical conditions, but there are also those who
emphasize the dangers of the drug, both as a medical risk that can
cause lung disease and harm the immune system, as well as a gateway
drug.
Richard Meyer, special agent and public information officer for
the Drug Enforcement Administration, said he believes the nature of
cannabis itself, as a drug that is smoked, is problematic, even if
there is a potential therapeutic affect.
“There is no medicine that is smoke. Smoking is bad for
your health. Period,” he said.
In a study on the effects of marijuana, Dr. Michael Roth and Dr.
Donald Tashkin of the UCLA Medical Center found evidence supporting
Meyer’s assertion.
“What we found is that people who smoke marijuana have a
very significant inflammation and injury to their breathing
passages that is similar to people who smoke one to two packs of
cigarettes a day,” Roth said.
Roth and his colleagues also found that marijuana has adverse
effects on the immune system.
“The macrophages from marijuana smokers were very
suppressed in their ability to take up bacteria and in their
ability to kill the bacteria,” Roth said, explaining that
these cells find and destroy foreign bodies and are vital to the
immune response.
Roth and his colleagues have also been investigating the effect
marijuana may have on contracting HIV and AIDS, he said. Studies
conducted on mice “raise concerns about the impact on the
immune system and susceptibility to infections such as HIV and
AIDS.”
Marijuana is also condemned as being a drug that leads to the
use of other, more dangerous substances, such as heroin and
cocaine.
“It’s a hallucinogenic. It is addictive.
That’s true,” Meyer said, adding that there is
“no accepted use in the United States” and that its
medical benefits are “an imagination.”
But Raich, who has used marijuana for several years and sees it
as the only reason she is currently able to function, would point
to her own experience to contradict Meyer’s allegation that
the drug has no true medical benefits.
The legal battle
The Supreme Court case is by no means the beginning of Raich and
Monson’s legal struggle ““ nor will the ruling, whatever
it might be, signal the end.
The case was brought to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in
October 2002 when Raich and Monson sued Attorney General John
Ashcroft after Monson’s marijuana plants were seized by
federal agents, said William Dolphin, spokesman for Americans for
Safe Access, an advocacy group for the legalization of cannabis for
medicinal purposes.
Last December, the 9th Circuit granted an injunction to the two
women on the grounds that it is unconstitutional for the federal
government to regulate the growth and use of marijuana for personal
medicinal purposes. The injunction allows Raich and Monson to keep
their supply of marijuana until they take their case to trial.
The ruling was based on the clause in the Constitution which
states that Congress only has power to regulate interstate
commerce, said Randy Barnett, who argued the case before the 9th
Circuit.
Raich and Monson’s activities are strictly intrastate and
therefore should not fall under federal jurisdiction, Barnett
added.
Following the ruling, Ashcroft appealed the decision to the
Supreme Court, arguing that the 9th Circuit made a legal mistake in
the ruling.
The December ruling in favor of Raich and Monson had a
significant effect for patients using marijuana for medical
conditions.
“The implications are that the federal Controlled
Substance Act doesn’t reach cannabis that is grown for your
own use … for medical purposes,” Barnett said. “If
the government can’t touch it and the states make it legal,
that’s very, very big.”
The legal ramifications
The Supreme Court’s decision could have a substantial
effect on the use of medical marijuana in the United States.
As the situation currently stands, there is a conflict between
state and federal laws.
The Compassionate Use Act of 1996 states it is legal for
patients in California to use marijuana at the recommendation of a
physician and with certain regulations.
Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, Oregon,
Washington and Vermont currently have similar laws, and other
states are considering the issue.
But federal law, which supercedes state law, considers marijuana
as a dangerous and illegal drug that cannot be used, even for
personal medical uses, Meyer said. The Supreme Court’s ruling
could change this situation.
“If they affirm the 9th Circuit’s ruling, that makes
it law in the country, Dolphin said. “It would mean that they
worked out a harmonization of the two laws.”
But the bottom line is that federal laws state marijuana is
illegal, whether for recreational or purported medical uses, Meyer
said, adding that the Drug Enforcement Administration does not
target people who use marijuana for personal medical use.
If the Supreme Court decides to uphold the current laws and
overturn the 9th Circuit’s decision, the situation will
remain as it currently is, with state and federal laws conflicting,
Dolphin said.
“If the Supreme Court overturns the ruling … then
we’re just where we were before: states say it’s legal,
and the federal government says it isn’t,” Dolphin
added.
In either case, all state laws will remain in effect.
But even if the Supreme Court rules in favor of Raich and Monson
and upholds the 9th Circuit’s decision, the battle will still
not be over for these two women.
The case is currently only at the preliminary injunction stage
““ the 9th Circuit ruled to prevent the enforcement of the
Controlled Substance Act on Raich and Monson and allow them to keep
their supply of cannabis until they are able to have a trial,
Barnett said.
The current dispute is of the legality of this decision, Barnett
added, explaining that the federal government appealed the 9th
Circuit’s decision on the grounds that they had made a legal
mistake in their judgment.
If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the attorney general,
then Raich and Monson will be back to square one, but if the
Supreme Court upholds the 9th Circuit’s ruling, then the two
women will proceed to court to seek a permanent injunction that
will allow them to continue to use cannabis to treat their
conditions without federal intervention, Barnett said.
“I’ve been preparing myself; if it takes every last
breath in my body to protect myself and others who need to use
medical cannabis,” Raich said. “I hope that they just
allow me to live.”
Raich added she does not enjoy using marijuana as a medication,
but it is the only way she is able to continue to live and care for
her two teenage children.