|
medpundit |
||
 |
 |
|
Monday, June 28, 2004The marijuana case came to the Supreme Court after the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in December that a federal law outlawing marijuana does not apply to California patients whose doctors have prescribed the drug. In its 2-1 decision, the appeals court said prosecuting medical marijuana users under the federal Controlled Substances Act is unconstitutional if the marijuana is not sold, transported across state lines or used for non-medicinal purposes. Judge Harry Pregerson wrote for the appeals court majority that smoking pot on the advice of a doctor is "different in kind from drug trafficking." The court added that "this limited use is clearly distinct from the broader illicit drug market." In its appeal to the justices, the government argued that state laws making exceptions for "medical marijuana" are trumped by federal drug laws. Look for the Supreme Court to uphold the decision. You can debate the merits of using marijuana medicinally (the evidence is weak that it does much good), but once a state has made it a legal prescription medication it doesn't seem that the federal law about illegal drugs applies. We prescribe plenty of controlled substances that are illegal to have without a prescription. I doesn't make sense that marijuana would be treated any differently than morphine, at least in states where it's legal to prescribe it. posted by Sydney on 6/28/2004 01:09:00 PM 0 comments 0 Comments: |
|
