Important note: Information in this article was accurate in 2000. The state of the art may have changed since the publication date.
The Bay Area Reporter - August 31, 2000
Liz Highleyman
Breyer's July 17 ruling -- which reversed his own earlier decision from 1998 -- would have allowed the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Co-op to provide marijuana to those with proof of medical need. This decision came after the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that "medical necessity" was a recognized defense against federal drug distribution charges, and asked the judge to reconsider his previous ruling. Breyer ruled that the federal government failed to demonstrate why seriously ill patients should not have access to marijuana. The long-running case is an outcome of Proposition 215, the 1996 California initiative that allowed ill persons to grow and use medical marijuana for specific purposes; the proposition did not include provisions for the distribution of medical cannabis.
The federal government first made an appeal to the 9th Circuit Court, which denied the request on August 21, prompting federal lawyers to petition the higher court. In its emergency request to the Supreme Court, the Department of Justice claimed that Breyer's ruling would "promote disrespect and disregard for an act of Congress that is central to combating illicit drug trafficking and use by giving a judicial stamp of approval to the open and notorious distribution of substances to potentially thousands of users without any of the strict controls required." Federal lawyers further asserted that the ruling would create "incentives for drug manufacturers and distributors to invoke the asserted needs of others as a justification for their drug trafficking." The Oakland club argued against the government's request, claiming that there was no evidence to suggest that medical cannabis laws hampered the prosecution of drug laws.
The DOJ initially made its request to Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who referred the matter to the full Supreme Court. The single dissenting vote came from Justice John Paul Stevens, who said the government had "failed to demonstrate that the denial of necessary medicine to seriously ill and dying patients will advance the public interest or that the failure to enjoin the distribution of such medicine will impair the orderly enforcement of federal criminal statutes." Justice Stephen Breyer recused himself because Charles Breyer, who issued the district court ruling, is his brother.
000831
BR000814
Copyright © 2000 - The Bay Area Reporter. Reproduction of this article (other than one copy for personal reference) must be cleared through the The Bay Area Reporter.
AEGiS is a 501(c)3, not-for-profit, tax-exempt, educational corporation. AEGiS is made possible through unrestricted funding from Broadway Cares/Equity Fights AIDS, Elton John AIDS Foundation, the National Library of Medicine, Pacific Life Foundation and donations from users like you.
Always watch for outdated information. This article first appeared in 2000. This material is designed to support, not replace, the relationship that exists between you and your doctor.
AEGiS presents published material, reprinted with permission and neither endorses nor opposes any material. All information contained on this website, including information relating to health conditions, products, and treatments, is for informational purposes only. It is often presented in summary or aggregate form. It is not meant to be a substitute for the advice provided by your own physician or other medical professionals. Always discuss treatment options with a doctor who specializes in treating HIV.
Copyright ©1980, 2000. AEGiS. All materials appearing on AEGiS are protected by copyright as a collective work or compilation under U.S. copyright and other laws and are the property of AEGiS, or the party credited as the provider of the content. .