Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 19:51:45 -0700 From: foleyj@ultrasw.com (Jim Foley) Subject: Re: [lpaz-Pima] It's official: voting is worthless To: lpaz-Pima@yahoogroups.com Reply-To: lpaz-Pima@yahoogroups.com
At 16:19 5/14/01 +0000, jnemeth wrote:
Some of us have thuoght this for a long time already but the US Supreme Court has made it official-voting doesn't count anymore. After several states (inclding Arizona)passed laws permitting the medical use of marijuana, the US Supreme court says Suffer and die. We don't care about your medical need or how you voted. You were silly to think that voting mattered anyway."
JF1-> Just a goll-darned minute there!
The Supreme Court "said" precisely what it said; texts of all opinions are available on-line. I do not recall any of them demanding suffering and death.
My understanding of this unanimous opinion is that the Court upheld the right of Congress under the Constitution and the institutional structure of the United States government established thereunder to decide that marijuana has no medicinal value, and thus sanction it as a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substance Act. Congress may solicit advice from citizens and experts on the matter, but retains sole discretion. The Congress which promulgated the Controlled Substance Act, and has thus far declined to repeal it, was elected by the voters of the States of the United States.
Under United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative, California, Arizona, or any other State is free to exempt marijuana, or any and all other drugs, from sanction under its own laws. No State has the power to repeal federal laws, or prevent their enforcement within its borders. Thus sayeth the U. S. Constitution.
Voting plainly matters. Its exercise seated the Congress that enacted the Controlled Substance Act. United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative can be viewed as the Court's implicit guidance to the American people in ending the War on Drugs. State laws did not initiate this policy; they cannot end it. The only way to end the War on Drugs is to repeal its enabling legislation on the federal level.
Admitting that changing a federal policy, which still seems to enjoy majority support, via political means is not easy is hardly the same as claiming that voting is worthless. Unless, of course, one values only what is easy.
For what it's worth, following is a summary of the decision and a link to the full text. <-JF1
United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative No. 00-151 Full text: http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/00-151.html
CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT (No Medical Necessity Exception to Prohibition of Illegal Drug Manufacturing and Distribution)
The United States Supreme Court held unanimously (opinion by Thomas; concurrence by Stevens) that there is no medical necessity exception to the Controlled Substances Act's prohibition of the manufacture and distribution of various drugs, including marijuana.
California voters enacted an initiative measure entitled the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, which created an exception to California laws prohibiting the possession and cultivation of marijuana. The exception excludes from California's marijuana prohibitions patients or their primary caregivers who possess or cultivate marijuana for the patient's medical purposes upon the recommendation or approval of a physician. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative (Cooperative) was one of several "medical cannabis dispensaries" created to meet the needs of qualified patients. The United States sued the Cooperative to enjoin it from distributing and manufacturing marijuana, alleging violations of the Controlled Substances Act (Act). The Ninth Circuit held that the Cooperative fell within a "medical necessity" exception to the Act. The United States Supreme Court reversed, holding that no such exception exists. The Court reasoned that a medical necessity exception for marijuana is at odds with the terms of the Act because the statute, while providing exceptions for other drugs, listed marijuana as a schedule I drug. Schedule I drugs are those that have, as determined by Congress or the Attorney General, no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. Because Congress listed marijuana as a schedule I drug, it therefore indicated that arijuana has no medical benefits worthy of an exception. The Court further rejected Cooperative's argument that, because the District Court had equity jurisdiction in fashioning injunctive relief, the Court of Appeal's modification of the injunction based upon equitable factors must be upheld. The Court reasoned that the mere fact that the District Court had discretion does not suggest that the District Court, when evaluating the motion to modify the injunction, could consider any and all factors that might relate to the public interest or the conveniences of the parties, including the medical needs of the Cooperative's patients. On the contrary, the Court stated that a court sitting in equity cannot ignore the judgment of Congress, deliberately expressed in legislation.
Jim Foley <foleyj@ultrasw.com>"Doh! Facts are meaningless! You can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!" - Homer Simpson, a Real American Hero
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: lpaz-pima-unsubscribe@egroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/